By DAVID LYONS
             Herald Staff Writer

             Direct from the White House, the talking points could not have been more explicit.

             Responding to Cuba's midair murder of four Brothers to the Rescue members in
             1996, the Clinton administration vowed to seek swift international condemnation
             of Havana, a tightening of the U.S. trade embargo and congressional passage of a
             law to compensate the victims' families from frozen Cuban assets in New York.

             The first two objectives were met quickly enough. But three years after the deaths
             of Armando Alejandre, Mario de la Pena, Carlos Costa and Pablo Morales, their
             families are still fighting for access to the assets, despite a $187.5 million judgment
             from a Miami federal court.

             The U.S. government at first encouraged their lawsuit, but ended up opposing their
             efforts to collect the money.

             It's becoming a familiar scenario. Other families whose loved ones suffered from
             terrorist acts in other parts of the world are waiting for compensation from
             offending countries, despite the passage of a law designed to provide economic
             justice for victims.

             And in at least one other case, the administration supported a victim's family
             immediately after the tragedy, then outright opposed its attempts to collect a
             judgment.

             The administration explains: An open season on the frozen assets of other
             countries might inhibit the U.S. government's flexibility in foreign policy and
             national security matters.

             But that position, angry lawyers contend, has thrust their clients into a vortex of
             protracted litigation, false hopes and unnecessary mental anguish.

             ``It's evidence of the insensitivity of the administration,'' contends Washington
             lawyer Ronald Kleinman, a former State Department official who is among several
             attorneys assisting the Miami families. ``They've made a whole series of promises
             over time, then changed their minds.''

             The administration did dip into frozen Cuban assets and distributed $1.2 million in
             humanitarian aid to the four families. But lawyers insist the gesture was not
             supposed to preclude the families' ability to go to court to seek damages under the
             Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The law allowed victims to
             sue foreign countries in American courts, which was once prohibited.

             ``The government said, `Yes, you can go forward and pursue whatever remedies
             you want,' '' said Miami lawyer Frank Angones, another member of the families'
             legal team.

             Angones said the State Department made it clear that legal and other avenues
             could be pursued, even after the families accepted the $1.2 million.

             But last month, U.S. government lawyers, invoking a foreign policy argument,
             found themselves arguing on the side of the Cuban telephone company ETECSA
             against the seizure of telephone fees destined for Cuba from American companies
             operating there. Complication could arise, they said, when the President elects to
             normalize relations with countries such as Cuba.

             Roller-coaster quest

             The Miami families are not alone on what has become a roller-coaster quest for
             justice, plaintiffs' lawyers say.

             Washington lawyer Steven Perles remembers how his client, Stephen Flatow,
             father of Alisa Flatow, received valuable government help in pressing his lawsuit
             against Iran for the murder of his daughter, who died in a 1995 terrorist bombing
             in Israel.

             ``Before he filed, Steve Flatow spoke with the President three times,'' Perles said.
             ``He was invited to the White House for the signing ceremony for the enabling
             legislation'' that allowed him to sue.

             More important, the State Department declassified critical information -- evidence
             that Iran financed the Palestine Islamic Jihad, the group that reportedly plotted the
             bombing that killed Alisa Flatow. It was enough to persuade a Washington federal
             judge to award the Flatows a $247.5 million judgment.

             But since then, Perles said he has encountered nothing but resistance in his bid to
             collect.

             ``When we started attaching Iranian government property, the State and Justice
             and Treasury Departments chose to intercede,'' he said. ``They sent more lawyers
             to the courthouse than in the Microsoft case.''

             Diplomatic assets

             One government official in Washington who declined to be identified said the
             United States resisted in part because lawyers have tried to attach so-called
             diplomatic assets belonging to other countries.

             In the Flatow case, lawyers tried to attach former diplomatic properties of the
             government of Iran. The official said such a move would have placed the
             government in violation of international laws and protocols.

             It was those types of concerns that prompted President Clinton to immediately
             sign a waiver in the anti-terrorist law that bars plaintiffs from collecting on their
             claims. The waiver became a focus of a recent Miami federal court decision by
             Senior U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King, who excoriated the government
             for its ``inconsistent'' approach to the Cuba case.

             King said the administration's interpretation of the waiver was too broad. He
             subsequently allowed the families to collect $6.2 million in telephone fees that were
             destined from AT&T, MCI and other companies to ETECSA, the Cuban phone
             company. The American companies have appealed, and some lawyers expect the
             case could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

             Claims piling up

             While the appeals process unwinds, other suits and judgments from other terrorist
             incidents are piling up.

             Besides the Miami families and the Flatows, three Americans held hostage in
             Lebanon by terrorists believed to be sponsored by Iran hold a $65 million
             judgment against the Tehran government.

             In addition, families who lost relatives in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over
             Lockerbie, Scotland, are pressing lawsuits against Libya in a New York federal
             court. The cases were grandfathered in under the anti-terrorism law.

             And last week, journalist Terry Anderson, a former Associated Press reporter
             held hostage for nearly seven years in Lebanon, filed suit in federal court in
             Washington. He alleges that Iran sponsored his captors, members of the extremist
             group Hezbollah.

             Anderson, who is seeking $100 million, said in an interview that he doesn't expect
             an immediate windfall.

             ``We knew that when we went into it,'' said Anderson, who now teaches
             journalism at Ohio University. ``We'll just have to hope that through lots of
             pressure, we can get the Clinton administration to acknowledge our rights and do
             something about it.''

             Said Stuart Newberger, Anderson's lawyer in Washington: ``The State
             Department and the White House have got to come to terms with the fact that
             U.S. law is very clear that the executive branch is supposed to help collect
             anywhere.

             ``I hope the Clinton administration would be more proactive on behalf of the Terry
             Andersons of the world, and I'm looking for the moderates of Iran to put their
             money where their mouths are,'' Newberger added.

             ``Coming up with a framework for resolving these claims would be viewed by the
             American people and political system as an excellent demonstration of good faith.
             They could do this if they wanted to. They just have to want to.''