Hitler in Havana (1966)

I was looking through old Miami Herald articles of the 60's and stumbled upon this ad from December 10, 1966. [Ad from the Miami News courtesy of Google News Archives.] I laughed when I saw it because it highlighted how little anti-communist propaganda against the Cuban government has changed. At least locally.

Thanks to Vimeo, this television program titled "Hitler in Havana" can be viewed in its entirety below. The title and first few minutes summarizes the video nicely: "in the midst of Havana today another Hitler rages!" This and many other points in the video I've heard repeated in Miami often. According to the ad, the video was produced by the Information Council of the Americas, founded by Edward S. Butler. The video is also available on DVD.


[Portion from the ad]

You've read bold headlines! Now see secret scenes smuggled direct from Castro's Cuba. See explosions rivalling [sic] the Riechstag fire! Castro's G-2 Gestapo in action! Concentration camps in the center of Cuba! Red stormtroops rioting throughout the Americas. Brutal executions at the firing squad wall. See pathos, poverty, sabotage, riots, all filmed from life, as it was actually happening, hidden in the heart of Castro's Cuba.

Produced by INCA
(c) 1966, Information Council of the Americas

Entire program will be repeated with Spanish translation by Alberto Gandero
Sunday, Dec. 11
10:30 - 11:30 A.M.

Back to Court (Part 1)

Last week, a federal appeals court in New Orleans ruled against last year's release of Luis Posada Carriles from US custody.

When Posada was released last year, some news reports (including the Miami Herald) included a PDF link to the 38-page decision by the court judge, Kathleen Cardone. But, this recent appeals court ruling did not receive the same treatment, despite it being about the same length: 35 pages. Instead, the recent Herald report (by Alfonso Chardy) used a link to highlight an older Herald article, and not the relevant appeals court ruling. Well, I took the time to find the unpublished opinion at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals website, and found the ruling to be very informative. Read it here [PDF] at your leisure.

I also discovered that this ruling got less coverage in general than last year's ruling by Judge Cardone. Perhaps because it wasn't so surprising and sudden as Judge Cardone made it out to be. But, be assured that this recent appeals court ruling is incredibly informative and a sobering opinion that counters every argument that allowed Luis Posada Carriles to be released in the first place.

But before reviewing the Fifth Circuit Court's opinion, I want to quickly go over some of last year's reactions to the release of Luis Posada Carriles.

Posada was released on May 8th, 2007 by Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, Texas. By May 11th, some opinions in the mainstream media surfaced. Columnist Eugene Robinson expressed his surprise, highlighting the inconsistency of waging a "War on Terror":

"I'll wager that the evidence against Posada, which I find compelling, is more solid than the secret evidence against most of the detainees at Guantanamo. But Posada's alleged crimes were against the Castro regime."

Columnist Rosa Brooks for the LA Times (also a law professor) had similar thoughts:

"So for now, Posada's a free man — even though the administration has sufficient evidence to arrest him for his role in either the 1976 airliner bombing or the 1997 Havana bombings. For that matter, Posada easily could be detained under Section 412 of the Patriot Act, which calls for the mandatory detention of aliens suspected of terrorism."

But, the editorial staff at the Miami Herald took a more nuanced position, mostly supportive of the decision by Judge Cardone, whom they described as a "courageous judge":

"The reason this case has attracted so much attention is that Mr. Posada is not just another Cuban immigrant. To his supporters, he is a genuine hero of the anti-Castro cause. To his detractors, he is a vicious terrorist. To Judge Cardone, he was like any other defendant who is entitled to certain rights under the U.S. Constitution."

The Herald editorial ends with: "The alternative [for the US prosecution] is to come up with evidence that Mr. Posada is a terrorist and present it before an impartial judicial forum. If it can't do this, the government should leave him alone."

This position by the Herald is quite odd, especially now that Judge Cardone's decision has been reversed. I would understand this bold position by the Herald if it had come AFTER the appeals court had sided with Judge Cardone, but instead it seems that the Herald was easily swayed by their "courageous judge." This is clearly a sign of bias by the editorial staff at the Miami Herald.

The Herald's editorial basically stands with every important argument made by Judge Cardone, leaving no room for doubt. But, there were people with doubts about the decision.

A very objective and informed opinion was expressed by Kevin Jon Heller, a professor of law in New Zealand, expert on international criminal law, and writer for the Opinio Juris blog. Jon Heller expressed his thoughts about the Posada case the day after Posada's release, and raised FOUR good points about Judge Cardone's decision. Those four points coincided (almost identically) with the opinion of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. It was certainly prophetic.

So the doubts were there at the time, and they were good ones. How unfortunate that the Herald editorial staff didn't take a more cautious position.

Let's review the opinion of the Fifth Circuit.

[Part 2]

Espíritu Combativo

Saturday before last, Alfonso Chardy for the Miami Herald wrote a piece reporting that Alpha 66 "will look to the island's dissidents to help them effect change in Cuba." Part of the headline read: "One of the oldest Cuban exile militant organizations [Alpha 66] will hold its first congress in almost a decade in a bid to reshape strategy for a post-Fidel Castro era."

I was skeptical about Alpha 66 changing its long-held strategy of overthrowing or destabilizing the Cuban government, but now I'm pretty sure that the strategy hasn't changed much at all.

Reporting about an upcoming National Congress in Torrance, California, and yesterday posting a 10-point communiqué on the Cuban Colada Blog, Chardy does point out that Alpha 66 has included a mission of recognition and solidarity "with all those sectors of the opposition who demand their rights from a position of dignity." Of course, that position of "dignity" allows Alpha 66 to be extremely selective on which Cuba dissident groups to collaborate with. Furthermore, this objective allows Alpha 66 to encourage or attract hard-line attitudes within the Cuban opposition, which in turn might create new divisions in the future. A hard-line position also serves to create political dead-ends that create conditions where violence can grow.

Last night on Radio Mambi, an interview with the Secretary General of Alpha 66, Ernesto Diaz Rodriguez (11pm show by Alpha 66), was broadcast to summarize what happened at the recent National Congress in Torrance, California. Diaz Rodriguez called the conference "one of the most magnificent" meetings ever held. A documentary was shown at the conference about Colonel Vicente Méndez, former head for military operations of Alpha 66, who led a "guerrilla force" into Cuba from Miami in 1970, and an operation considered by Alpha 66 as "the turning point in the fight against Fidel Castro and his communist regime." They further explain the importance of this event:

"The landing of Vicente Méndez on April 1970, unsuccessful as it was in its main objective, gave impulse inside Cuba to the idea of fighting communism; the Cuban people understood that in exile there was a force named ALPHA 66 that was fighting for their cause. ALPHA 66 cells began to appear everywhere. A complete underground network took shape and the results were a series of sabotages, bombs in Havana, the burning of sugar warehouses, cane fields, tobacco houses, factories and anything that would harm the oppressive government."

On yesterday's Radio Mambi interview, Diaz Rodriguez affirmed that Alpha 66, as a result of the National Conference, has grown strong in their "combative spirit" and continues their mission for the "total overthrow" of the Cuban government. There was NEVER any mention of collaboration with dissident groups. And, even though Alfonso Chardy wrote that Alpha 66's "dissident outreach program is a symbolic shift away from violence," I still think this is a bit of a stretch.

I believe, due to recent confiscations of large weapons caches, militant exile groups in Miami are being real cautious about subversive activity. It seems that their strategies have now changed to waiting for the "spark" (or some kind of internal destabilization) before launching any "guerrilla forces" into Cuba. In the meantime, groups like Alpha 66 continue to train with weapons at their private camp called "Rumbo Sur" (which may be of more priority than working with dissidents).

I don't see any shift away from violence.

[Photo above of Alpha 66 by Dando Valle]

[Addendum: As recent as last November, Ernesto Diaz Rodriguez said: "Before a gangrenous limb only the scalpel and a timely amputation is the only effective method [of treatment]. The same applies to tyrannies. Tyrants, similar to monsters, are products of nature, perverted and irrational, without conscience, or an ounce of human sensibility. Trapped in a world of aberrant fantasy, they live consumed in egoism and baseness. Their most important inclination is hate; their best weapon, deceit." - November 23, 2007]

What Will They Say? (Part 2)

Last week I focused on an article published by the Miami Herald which raised some questions for its editors: "Will [Fidel Castro] still be the dictator? The former dictator? The half dictator? Or if he dies, what should his obituary say?"

This prescient article, written a few days before Fidel Castro publicly resigned as Cuba's immovable President, I found to be quite unoriginal and incomplete. The author, Edward Schumacher-Matos (the Herald's Ombudsman), ignores the very questions he himself raises and provides no direction or guidance to readers (or editors) so they can decide for themselves how to answer those questions. Instead, the article becomes a soapbox for Schumacher-Matos' views in which he criticizes reporters for being "squeamish" when describing Fidel Castro as a "leader" or "president" instead of "dictator." And, finally ends all debate and discussion because "calling [Fidel] Castro a dictator is a fact, as much as it is that most contentious of things, a truth."

In my opinion, Edward Schumacher-Matos never wanted to have a serious discussion about how people describe their political leaders, or to enlighten anyone with a discussion on how the general population reflects on abuses of power by leaders of the world. By avoiding "that most contentious of things," Schumacher-Matos misses a very important point about the word "dictator," leaving readers very misinformed, and journalists in danger of risking their obligations to the public.

"Dictator" is an emotionally-loaded word. It has various uses throughout society describing all kinds of people who abuse their authority or position within a social hierarchy against the wishes of subordinates. Of course, the label is most used when its comes to heads of state: note the recent list of Parade Magazine's "World's Worst Dictators." Obviously, since these are political agents capable of exerting maximum power over a population, they become the targets of the most passioned denouncements, mainly by their victims. Therefore, using the word "dictator" is not merely an act of reporting "fact" as Schumacher-Matos conveniently describes it, it is also an act of outrage, which is not the role of a journalist.

One of the most important tenets of journalism is independence. If a journalist begins to express certain outrage (real or perceived) in favor of one side, then his or her public credibility can be harmed. By settling for neutral labels like "leader" or "president," the journalist prevents any perceived conflicts of interest, and can concentrate on the ultimate journalistic duty of "providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues." I believe the honest journalist will see that this position is justified, unless one is willing to sacrifice the public's right-to-know for one moment's personal outrage.

Yet, sometimes we cannot help it. Emotions have a way of influencing most of our behavior, and sometimes without our control. In addition, those expressions are mostly subjective and sometimes may not adhere to the general attitudes of the population. Therefore, it seems reasonable for the journalist to avoid using emotionally-loaded writing, and instead place priorities towards the science of testing accurate information, and the responsibility of providing relevant context.

But, we are still human, and the word "dictator" still belongs to our arsenal of personal judgments. When the recent "World's Worst Dictators" list came out, several readers' comments nominated President George W. Bush. Even the author of the list, David Wallechinsky, in 2006 stated that "Bush does use many of the same tactics that real dictators use, committing the same human rights abuses that the U.S. State Department condemns when they occur in other countries, declaring himself not bound by laws passed by Congress, and using the old, classic dictator line, 'Our nation is threatened by an evil outside force; only I can save the country and if you oppose me you are unpatriotic and support the enemy.'" (But personally, Wallechinsky does not believe Bush is a "dictator.")

So, what will they say when Fidel Castro dies? For whom shall he be "president," and for whom "dictator?" Let's find out.

[Part 3]

What Will They Say? (Part 1)

Fidel Castro's exit from his long-held position in power was expected by some, but the timing surprised them nonetheless when it came yesterday morning. Many were expecting an announcement near the weekend before Sunday's election by the Cuban National Assembly for a new Council President. In preparation for a possible resignation, the Miami Herald published an article by its Ombudsman, Edward Schumacher-Matos, on Sunday acknowledging that once Fidel Castro steps down "Herald editors will be faced with the conundrum of deciding what his real powers are. Will he still be the dictator? The former dictator? The half dictator? Or if he dies, what should his obituary say?"

But, despite those very intriguing questions about names we assign to people in power, or names for those who operate within systems of concentrated power at different degrees, Schumacher-Matos is not interested in a long discussion or debate about the topic. His mind is pretty much made up: "A dictator is a dictator for good or ill." And, he thinks Herald reporters are being too "squeamish" when they use other descriptors for Fidel Castro, such as "leader" or "president." He explains:

"Journalists, however, are [squeamish], and usually for good reasons. They avoid tendentious characterizations. A formal title is objective and safe. But calling Castro a dictator is a fact, as much as it is that most contentious of things, a truth. Indeed, he is the world's longest-ruling dictator."

Certainly, Fidel Castro for many decades has been the designated and unyielding leader of Cuba's military oligarchy, a system of power that has extended its control over virtually all of Cuban society. But, would it have made a difference if I had said "dictator" in the last sentence? Not really. Heads of government from across the globe inhabit a space that wields great power and influence. To say whether they commit genocide or bring peace to a region requires that we understand how systems of power operate, not whether we can differentiate between "leader" or "dictator." But, Schumacher-Matos gives a reason why Fidel Castro is a "dictator."

"But whatever [Fidel Castro's] intentions, and some good accomplishments, they do not justify the murder and jailing of political opponents, the massive security state and a brainwashing propaganda machine."

I agree, but Schumacher-Matos does not say who is justifying such acts. And, thus, one is left to assume that perhaps, according to Schumacher-Matos' article, anyone who refuses (or is squeamish) to call Fidel Castro a "dictator" is justifying such acts. Certainly, Schumacher-Matos does not mean this, but his insistence that "a dictator is a dictator" leaves readers with little room to wonder.

Of course, when it comes to Fidel Castro, the label "dictator" seems appropriate. But, one should wonder if the descriptor should be exclusively tied to abuses of power, especially those that create suffering and death. Are "leaders" or "presidents" incapable of committing great abuses of power that lead to suffering and death? Certainly not. (For example, President Musharraf of Pakistan.) Are "leaders" or "presidents" incapable of stretching the reach of their designated powers, or justifying such abuse for the good of a nation? Certainly not.

I think it would have been better stated if Schumacher-Matos had said: "A head of government who abuses his/her powers is a head of government who abuses his/her powers for good or ill."

This better explains how the exercise of power operates. But, of course, the debate now extends to what we define as abuses of power, and providing examples. One good measure examines the degree to which people become affected by the actions of those in power. And, also by how citizens who benefited from or were victimized by such power can look back and justify that system of power.

I think such inquiries will be beneficial as we draw closer to the end of Fidel Castro's life. We can examine and compare similar examples of dictatorial regimes with Fidel's. And, fortunately, we have one example that would be enlightening to compare with: The recent death of "President" Haji Muhammad Suharto.

[Part 2]

Covering Code Pink in Little Havana (Part 1)

What troubles me most about the interrupted Code Pink demonstration from this past Saturday is how some people have acquiesced to or explicitly approved of the hostile actions by counter-demonstrators.

Some comments on websites and blogs have been quite repulsive in support of the aggression, such as this comment from the Gateway Pundit: "Don't you just LOVE the Cuban-American community." The Gateway Pundit is not being sarcastic. At the end of his/her post is a link to the Babalu blog that continues the fulminations against the members of Code Pink.

One revealing post comes from Mark Falcoff, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and who has written extensively on Cuba. Despite his romantic description of Luis Posada Carriles as "one of those soldiers of fortune who worked with the CIA cowboys in Central America during the Cold War," Falcoff believes that Code Pink got what they deserved:

"...so [Code Pink] decided to make a big fuss in Miami knowing perfectly well the kind of hot reception they would get."

This is no surprise to me coming from someone who works with AEI, but very disappointing coming from a man with a Ph.D in political science from Princeton University. And, to top it off, "Doctor" Falcoff comes to the same conclusions as Henry Gomez, a blogger.

According to Gomez and Falcoff, the Code Pink demonstration was "to make sure the 'Posada Carriles/plane bomb/terrorist/US complicity' meme landed once again on the front pages of our papers"(Falcoff), or simply a "stunt created solely for media consumption"(Gomez). That's right, all Code Pink wanted was to see their faces in the paper, or TV. If we follow such logic, maybe all people who protest and demonstrate publicly (in the face of potential opposition and media coverage) could be labeled compulsive narcissists. Like Martin Luther King Jr., or perhaps Darsi Ferrer from this past December. Yeah, maybe Ferrer is doing it just to appear on Marti TV.

OR, perhaps these demonstrations are about honest grievances. But, that is a conclusion we must each make individually. In the case of Code Pink, one need only look at their many political campaigns, read the official goal of last Saturday's demonstration, and read the various news reports that followed. After doing that, it should be clear what Code Pink sought to bring to the public's attention: "to highlight the need to stop the U.S.’s selective enforcement of terrorism."

Now, there's plenty to read on the debate over Luis Posada Carriles, and his label as "terrorist" or "hero. But, this post is about how the local news reported on Saturday's events and the mission of Code Pink. Let's review.

There's a methodology I chose in reviewing the media coverage following the Code Pink demonstration. It's fairly simple. The most informative and accurate report would fulfill these basic journalistic duties: 1) Mention the mission of Code Pink; 2) accurately describe the actions directed at Code Pink in Little Havana; and 3) mention the background of and debate over Luis Posada Carriles. These requirements I think are easy to achieve (in varying degrees), but there were some reports that failed to do so.

THE MIAMI HERALD

The Herald published a 440 word article (by David Quinones) that was pretty good, but very brief. The article mentioned that Code Pink "came to Miami for the week to get signatures on postcards advocating Posada's imprisonment." (It was actually less than a week that included other activities.) Quinones described the hostile actions by writing that "[t]he pro-Posada group... tried to rip down [Code Pink's] two-sided billboard. That prompted the CodePink protesters to abandon their demonstration." (There were several other hostile actions directed at Code Pink that day.) And, Quinones briefly described the controversial background of Posada, mentioning the CIA, the 1976 bombing, and his escape from prison. Also included for balance were quotes from Posada's lawyer, Arturo Hernandez. But, today the Herald published some corrections to this article, such as the fact that the US is still pursuing an appeal to Posada's recently dismissed immigration case, and Posada's initial acquittal in a Venezuelan military court. The Herald ignores the fact that Posada's military trial blocked crucial evidence in the case, lacked jurisdiction, and was eventually annulled. Quinones also reports that the crowd of counter-protesters numbered "more than 500," instead of the 200-300 count observed by most reports. Finally, the Herald also included an AP piece that was also very brief and similar, but numbered the counter-protest crowd at around 200, mentioned that "the Posada supporters charged at the [Code Pink] truck," and mentioned that Posada "is wanted by the Cuban and Venezuelan government on charges that he plotted the deadly 1976 bombing."


EL NUEVO HERALD

Nuevo Herald actually published two articles BEFORE the Saturday demonstration and one afterwards. Wilfredo Cancio Isla wrote two article before the demonstration, one of which was very informative and the other which was very brief. The first one (Jan. 10) accurately describes the mission of Code Pink (and their many scheduled activities) and included a very good quote by Medea Benjamin articulating the inconsistency of terrorism enforcement by the US. But, the article very briefly mentions Posada's controversial background, and interestingly mentions that Code Pink made an effort to visit Luis Posada Carriles' wife, Nieves González. The following article (Jan. 12) briefly reports on how some exile organizations had planned to meet one hour before the Code Pink demonstration, and that these groups belong to the "Committee in Support of Luis Posada Carriles." The article briefly describes the mission of the Code Pink campaign, and provides several quotes by exile supporters calling Posada a "great patriot" and promising to act "without violating peaceful conduct." And, I found this article to be the ONLY ONE that mentions last year's attack on the Bolivarian Youth. Wilfredo Cancio Isla writes: "January of last year, a demonstration of exile groups supporting freedom for Posada provoked a violent incident in the middle of Calle Ocho."

AFTER the Code Pink demonstration, El Nuevo Herald published a very brief article of events (a little less than 400 words). Juan Carlos Chavez, in a few words, quickly describes the Code Pink mission, Posada's controversial background and mentions that counter-protesters "prevented" and "blocked" Code Pink from accomplishing their campaign. The article includes a decent quote from Medea Benjamin, and from Miguel Saavedra of Vigilia Mambisa (the same man caught attacking members of the Bolivarian Youth last year).

[Part 2]

What I Meant to Say (Part 2)

Been busy and distracted away from this blog. Also, the One-Year Anniversary of Mambi Watch is approaching (Dec. 27th) and I hope to complete all unfinished thoughts before the New Year, review the mission of Mambi Watch, and make revisions or alterations of what the ultimate goal of this blog was. Without question, I learned many things about US/Cuba relations over the year, and I hope to articulate those new lessons for interested readers.

Below is the other series that I meant to finish.

THE IRONIES OF MIAMI

The general thrust of this story was to point out how ironic it is that some Cuban exile hard-liners (who also describe themselves as supporters of human rights) are also among the most intolerant and threatening agents against freedom of expression in Miami. I began this story with the reports of a recent lawsuit [PDF] started by Rafael Del Pino, former high-ranking general from the Cuban military who defected in 1987, accusing prominent members of the local Spanish media of intimidation and violent threats in response to a series of articles he wrote in the local paper calling for negotiations between the Cuban government and the US.

I saw this recent event as part of Miami's long history of intolerance by some in the Cuban exile community towards opponents of US policy and the embargo. While the acts of intolerance and intimidation in Miami go way back, the documented history by human rights groups goes back to 1992 when Americas Watch published a report titled "Dangerous Dialogue: Attacks on Freedom of Expression in Miami’s Cuban Exile Community, and soon followed by a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report in 1994 titled "Dangerous Dialogue Revisited" [PDF].

The 1994 report was the result of events that same year following the April visit of several Cuban exiles from Miami to Havana for a Cuban government-sponsored event about migration issues. The days following their return, the Miami Herald reported on several occurrences of violent threats and intimidation aimed at those exiles who attended the Havana conference, especially after the Cuban government released a video of the participants at the meeting with Fidel Castro. It is video that is still used by some to discredit those who attended more than 13 years ago.

The HRW report describes "death threats, bomb threats, verbal assault, acts of violence, and economic retaliation" against those in Miami who attended the Havana conference. The report also acknowledges the fact that "Magda Montiel Davis, a prominent Miami immigration lawyer... became a focal point for the post-conference backlash against participants." The reports by the Miami Herald after the conference (which were many) concur with the HRW report. Several articles described how the participants (and their families) of the Havana conference became the victims of widespread intimidation.

Initially describing some points at the Havana conference with Fidel Castro as "nauseating", former Herald columnist Liz Balmaseda in 1994 later wrote of the "backlash":

"A knot of protesters attacks [Magda] Montiel's car. Her staff quits... A burst of raw eggs hits the house of one exile's elderly mother. Schoolchildren taunt the 14-year-old daughter of another exile. Other participants report a wave of harassment. A bank executive has lost accounts. An office worker has lost her job. Another has lost friends. One woman claims she got beat up at a coin laundry.

"Much of what happened in Havana was lamentable. But here, the ambassadors of intimidation couldn't leave it at that. They couldn't let the already blatant contradictions of an exchange between 219 exiles and four Castro officials stand as their own indictments. They couldn't leave the mob thing to Havana... No, these of a narrow and narrow-minded faction had to go out and be cartoons. Only they forgot their maracas and fruit-laden hat baskets. They had to throw Miami back to the days when people were afraid to speak their minds... and those days had faded."*

But, the most ironic of all the ironies of Miami, was an act that occurred on June 24, 1994, about two months after the Havana conference. According to the HRW report (and reported by the Herald):

"On June 24, 1994, conference participant Emilia González went to have her hair done at the Cadris Hair Design salon in Miami. She was accompanied by two grandchildren, ages eight and six. Everything seemed normal, and Ms. Gonzalez sat for her hair cut. Toward the end of her appointment, however, several women came in to the salon, shut and locked the door and, together with the salon employees, proceeded to shout and hurl insults at Ms. González: 'Communist, traitor, get out of Miami!' Several held signs: 'If you like Fidel so much, go live in Cuba,' and 'Only vermin like Fidel will kiss Fidel,' She was struck by at least two people, hit on the arms and face. All of this occurred in the presence of her grandchildren. Eventually, Ms. González escaped with the children through a back entrance. Extremely distraught and worried about her high blood pressure, the elderly Ms. González sought medical attention."

The HRW report called it an "Act of Repudiation."

The last act of violent intolerance that I can think of occurred on January 19th, when members of the Bolivarian Youth were publicly attacked by Vigilia Mambisa after engaging in a counter-protest on Calle Ocho. It was all caught on video. A report was later filed with the City of Miami police department against the attackers, but charges were never filed after the investigation. Instead, the police told the Bolivarian Youth to pursue their case alone in court.

Another occurrence I can think of that came close to an act of intimidation was in August when the Cuban child custody case again made Magda Montiel Davis a target. In the midsts of Radio Mambi callers again voicing their disgust towards Montiel, radio host Ninoska Perez-Castellon allowed one caller to give out the office number of Montiel's office on the air.

It should be obvious to anyone that freedom of expression also entails having the freedom from obstacles that impede one to freely express oneself. That means protection from intimidation and threats that retaliate against popular or unpopular viewpoints. Furthermore, its should be obvious to those who constantly defend the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that freedom of expression extends universally as "the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family."

Article 19 of the UDHR says: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

And, Article 7 says: "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

I sometimes wonder if some people in Miami truly understand these words.

[Part 1]

[*] Miami Herald, May 18, 1994, "Backlash Beats the Video for Absurdity" by Liz Balmaseda.

The Ironies of Miami (Part 3)

In 1992, when Americas Watch released their first report documenting "Attacks on Freedom of Expression in Miami’s Cuban Exile Community" and describing "significant responsibility by the government at all levels, including direct harassment by the government, government support of groups linked to anti-free speech behavior, and a persistent failure to arrest or prosecute those responsible for violent attacks on unpopular speakers," Miami City Mayor Xavier Suarez threatened to sue.

Mayor Suarez found it "defamatory" that Americas Watch reported him calling an FBI-accused terrorist a "freedom fighter."[1] Back in 1983, Eduardo Arocena was a fugitive wanted by the FBI on suspicion of being the leader of the terrorist organization called Omega-7. On July 22, 1983, Arocena was arrested by federal agents and charged with crimes he earlier revealed to FBI agents while cooperating in their investigations the year before. Arocena surrendered peacefully.

On his way to his court hearing, a reporter called out to Arocena: "Why did you do it? Was it for the revolution?" Arocena replied: "Of course... All for the liberation of my country."[2] The FBI adamantly believed Arocena was the leader of Omega-7 and America's most dangerous anti-Castro terrorist. Some in the exile community felt differently. The next day, Miami Herald's Jim McGee quoted Pedro Pablo Rojas, described as head of the Bay of Pigs Veterans Association Brigade 2506, saying: "I feel sorry for him. Anybody who fights Communism has my sympathy... The best Communist is a dead Communist. If that violence is his way to fight, I won't condemn him."[3]

Arocena was eventually charged with several criminal violations and is currently serving a perpetual sentence of about 325 years according to the "Committee to Free Eduardo Arocena," which, as recently as 2004, has been advocating for his transfer to Miami and believes he deserves a Presidential pardon.

Back in 1983, as the Herald came out with several articles revealing the FBI case against Arocena since his arrest in July, Mayor Suarez was still convinced by October that the FBI had arrested a "freedom fighter."

On October 16, 1983, the Herald's Jim McGee wrote an article called "How Terrorism Sways Miami's Politicians." It was a daring piece that showed how some of Miami's political leaders at the time gave legitimacy to suspected terrorists. In the article, Mayor Suarez comes out sounding very similar to Pedro Pablo Rojas:

Suarez said he preferred to describe someone like Eduardo Arocena, the alleged leader of Omega 7, as a "freedom fighter," not a terrorist. "There is a great deal of reluctance to say, 'I condemn your tactics'" Suarez said.

[1] Miami Herald, August 19, 1992, "Prove Report in Error, Rights Group Says" by Alfonso Chardy.
[2]Miami Herald, July 23, 1983, "FBI Agents Arrest Omega 7 'Mastermind'" by Jim McGee and Bob Lowe.
[3]Miami Herald, July 24, 1983, "Arocena 'Armory' Uncovered FBI: Apartment a 'Bomb Factory'" by Jim McGee.

[Photo of Eduardo Arocena, courtesy of Latinamericanstudies.org]

[Conclusion]

For Profit or Freedom?

A recent report by NBC6, and also reported today by Telemundo51, adds to public speculation that recent boat thefts in South Florida are tied to the recent increase in Cuban migration to the US.

Late last month, the Miami Herald's Alfonso Chardy began the speculation with the release of a Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission investigation report. Chardy wrote:

"The report said that more than 235 vessels had been stolen in Miami-Dade alone between Jan. 1 and June 28, or more than a 20 percent increase over the same period in 2006. It added that at least 784 marine-related thefts, including 492 boats, were reported in Florida between April and June -- 22 percent more than during the same period last year."

Ironically, the chairman of Florida's Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, Rodney Barreto, was also a victim of boat theft and was quoted saying: ''Authorities told me they were seeing these thefts with increasing frequency, that the spike was driven by human-smuggling."

This week, the New York Times' Marc Lacey added that "Cubans are migrating to the United States in the greatest numbers in over a decade." About 11,487 Cubans made it to the US through Mexico after landing on smuggling sites in the Yucatan Peninsula.

This new report by NBC6 (Tisha Lewis) confirms how some Cubans are being smuggled into Mexico and where the smugglers are getting their boats. The report (with a link to video) tells the story of a recent boat theft victim whose "boat is equipped with top-notch technology -- a low-jack, which reportedly allowed the U.S. Coast Guard and other authorities to track the stolen boats. Boats were found in Cuba and Cancun."

The video shows the owner of the boat on his way to Cancun to recover his stolen property. Reporter Tisha Lewis says that "authorities confirm the boats are being used to smuggle people." This report, like the Chardy report, doesn't exactly detail what "the authorities" know about the recent boat thefts. Most likely, the federal authorities are in the middle of an investigation.

But, are these actions by smugglers a form of "rescue" for Cubans wanting to leave the Communist island? Mr. Tellechea from Review of Cuban-American Blogs probably thinks so. Responding to the Chardy article, Mr. Tellechea wrote: "Back then [in 1966, smuggling] was known as rescuing fugitives from injustice and entailed no punitive measures either for the rescuer or the rescued."

I don't know if that was true or not, but today making profit from human smuggling is a serious crime. Just ask sports agent Gus Dominguez, who was convicted in April of "conspiracy to smuggle five ballplayers from Cuba to the Florida Keys." He faced "up to five years in prison for his conviction on the smuggling conspiracy charge plus up to 10 years each for 20 separate smuggling convictions." But, he had his punishment reduced to five years in prison, three years probation and a $2,100 fine.

Hall of Famer, Sandy Koufax, described Dominguez in a letter to the court as a man of "high moral principles."

Bay of Pigs Museum and Library (Part 2)

First, I have to say that blogger Genius of Despair at Eye on Miami has provided (and continues to provide) crucial information regarding the so-called Bay of Pigs Museum and Library. The latest post (from Monday) on this issue is worth repeating (from a 2003 workshop), concerning the future site (Parcel B) of the "Bay of Pigs Museum":

"... it is clear that the people of Miami want a place that is first and foremost designed for their use — not primarily for museums, or tourists, or as a profit making sports facility, but as one of the ten places that makes Miami great and the downtown worth living in."

Eye on Miami has also argued that future use of Parcel B, since it belongs to Miami-Dade County, may be subject to a county-wide referendum. I'm sure Miami residents would support voting on the future use of this valuable waterfront property, especially after they realize the true purpose of this "Bay of Pigs Museum and Library."

Since my first post, several relevant events have occurred. On September 4th and 5th, Andres Viglucci and Mathew Pinzur of the Miami Herald reported on the now-County-approved feasibility study for the "Bay of Pigs Museum." The vote was unanimous.

Viglucci provided some important background information about Parcel B:

"[In 1996] the centerpiece of a $3 million campaign that helped tip a referendum in the [Miami] Heat's favor, promised 'a safe new waterfront park for all our families.' But the county and the Heat never made any attempt to build a park. The county conceded it had failed to require it... In December 2004, after the county regained control of the land, it held a public workshop to come up with ideas for a park [quoted above]. County officials said at the time they would move quickly... But [Miami-Dade County Manager] Burgess said they decided to await the results of the city master plan."

It's clear that the County has delayed any development of Parcel B for years. Now comes the "Bay of Pigs Museum." Pinzur writes:

"With an outpouring of emotion for one of the seminal moments in Cuban-American history, the Miami-Dade County Commission on Tuesday overwhelmingly supported the notion of building a museum and parking garage on a small piece of bayfront earlier promised as park land... A number of Bay of Pigs veterans were in the audience."

"Commissioner Natacha Seijas... said it could compare to Sydney's signature Opera House in Australia."

Aside from the ridiculous pieties, the idea of the parking garage was finally being reported. "Chairman Bruno Barreiro, fretting that nearby development was leaving the arena without sufficient parking [said] 'I think we might hamper and will hamper the arena if we do not really consider an additional parking structure with amenities on that site.'"

On September 11th, Miami Herald columnist Fred Grimm called the whole thing a "land grab," and the Museum a "very fancy hat" that will adorn the parking garage. "The 2007 version again scuttles the waterside park that voters were promised back in 1996 when they were persuaded to underwrite the Heat's waterside arena. But somehow that lovely bayfront park with a soccer field, lined with palm trees, has morphed into a parking garage."

After Grimm hit the nail on the head, Nicolas Gutierrez Jr., vice-president (and former president) of the "Bay of Pigs Museum and Library," did some damage control and revealed important information about the project.

"The new museum would display, study and preserve the events of the past 48 years, analyzing how a totalitarian system forced millions to find freedom and opportunities in this country offered by South Florida and generous people... This museum would help ensure that such repression does not occur again elsewhere... It would be a monument to man's indomitable quest for freedom and justice. It should not be pigeon-holed as simply having ethnic appeal. The museum would be quintessentially American and could be a rallying point to unite our diverse community's many interests."

This is BS in my opinion. First, if Gutierrez believes that the Museum "deserves fair consideration from the people of Miami-Dade County," then he would be working to conduct another planning session workshop like in 2003, or be putting the Museum up for a county-wide referendum. He's doing neither. Second, members of the Museum's Project Team recently appeared on Radio Mambi and described the Museum as a future venue that would cater to the Cuban-American community, and not "our diverse community."

When Robert Chisholm and Jose E. Miranda appeared with Marta Flores last week on Radio Mambi (September 19th), they made several revelations about the plans for the so-called "Bay of Pigs Museum and Library."

[Part 3]

More Thoughts a Year Later...

Yesterday, Miami Herald columnist Ana Menendez shared her thoughts on the one-year mark without Fidel Castro. Reading her columns in the past, I've found Menendez to sometimes be unsympathetic on some issues. In this case, Menendez makes a comment about how (among other factors) a future Cuba "will depend on us here in Miami and our willingness to let go of the dusty language and habits of nostalgia."

Based on her past work, Menendez is obviously referring to some in the Cuban exile community, not Miami in general as suggested by her generalities from the start. I don't see how focusing on such emotional elements will get us anywhere. It's language and nostalgia that have been some of the defining qualities of the Cuban exile. They are important bonds of any social identity. To "let go" of those things would be tragic.

But, further down in her column, Menendez does provide us with a pragmatic model to follow: "a humane policy... built on more than a catalog of grievances." She's referring to a 2006 report [PDF] by the Cuba Study Group (CSG) which proposes micro-economic reforms for a Cuban transition. According to the CSG, "Cuba is already in a suboptimal pre-transformation state." In other words, "the stakes are high" in preventing Cuba from serious economic collapse. The CSG report makes a lot of recommendations (for the Cuba government I suppose), but it doesn't say to whom or how or when it shall implement them. It just suggests. But, the report can also be seen as an emergency plan available AFTER some kind of collapse, or "economic transformation" as they like to say. The CSG also mentions that "[t]he plan relies, in part, on the economic theories of the noted Peruvian economist, Hernando de Soto." This will definitely send warnings to those who are well aware of the current income gap in Peru, where De Soto is currently at the service of the Garcia administration.

Nevertheless, Menendez believes Miami and the US need "really new ideas" and the CSG report provides a notable example. She ends saying that Cuban government should "finally get past their paranoia and allow the future to take shape, it will be evidence they truly care for the ordinary Cuban people. If we [the USA or us in Miami] can get past ours, it will show we do too."

She's a bit vague, but I agree that a sense of paranoia does surround thinking on the US/Cuba issue. Namely, the idea that the Cuban government is bent on eventually destroying us freedom-loving people. Or, the idea that the US is currently ready to engage in a military invasion of Cuba. Such ideas over the years have created false assumptions and have led to the "tragic inability to find common ground" that Menendez believes is at "the roots of our misery."

[Photo above of entrance to Calle Ocho, Little Havana]

No Defense for Terror (Part 3)

I took the time to find out just where this "double acquittal myth" originated from. I did a search using the NewsBank database for all articles that had "Luis Posada" and "twice acquitted" or "acquitted twice." My search lead to many articles that were written in 1997, the majority of which stemmed from one Miami Herald report by Juan O. Tamayo on November 16, 1997.

In 1997, Cuban hotels became the target of a campaign of bomb attacks dating from April to August, eight bombings in total were reported. The first to report on the bombings for the Herald was Juan O. Tamayo with a piece titled "CUBA BOMBS STIR A WILD GUESSING GAME" on August 14, 1997. This piece was also published in El Nuevo Herald. Tamayo followed the story until November 16 when he wrote his report titled "CUBAN HOTELS WERE BOMBED BY MIAMI-PAID SALVADORANS." It was the result of a two-month investigation after which the name Luis Posada Carriles reappeared in all the papers. Tamayo had fingered Posada Carriles as the "key link" between the bombings in Cuba and Cuban exiles in Miami.

But, the most important point here is that Tamayo writes:

"Posada was charged, and twice found innocent, in the 1976 terror bombing of a Cuban jetliner in which 73 people died."

The Associated Press provided the story to the majority of the papers the next day and they all reported that Luis Posada Carriles was "twice acquitted." Most of the leading papers in the US published this AP story and the rest is history.

Before 1997, Orlando Bosch had the distinction of being "twice acquitted" because he in fact was. Once in 1980 by a military court (with Luis Posada, which was later invalidated) and then again in 1986 by a civilian court. This is documented.

But, even so, Bosch was actually reported by some to have been acquitted THREE times! Its a myth that almost caught on.

On July 9, 1990, Luisa Yanez for the Sun Sentinel wrote that "Bosch was imprisoned 11 years even though Venezuelan courts acquitted him three times."[1]

On July 18, 1990, James Lemoyne of the New York Times must have read Yanez's piece and wrote that Bosch "was tried and acquitted three times in Venezuela."[2]

This "Triple Acquittal Myth" came to my attention when a blogger, Manuel A. Tellechea, once commented that Luis Posada Carriles was "thrice tried on these charges by both civil and military courts and found innocent every time."

If you keep repeating a lie, it does force itself on the truth.

[1]The Sun Sentinel (July 9, 1990) - "Judge to Decide If Bosch Will Stay, Attorney: Castro Will Shoot Activist If He Is Deported History of Violence" by Luisa Yanez.

[2]New York Times (July 18, 1990) - "Cuban Linked to Terror Bombings Is Freed by Government in Miami" by James Lemoyne.

[Part 4]

Menendez Aftermath (Part 2)

Five days later, Alberto Muller, former Cuban political prisoner, wrote in Diario Las Americas, that Ana Menendez had defamed the Cuban exile community. On the 25th, Mercedes Soler, a Miami Herald colleague, also added the same allegation.

But, I think its important to note that Menendez never directly referred to the entire Cuban exile community in her column, but instead spoke of the "rabble-rousers" who, for example, protested the book Vamos a Cuba or Cuban artists Los Van Van. This is not the actions of the entire Cuban exile community. In fact, as I pointed out recently, the Cuban exile community is quite divided on several political issues, and the FIU Cuba Poll since 1997 has shown this. Even one of its principle authors, Guillermo Grenier, has recently suggested, through his many years of research, that he has "doubts as to whether a completely politically homogenous Cuban-American community ever existed."

By accusing Ana Menendez of defaming or offending the Cuban exile community because of her general references, Soler and Muller have based their respective replies on false premises. This dishonest condemnation against Menendez was also seen against Tom Fiedler last year in the "chichuahua" scandal. Friedler was obviously referring to a few individuals in the community, but soon he was apologizing to the entire Cuban exile community.

Nevertheless, Soler and Muller make good points about the defamatory word used by Menendez. Despite its obvious negative origins, both Soler and Muller argue that the use of "mafia" is offensive because the Cuban government uses it often to refer to some of the organized anti-Castro groups and its leadership. Another important point made by both Soler and Muller is the implication that such a word also "trivializes the suffering, sacrifice and struggle represented by our 48 years in exile"[Soler] and defames "la memoria de tantos cubanos que han sudado sangre y dolor en un exilio prolongado y triste" (the memory of many Cubans who have suffered blood and pain in a prolonged and tragic exile) [Muller].

In these cases, where the accuser provides no names and speaks about certain groups, it seems that a clarification is due. And, that's what Ana Menendez did on the 27th.

[Part 3]

The Miami Herald's Puzzle (Part 4)

Part Three of the Cuba Puzzle ends with a look at Cuba's current foreign relations. In my opinion, it is the most balanced article in the entire three-part report. Pablo Bachelet produces a good summary of events that have occurred recently, and does quote at least one Cuban studies expert, William LeoGrande, Latin American policy specialist from the American University, saying "[South American countries] think the US policy of isolation is a big mistake." But, that is all we get from the Miami Herald who prefer the academic analysis of UM's Institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies, which is essentially an arm of the US State Department.

While the Cuba Puzzle does suffer from a slanted view of Cuba after Fidel, it is nevertheless a excellent report about sentiments in Miami. There's no doubt that Gyllenhaal's wish of reaching a "wider audience" may come true, though it may only be for those interested in Miami's perspective, and not the nation's.

The "Voices" section on the Cuba Puzzle website reveals this Miami view by including 16 short interviews, almost split between opposing views on US policy, but the majority of whom are from Miami. There's plenty of extras (audio and video) on the website to absorb too.

I will end my post with an apt comment found in Part Two of the Cuba Puzzle. It comes from Yoidel, a 24 year-old cowboy from central Cuba, who says that he wishes to leave Cuba for a better life, but is committed to fighting for Cuba "until the end."

This describes well the complexity of the Cuban issue.

[Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3]

The Miami Herald's Puzzle (Part 3)

Part Two of the Cuba Puzzle, written by Frances Robles and Wilfredo Cancio Isla, is perhaps the best of all parts. This piece best represents the effort of what Anders Gyllenhaal (editor of the Cuba Puzzle) describes as a "10-day, 1,200-mile journey across the island" by the Miami Herald team.

This part provides many excellent descriptions about the current economic hardships in Cuba, which are indisputable and a sobering reminder of Cuba's rampant poverty. This piece also reminded me of the excellent 5-part journal by Carlos Frias, sports writer for the the Palm Beach Post. Frias' description of the unfortunate in Cuba, during his first trip to the island in August 2006, were vivid and powerfully sincere.

Cuba's economy has been written about extensively, by many organizations, so there is little to say about it. It's been made evident that if Cuba doesn't recover from its poor conditions, any future Cuban administration shall continue to face a growing social crisis.

But, many would confuse such dire conditions as a justifiable reason to make things worse. Despite economic frustrations by Cubans, many still are opposed to the US embargo. According to the latest poll inside Cuba (Havana and Santiago only) by the Gallup Organization, there was overwhelming support for the US as an "ideal partner" in trade. 44% percent of urban Cubans chose the US, with China and Venezuela falling right behind with a meager 17 and 15 percent.

Speaking of trade, the Cuba Puzzle also includes an extra article by Martha Brannigan reporting about American agricultural trade with Cuba. Despite US exports to Cuba reaching beyond $300 million annually, Brannigan writes that "[b]y most accounts, exports of agricultural goods will remain a fraction of what they could be so long as US restrictions remain." US rice exporters also support the fact that current trade with Cuba is but a fraction of what it could be. The main obstacles to US agricultural export are reported as working through third-party banks and difficulty in obtaining licenses and cash in advance, all due to US restrictions.

Brannigan also cites the USA Rice Federation saying that Cuba instead looks to Vietnam or China for their rice because the US is seen as "unreliable" due to restrictions on offering credit, unlike other countries.

In 2006, USA Today gave some insight into exactly how big US agricultural trade can grow to without restrictions or the US embargo. Edward Iwata, wrote that "[w]ith no embargo, agricultural officials say, U.S. food exports could grow tenfold."

[Part 4]

The Miami Herald's Puzzle (Part 2)

Cuba is a topic that many in academia have taken up. Several universities have their own department on Cuban studies and many also have prominent "experts" on the subject. Here in South Florida we have two good institutes: University of Miami's Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies (ICCAS) and Florida International University's Cuban Research Institute. Without question, any journalist who wants to write about Cuba, and has any questions, can access these fine institutions, speak with their experts, and look at their research.

With so many experts to choose from (each with varying points of view), its interesting to examine which experts on Cuba are often quoted and relied on for any report.

Part One of the Miami Herald's "Cuba Puzzle" started off with an introduction to various points of view on Cuba after Fidel's illness. Rui Ferreira, Frances Robles and Luisa Yanez together present personal perspectives from academic, political and non-academic positions. While non-academic voices on Cuba are very important, political and academic voices are far more influential, and the focus here. I was disappointed, but not shocked to see that the list of people who are cited or quoted for this first part mostly support US policy towards Cuba.

[In order of citation]
Brian Latell (cited, not quoted), senior researcher from UM's ICCAS;
Raices de Esperanza, a student group whose website reveals that Carlos Alberto Montaner is a "raices academic council chair";
Joe Garcia, chairman of Miami-Dade's Democratic Party;
Jaime Suchlicki, director of ICCAS;
Jose "Pepe" Hernandez, president of the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF);
Juan Clark, sociologist and famed author of Cuba: Myth and Reality, and other articles;
Diego Suarez, member of the Cuban Liberty Council;
Ramon Colas, former Cuban dissident;
Carlos Saladrigas, Co-Chairman of the Cuba Study Group;
and Lincoln Diaz-Balart, US Representative.

The majority of the people above support US policy towards Cuba, with some variations towards the restrictions on Cuban family travel, and academic travel. The Miami Herald somehow ignored the many perspectives of other academics or politicians who are totally opposed to US policy towards Cuba, and have a very different view about what has happened since July 31.

Just last month, The Nation magazine had a forum on this same topic and most of the arguments agreed that a smooth transition had occurred since July 31. There was no "confusion and frustration" as attributed to the exiles by the Herald. Also, earlier this year, the Council on Foreign Relations had a forum with two US Representatives (Republican and Democrat) on Cuba after Fidel, and both agreed, after a trip to the island, that a smooth transition had taken place. A very different view from most politicians here in South Florida, who dare not travel to Cuba themselves.

Despite the excellent work done, its important to note that the Miami Herald has presented a report that reveals a Miami perspective, not a national or objective one. I also found it interesting that no one from FIU's Cuban Research Institute was interviewed for this first part. This would also reveal that the Herald report may be more skewed than one would think.

Examining the rest of the report reveals other interesting points.

[Part 3]

The Miami Herald's Puzzle (Part 1)

This past Sunday, the Miami Herald published the last part of a three-part report on Cuba. The report was evidently titled "The Cuba Puzzle" in a convenient attempt to give a name to the various issues discussed. The first part of the report tries to set in motion what the "puzzle" is about, but gives the reader three basic descriptions:

- Understanding "a new phase of uncertainty" after Fidel Castro's illness.

- Understanding the "key players from Cuba to Miami to Caracas and Madrid [as they] jockey for position to influence the island's future."

- Understanding Miami "exiles' hopes and trepidations" about Cuba that they have been trying "to make sense of" for about 48 years.

While the Herald report does cover several topics "to make sense of," in my opinion, The Cuba Puzzle is not at all puzzling, but rather a bland summary of events and opinions that have occurred since July 31, the day Fidel Castro stepped down as head of the Cuban government. Still, the summary, carried out "for the past two months," by a "dozen reporters" from the Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald, is a decent introduction to the most recent events, and well researched too.

There is nothing really newsworthy about this Cuba Puzzle, but the report does deliver an excellent collection of diverse views about Cuba, some presented in audio, or video, on its own website that provides many worthwhile extras.

The downside of the report is that it provides no new insight, or interpretation about Cuba's future based on its own research. Instead, most of the report relies on familiar voices and opinions that have already graced the pages of the Herald, and also other local media outlets in Miami.

In other words, its not really an objective view on Cuba. It's mostly Miami's view.

Let's examine.

[Part 2]

FBI, Cuba, and Posada Carriles

Alfonso Chardy, Jay Weaver and Oscar Corral of the Miami Herald today share new facts on the developing case of Luis Posada Carriles.

Basically adding little and new information from a November 2006 article (by Chardy and Weaver), the Herald reporters write that an "extraordinary effort at cooperation" has taken place between the Cuban government and the FBI. They continue:

"Three federal law enforcement officers familiar with the case described the trip [to Cuba] as 'pretty amazing' and 'unheard of' because Cuba had for years blocked FBI access to witnesses, crime scenes, forensic evidence and more information in the bombing."

There's a good reason that Cuba blocked the FBI in the past. In 1998, the Cuban government invited the FBI to share gathered evidence on terrorism against Cuba originating from Miami. They presented "331 pages, record sheets of 64 known terrorists, 4 hours and 38 minutes of secret filming and 21 telephone interceptions." About 3 months later, the FBI detained the "Cuban Five" (WASP Network) who gathered some of the evidence. By the time the trial against the Five began in 2000, Cuba blocked the FBI from any more investigation.

Chardy, Weaver and Corral write that this time the FBI "agents were able to interview witnesses, review Cuba's forensic evidence -- including bombing materials -- and visit crime scenes."

Most of today's article is based on the Nov. 2006 article that highlights the 10-page affidavit by the Justice Department of June 2005. An FBI special agent, Thomas Rice, is quoted in the affidavit as saying that "the FBI is unable to rule out the possibility that Posada Carriles poses a threat to the national security of the United States." Rice is also reported as describing Posada Carriles "as a dangerous man bent on killing Castro and spreading terror on the communist-run island to destroy its tourism economy." If it is found that Posada Carriles is in fact a "threat to national security," then he runs the risk of being indefinitely detained under the Patriot Act.

The evidence against Posada Carriles that is found in the June 2005 affidavit can be best read in the November 2006 article. In addition, todays online Miami Herald article has links to several PDF's that are worth reading related to the Posada Carriles case.

In the meantime, the federal grand jury in New Jersey continues to gather evidence on the crimes of Luis Posada Carriles, as the latter waits his immigration trial on May 11, in El Paso.

What's a Polisario? (Part 1)

So one day I was glancing over Oscar Corral's blog (Miami's Cuban Connection) and he mentions that he's going to highlight a story he wrote back in 2005 in conjunction with the release of a new report from the Institute of Cuban and Cuban American Studies at the University of Miami. Oscar writes: "Now that UM is trying to link Cuba with Al Qaeda through their Polisario connection, I thought it would be a good time to revisit the story of some of the victims."

I, just like Oscar Corral, had not heard about the Polisario Front in Morocco. So, after a little research I found not only a "Cuban connection" with Polisario, but also "Miami's Cuban connection" with the "constitutional monarchy" of Morocco. It seems that the story is much larger than what Oscar presents. Furthermore, the conflict between Morocco and the Polisario Front involves many international actors, and has left countless victims, not just a few that happened to visit Miami in 2005. Let's go over the story.

On September 19, 2005, Oscar Corral wrote a piece for the Miami Herald about refugees from the Polisario Front who had been sent to Cuba as children. The ever-resourceful CubaNet has the whole story here (second article). But, Corral's story was second to an earlier Miami Herald piece by David Ovalle, printed in May 21, 2005. Ovalle interviewed men who were former POWs in the camps of the Polisario Front. According to the article, the former POWs just happened to be in Miami and "sat in a circle with exile leaders and Cuban ex-prisoners at the Miami office of the Civil Society of Cuba." Ovalle quotes only one of those leaders, Ana Carbonell, the chief of staff of US Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart's office.

These visiting POWs were part of a larger media campaign that began around May of 2005. The two Herald articles were just a few among many headlines that year. The final headline was a celebration of success that came on August 18, 2005, when 404 POWs of the Polisario Front were finally released. The campaign had worked. But some would decide to continue their fight against the Polisario and their Cuban connection nonetheless.

[Part 2]

About Intelligence...

Today's Miami Herald publishes an article by Pablo Bachelet which describes that "Washington... is now largely ignorant of what is happening within the inner circles in Havana." You don't say!

Bachelet's article seems to be supported by interviews with about a dozen people who are closely familiar with US intelligence gathering on Cuba. While these anonymous persons state that US intelligence on Cuba is ''pretty good'' in general, they also believe the US has "little credible information on events at the top levels" of the Cuban government.

The article basically mentions three US reports that were "off the mark." One was the 2002 allegation by the ever-belligerent John Bolton of a biological weapons "program" in Cuba. These "serious" allegations have since been dismissed by people who are well aware of Cuba's biological capabilities, and the current administration. The Center for Defense Information believes that this allegation was politically driven and lacked strong evidence.

The second "off the mark" intelligence report mentioned is Fidel's diagnosis of Parkinson's disease by the CIA. But, I don't think this is really "intelligence" since it is based on public (not secret) information. The CIA basically examined Fidel's public speeches. Otherwise, there's no strong evidence to consider.

And, the final "intelligence" report mentioned by Bachelet is last year's allegation by John D. Negroponte, director of US National Intelligence (term used loosely), stating that "[e]verything we see indicates it will not be much longer . . . months, not years [for Fidel]." Its been months John.

One of the definitions of "intelligence" is the capacity to APPLY knowledge. Those who are aware of the long diplomatic history between Cuba and the US know well that this definition of knowledge is not being applied. There is ample evidence to show that US policy will not succeed, but that knowledge is ignored. There is sufficient findings that indicate that Americans disagree with US policy towards Cuba, but that is also ignored. There is also good reason to believe that the majority of Cuban dissidents are opposed to current US policy towards Cuba, but they too are ignored.

It seems Washington is largely ignorant of many important things that are related to Cuba.