No Defense for Terror (Part 11)

Reporter Ann Louise Bardach, who has interviewed Luis Posada Carriles extensively, mentioned the lack of evidence at Posada's first trial in an interview on Democracy Now! (October 10, 2006):

"... almost all the evidence was ruled inadmissible. It was really stunning. All the police reports from Trinidad, the confessions of Ricardo and Lugo, all the reports out of Barbados, every shred of evidence that was extraordinarily compelling was ruled inadmissible on of the grounds of, guess what? They said, 'Well, the interviews were done in an English-speaking country,' even though there were, you know, certified Spanish language translators involved at all times. So they threw out the file -- so there was no evidence. So once you got a judge to declare it inadmissible, what was there to try Bosch [or Posada] on? So, not surprisingly, he did win an acquittal. And I found that one of the more interesting points, because you hear this endlessly in Miami, how he won an acquittal."

But, let's examine the evidence that was left to the judge, and supported by Fontova.

----------

THE ROYAL ARMAMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ESTABLISHMENT

So, some of you might be asking: but didn't Ricardo Morales Navarrete confess to the 1976 bombing? And, thus, Fontova (or Posada) isn't totally wrong to blame Morales, right?

Correct, Fontova is partially right to blame Morales, but the evidence he provides doesn't add up.

The centerpiece to Fontova's defense lies with the examination of the forensic evidence by the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE). RARDE was part of several defense establishments in the UK , which in 1991 together became the Defence Research Agency, and has gone through many changes over the years.

RARDE provided the results of their scientific examination of the Cubana flight wreckage (what was found floating) to the Venezuelan courts. According to Jay Ducassi*, reporting for the Herald, the "controversial 1980 verdict that acquitted Miami Cuban militant Orlando Bosch in one of history's most deadly plane bombings was strongly influenced by a British expert's investigation of the explosion."

The British expert in question was an aeronautics engineer named Erick Newton who was an investigator of aerial accidents for the British Royal Air Force. A man who definitely seems qualified (with 33 years of experience in this department) to investigate the Cubana flight bombing. But, it is not known how many bombing investigations he has done in all his years, unless bombings are frequent in the Royal Air Force.

But, what Fontova forgets to mention (also Ducassi) is the fact that Newton was not alone in his investigations, he had help. And how odd that his help came from a former subordinate of Luis Posada Carriles when Posada worked for the Venezuelan intelligence agency DISIP.

Carlos Fabbri was chief of DISIP's Explosives Department under Posada for two years, and an expert in the field of explosives (with an impressive resume). In a 1980 interview with a publication called ELITE, Fabbri said that he knew Posada was his boss, but only knew him by sight and never met him.

According to a declassified FBI document, a "confidential source who has furnished reliable information in the past" said that "Fabri [sic] and Posada Carriles are good friends and that [both] had actually been arrested a couple of years ago by Venezuelan authorities after it was learned they provided false documentation and explosives to Dr. Orlando Bosch Avila in Venezuela at that time."

*[The Miami Herald, May 15, 1983, "Bosch's Acquittal Hinged on British Expert's Views" by Jay Ducassi.]

[Part 12]

No Defense for Terror (Part 10)

In the first version of Fontova's article he writes:

"The 'Cuban-American crackpot!' (Posada defense lawyers') version has the explosive device planted in the baggage compartment of the plane at the instigation of a Castro double-agent named Ricardo Morales Navarette [sic] while on a previous stop in Guyana."

Fontova then adds that the forensic evidence at Posada's trial supports this theory. He's correct about the support from the forensic evidence, but the theory blaming Ricardo Morales Navarrete comes from only ONE source: Luis Posada Carriles. According to Posada's book, Los Caminos del Guerrero (Paths of the Warrior), in Chapter 13 Posada recalls the day that Ricardo Morales privately confessed to him, with tears in Morales' eyes of course, and a repentant embrace.

According to Luis Posada Carriles, before Ricardo Morales confessed he made sure to scan the room for hidden microphones. How lucky for Morales and Posada. Also, remember that Posada has his secret double-agent from Cuba alleging that Morales planned the bombing with Cuban agents, described by Posada in Chapter 11.

Hardly credible evidence for any honest person to believe, but of course we are talking about everyone's favorite columnist Humberto Fontova who has taken the bait, and its all downhill from here.

----------

"OVERWHELMING, AUTHORITATIVE, AND CONCLUSIVE" EVIDENCE

According to Fontova, Judge José Moros González obviously had the best evidence at hand to acquit Luis Posada Carriles. Not only did the judge acquit Posada in 1980, but also Freddy Lugo and Hernan Ricardo, both of whom were later charged and found guilty in 1986 after the annulment of this case.

So, why were Freddy Lugo and Hernan Ricardo found guilty later? Easy, the decision in 1980 left out evidence that was later admitted to the decision of 1986. According to Jay Ducassi from the Miami Herald*, the first court had ruled important evidence as inadmissible:

- Statements by [Freddy] Lugo to police in Trinidad that he believed [Hernan] Ricardo had placed the bomb in the airplane bathroom.

- A statement by Lugo to Venezuelan intelligence officials that Ricardo boasted of the bombing during a flight back to Trinidad.

- Statements from Barbados police that [Hernan] Ricardo had called Orlando Bosch after the bombing. Referring to the call, Lugo said Bosch 'was the chief who gave Hernan instructions to place the bomb,' according to the police.

- Ricardo's alleged confession to Trinidad deputy police chief Dennis Ramdwar. 'He said that he was telling me this in the greatest confidence, that Lugo and he had put the bomb in the plane,' Ramdwar testified.

- Ramdwar's statement that Ricardo said he phoned Bosch from Barbados to report on the bombing.

Those confessions and statements can be found at the National Security Archive. From the confession by Freddy Lugo [PDF], and the sworn statement [PDF] by the Chief of Police in Barbados, to the confession [PDF] that implicates Bosch and Posada.

But, of course, this isn't important to Humberto Fontova. He demands hard evidence, unless it comes from Luis Posada Carriles of course.

*[The Miami Herald, May 15, 1983, "Bosch's Acquittal Hinged on British Expert's Views" by Jay Ducassi.]

[Part 11]

No Defense for Terror (Part 9)

Everybody's favorite columnist, Humberto Fontova (left), asks the question that's on everybody's mind: Is Luis Posada Carriles a "Terrorist or Freedom Fighter?" This is the title to Fontova's May 21, 2007 column from FrontPageMag website, a version of an earlier piece released on May 15 on the NewsMax website. The second version presenting a less sarcastic and hysterical Fontova.

According to Fontova, the "Castroite propaganda apparatus (and its ever-faithful media and think-tank auxiliaries from London to Madrid to New York to Washington D.C.)" have presented a negative picture of a man who has dedicated himself for many years to noble American causes. One example Fontova mentions is the Reagan administration's mission to "crush communism in Nicaragua by arming and training Nicaraguan Contras." This noble cause that Luis Posada Carriles helped with was found by the International Court of Justice to have violated several international laws. The judges sided with the nation of Nicaragua and accused the US of "unlawful use of force." Nicaragua calls it terrorism.

Anyway, Fontova says that we should "cut Mr. Posada some slack."

But, what's important here is the defense that Fontova presents for us. Not surprisingly, Humberto Fontova doesn't mention the FBI investigations currently underway involving Posada Carriles and the bombing campaign against Cuban hotels in 1997. But, instead we are reminded that "the accusations against Posada Carriles regarding the [1976] plane bombing have already had their day in court."

Fontova makes three arguments for Posada's "innocence" based on the findings that led to the acquittal of Luis Posada Carriles in 1980:

1) "The evidence examined by Venezuelan judge José Moros González in 1980 to declare Posada totally innocent was so overwhelming, authoritative, and conclusive...";

2) "Among this evidence was a 200-page report from the Forensic Explosives Laboratory of Britain's Royal Armament Research & Development Establishment, (ARDE) considered the most authoritative source on earth for investigations of this kind";

3) "Finally, there is already a confession to the plane bombing of which Carriles is accused. It comes in the form of deposition in Dade County’s 11th Judicial court dated April, 5 1982—and it’s from a Castro double-agent named Ricardo Morales Navarette."

No, I'm not gonna criticize Fontova for misspelling Navarrete, but rather examine a principle that Fontova describes in his article. He states that:

"The intervening half-century witnessed many events [from Cuba] that might have prompted mainstream journalists and commentators to be a tad careful when accepting [the Cuban] regime's press releases at face value, right?"

Mr. Fontova is correct. All journalists and commentators should question their sources (no matter their origin), but its unfortunate that Humberto Fontova himself does not follow his own advice. Instead, Fontova has easily accepted the allegations which come directly from Luis Posada Carriles himself. Let's review.

[Part 10]

Whoa, Putney, Whoa

Its a week late, but I think the story still has value about Cuba, especially in Miami.

Last Sunday (July 1, 2007), Michael Moore (director of the recently released documentary Sicko) appeared in an interview aired on Sunday's political news show This Week in South Florida, hosted by local and respected journalist Michael Putney. Since this is Miami, Putney quickly turned the discussion towards Cuba. (The issue of Cuba appears for the last 22 minutes of Moore's 2-hour documentary)

Putney acknowledges that Cuba's healthcare system is free to all Cuban citizens, but then asks Moore if he believes Cubans pay a "high price" for that service since Cuba suffers from many kinds of internal repression.

In my opinion, this question falsely assumes that both Cuban healthcare and systematic repression in Cuba are correlated in some fashion, and that somehow Cubans are intentionally choosing to "pay" this "high price." It's an absurd logic that falsely suggests Americans have CHOSEN to pay the "high price" of a "War on Terror" for increased security. (One recent poll shows that Americans think the war in Iraq is "going badly" and that "all troops" should be removed.)

Anyway, before Moore gave a complete answer, Putney went ahead to elaborate (as if he was running for office) and basically said that Cubans have no freedoms whatsoever. It would've made Lincoln, Mario and Ileana proud.

But, Putney fumbled and Moore intercepted. In a zealous attempt to put Moore in his place for filming in Cuba, Putney, listing accurately many violations of freedoms, said that Cubans don't have freedom of religion. Moore quickly rebutted by stating that he had seen many open churches and a Synagogue while in Havana. Putney immediately knew he had made an error and tried to recover by stating that Cuba had made improvements over the years in respect to religious freedoms. But, Moore had already made his point to correct Putney that his comment was fallacious. Putney 's interview ended on this embarrassing note.

Since 1992, when Cuba's constitution added Article 8 stating that the Cuban government "recognizes, respects and guarantees freedom of religion", the island nation has made many gestures to include religious freedoms for its citizens.

One article states that since 1991 the number of churches and house churches in Cuba has increased from 1,100 to 16,000.

Annual reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch no longer report on violations of religious freedoms in Cuba. The last mention that Human Rights Watch gave to Cuba stated that:

"Despite some limits on freedom of religion, religious institutions and their leaders were granted a degree of autonomy not granted to other bodies. Several religious-run groups distributed humanitarian aid and carried out social programs. The authorities did, however, continue to slow the entry of foreign priests and nuns, limit new church construction, and bar religious institutions from running schools (although religious instruction was allowed). In contrast to the first decades after the Cuban revolution, discrimination against overtly religious persons was rare."

This was from their 2003 report covering events from 2002.

Obviously, Putney made an error to suggest that Cubans have no freedom of religion. He was probably thinking about China or Saudi Arabia. So, why did he say it?

Recent news from Cuba even focused on the religious freedoms that many Cubans enjoy. Earlier this year, the Episcopal Church named the first ever female Bishop (Nerva Cot Aguilera) in Latin America to the Holy Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Havana.

Also reported recently, the "largest shipment of Children’s Christian material in Cuba’s history" was allowed into the island, revealing the growing membership within the Christian movement and its relationship with the Cuban government to "help in educating the youth and combating the country’s drug problems."

And, let's not forget about the Jews of Cuba.

There's no doubt that there are some limits that still exist in a nation that recently made a change to grant freedom of religion. But, even those limits that the US State Department reports are small. The US eventually admits that "[t]here were no reports of persons being detained on religious grounds." And, that "[t]he relationship among religious groups in general was amicable, and organized religious groups were widely respected in society."

But, in Miami, where many people easily accept that Cuba is Hell on Earth, even the most respected of journalists can give in to the falsehoods.

No Defense for Terror (Part 8)

"Carneiro assures that [Orlando] Garcia, being the Commissioner of the police intelligence agency of Venezuela, ordered one of his subordinates to give Cuban-Venezuelan police officer* [Luis] Posada Carriles the C-4 explosives which blew up the [Cubana] plane."[1]

*[Luis Posada Carriles was at the time a private investigator who was a former chief of Venezuela's civilian security police DISIP (Dirección de los Servicios de Inteligencia y Prevención).]

This is what El Nuevo Herald reporter Gerardo Reyes wrote in his July 26, 1991 article about his interview with Osmeiro Carneiro. A story that Enrique Encinosa has erased from memory.

Carneiro's allegations, like Diosdado Diaz's, are based on confessions by Ricardo "El Mono" Morales from another interview which was video-taped by reporter Francisco Chao Hermida.

Carneiro recounts to Gerardo Reyes that "in 1982, the late journalist Francisco Chao Hermida asked [Carneiro] to accompany him to Miami and be a witness to an interview with Morales." According to Carneiro, both men travelled to Miami and stayed in a newly inaugurated Holiday Inn on Brickell Avenue where they interviewed Morales on camera. It was there, according to Carneiro, that Morales confessed about the conspirators of the 1976 bombing, which included Orlando Bosch, Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Garcia. The three of whom where members of what Carneiro and others knew at the time as the "Gang of Death." But, there is controversy within the confessions to Osmeiro Carneiro and Diosdado Diaz.

According to Luis Posada Carriles, from his book Los Caminos del Guerrero (Chapter 13), Francisco Chao Hermida came back from his Miami interview saying that Ricardo Morales "has recounted interesting things about the bombing of the Cuban airplane and that [Morales] is prepared to tell them to [Posada's] lawyers." One of Posada's lawyers, Raymond Aguiar, immediately flies to Miami and conducts another video interview with Ricardo "El Mono" Morales where he repeats what he supposedly told Francisco Chao Hermida.

According to Luis Posada Carriles, Morales confessed to knowing that the bomb on the Cubana flight was initially placed in Guyana; that the bomb was made of dynamite placed in the baggage compartment of the plane; and that the bomb was originally timed to kill everyone including Hernan Ricardo and Freddy Lugo before they stepped off the plane in Barbados. The motivations for this plan were not revealed.

The contradictions begin here.

- El Nuevo Herald (Alfonso Chardy and Oscar Corral) viewed the 1982 Morales video-taped interview with Francisco Chao Hermida and reported in May 9, 2005 that "El Mono" Morales pointed to Gustavo Castillo, instead of Luis Posada Carriles, as the one who prepared the bomb for the Cubana flight. This contradicts the confessions to Detective Diosdado Diaz and the recollections of Osmeiro Carneiro, both of whom heard that Luis Posada Carriles was involved.

- Morales' confession of the use of dynamite contradicts sworn statements in Operation Tick-Talks of the use of C-4 to blow up the Cubana flight. C-4 being the most popular explosive used for such operations, and involved with prior usage by Luis Posada Carriles and Ricardo Morales.

But, there are ways to make sense of all this.

1) You can believe Detective Diosdado Diaz, who is a more than 20-year veteran officer in Miami, and Osmeiro Carneiro, who was also a more than 20-year veteran of Venezuelan military intelligence, when they say that Luis Posada Carriles was definitely involved in the 1976 bombing (which also supports the declassified evidence and other allegations involving Orlando Garcia), or...

2) You can believe Luis Posada Carriles' secret double-agent who told him that Cuban agents paid Ricardo "El Mono" Morales Navarrete $18,000 to kill 73 innocent people just to continue smearing Miami Cuban exiles and momentarily justify internal Cuban government repression, or...

3) You can dismiss ALL the testimony and alleged confessions by Ricardo "El Mono" Morales, and then realize that ALL the defenders of Luis Posada Carriles (Encinosa, Byrne, Fontova and others) have been deceiving you.

Notice that the final scenario has no defense for the declassified documents on the 1976 bombing (excluding those using Ricardo Morales as a source), and the 1997 bombing campaign against Cuban hotels which is currently being investigated by the FBI, and has Luis Posada Carriles as a prime suspect.

It's up to you to decide.

In my opinion, the defense of Luis Posada Carriles by those mentioned above is nothing more than an exercise in propaganda. Enrique Encinosa, for more than 10 years, has repeated lies about Osmeiro Carneiro and Ricardo Morales. From his 1994 book, Cuba en Guerra (p.280-283), to his 2004 book, Unvanquished (p.124-126), Encinosa has used the July 15, 1991 Osmeiro Carneiro news brief and Luis Posada's book as his only two sources.

Currently, Enrique Encinosa is the news editor at Radio Mambi.

But, there are other important defenders for Luis Posada Carriles.

Humberto Fontova and Robert Alonso.

[1] El Nuevo Herald, July 26, 1991, "Congreso Venezolano Investiga a Cubanos" by Gerardo Reyes.

[Part 9]

No Defense for Terror (Part 7)

So what did Ricardo "El Mono" Morales Navarrete say in a Florida courtroom? Well, it wasn't exactly a courtroom, but instead an office.

Beginning in 1980, Morales had become a state informant for a Miami narcotics investigation called Operation Tick-Talks which eventually led to 53 arrests. Among those arrested were "veteran dealers, respected business people and the politically well-connected."[1]

For three weeks in 1982, Morales testified under oath to "two attempted murders, gangland bombings, political terrorism, narcotics dealing and a role in the destruction of an airliner in which 73 persons died."[2]

"In a ninth-floor office in the Metro Justice Building, Morales was questioned under oath by [Attorneys] Douglas Williams, Ed Carhart and Kirk Munroe for more than three weeks, with Williams asking most of the questions. Lasting more than 75 hours, the sessions produced nearly 1,000 pages of transcripts."[2]

What is important to us is what exactly Ricardo Morales confessed to concerning the 1976 bombing.

"Morales said he helped provide anti-Castro terrorists with the explosive for the bomb."[2]

According to deposition copies found here and here, Morales says he was "part of the conspirators." Specifically, "surveillance of the regular flights of that Cuban Air Force plane*, providing by a third party the explosives."

*[Morales believed that the Cubana airplane was a Cuban Air Force plane in disguise.]

But, there's more that Morales allegedly confessed to.

According to a El Nuevo Herald article from May 9, 2005, the lead detective of Operation Tick-Talks, Diosdado Diaz, said that Morales "stated to him in 1982 that [Morales] supplied the explosives and that [Luis Posada Carriles] prepped them to bring down the plane."

Diosdado Diaz at the time was a veteran to the Special Investigations Section in Miami, the city's anti-terrorism agency. In 1981 he had been selected as December's Officer of the Month.

Before Ricardo Morales was extensively questioned by attorney Douglas Williams, Diosdado Diaz had already questioned Morales. "Douglas Williams recalls that it was the detective [Diosdado Diaz] who confirmed for him in a lengthy deposition that Morales, as chief of counterespionage for Venezuela, had played a role in the Cubana Airlines bombing."[1]

It is in this deposition that Morales claims Luis Posada was involved in the 1976 bombing. Unfortunately, according to the 2005 Herald article, "Diaz says he wrote a report for the Miami police on Morales' confession, but the record could not be found."

How fortunate for Luis Posada Carriles.

But, there is ANOTHER person who also says that Ricardo "El Mono" Morales confessed to Posada's involvement in the '76 bombing.

Osmeiro Carneiro.

[1]The Miami Herald, October 3, 1982, "Errors Lead to Tick-Talks Toss-Out" by Eric Reider.

[2]The Miami Herald, June 1, 1982, "Terrorist Admits Bombings and Two Attempted Murders" by John Katzenbach.

[Part 8]

No Defense for Terror (Part 6)

EL MONO

According to Enrique Encinosa's latest book, Unvanquished: Cuba's Resistance to Fidel Castro, "[a] key player in the [1976 Cubana flight bombing] was Ricardo (Monkey) Morales"(p.124). According to Hugo J. Byrne, another defender of Luis Posada Carriles, Ricardo Morales was the "central figure" in the 1976 bombing. Also, everybody's favorite columnist, Humberto Fontova, believes that Ricardo Morales is the confessed terrorist of 1976, which absolves Luis Posada Carriles by default.

ALL the defenses that I have read so far claiming innocence for Luis Posada Carriles have blamed the notorious Ricardo "El Mono" (the Monkey) Morales Navarrete. In my opinion, it is one of the most successful propaganda exercises to vindicate Luis Posada Carriles of the bombing in 1976. But, if one actually READS what Morales Navarrete confessed to, you will see that Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles are not innocent at all. Let's review the facts.

"According to testimony under oath by Morales Navarrete, the Castro conspiracy originated in Mexico... [where] Morales Navarrete met with Castro agents of the DGI [General Intelligence Directorate] who gave him $18,000 and summarized a plan to blow up a Cuban airplane and destroy Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles, who would be blamed for the attack."

This is the premise of Enrique Encinosa's theory that places "El Mono" Morales at the center of a Cuban government conspiracy designed to "accuse [Miami] exiles [for the 1976 bombing] and defend itself from accusations of systematic violations of human rights." But, Encinosa is lying again. Ricardo Morales Navarrete never made such statements under oath. These are allegations made by Luis Posada Carriles himself.

In 1994, Luis Posada Carriles wrote a book titled "Los Caminos del Guerrero" (Paths of the Warrior). One of the book's main goals was to let Posada tell HIS side of the story when he was arrested in 1976 for the bombing of the Cubana flight, and recount the events that occured afterward. In Chapter 11, Posada provides HIS theory on who really committed the bombing. Its the same theory that Encinosa provides in La Verdad sobre Posada.

According to Posada, the theory blaming "El Mono" Morales is based on three sources:

- Interviews with Ricardo "El Mono" Morales by Posada's former lawyer, Raymond Aguiar, and by journalist Francisco Chao Hermida, on different occasions.

- Posada's own interview with a secret double-agent inside the Cuban government and allegedly involved in the 1976 bombing.

- Independent investigations of the '76 bombing that where financed by Posada's lawyers.

If you notice, Posada never mentions that his theory is based on the sworn testimony of Ricardo Morales in a Florida court. That's because Morales never said it.

The theory stating that Ricardo "El Mono" Morales received payment from Cuban agents to blow up the Cubana flight originates from Posada's secret double-agent, NOT Morales.

In a Miami Herald interview with Posada, dated May 17, 2005, Luis Posada Carriles specifically tells the Herald that "a spy inside the Cuban Embassy in Caracas told him that Morales had been working for the Cuban government after its agents paid him $18,000 at a Mexico City hotel in early 1976."

Of course, there is no way to verify if this theory is true. How convenient that Posada's double-agent is still undercover.

However, its clear that Luis Posada Carriles never mentions that his theory is based on the sworn testimony of Ricardo Morales in a Florida court as Enrique Encinosa suggests. Yet again, Encinosa is lying.

[Part 7]