FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Cuban Five: a Cruel and Bizarre Decision

by JOSÉ PERTIERRA

On Friday, September 16, a federal district court judge made a bizarre ruling concerning one of the Cuban Five defendants who completes his jail sentence on October 7.  Judge Joan Lenard ruled that René Gonzalez, who has already served thirteen years in a federal penitentiary for being an unregistered agent of the Cuban government, will be forced for the next three years to live in Miami on what is called “supervised release.”

Mr. Gonzalez had asked the Court to allow him to return home to Cuba to be with his wife, Olga, and his two daughters, Ivette and Irma.  Several years ago, the Department of State decided to permanently bar Olga from getting a visa to come to the United States.  She has been able to visit her husband only once, during the last thirteen years.  A cruel and unusual punishment for any prisoner.

Although born in the United States, Mr. González grew up in Cuba.  He returned to this country—at the behest of the Cuban government—to monitor the activities of extremist groups in Miami who were carrying out terrorist attacks against Cuba’s civilian population from their safe havens in southern Florida.  But because he did not register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and inform the Department of Justice of his activities here, he violated the law.  The Miami-based terrorists he was monitoring, conversely, have never been prosecuted and remain free and protected in Miami.

What possible interest would the United States government have in further punishing a person whose only crime is fighting terrorism?  Why force him to remain in Miami, a hotbed of anti-Cuba terrorism, for the next three years?  Doesn’t it matter that Miami-based terrorists have murdered 3,478 Cubans and incapacitated 2,099 more during the past five decades? Furthermore, how can Mr. González be expected to comply with the terms of his supervised release in Miami?

The court-imposed conditions include prohibiting Mr. González “from associating with or visiting specific places where individuals or groups such as terrorists, members of organizations advocating violence, organized crime figures are known to be or frequent.”  Does this not mean rather that he ought not to live in Miami, the sanctuary of terrorism in the United States?

The terrorists that Mr. González was tasked with monitoring continue to live in Miami.  They openly advocate violence.  As recently as April of this year, Luis Posada Carriles—the mastermind both of the downing of a Cuban passenger plane that killed all 73 persons aboard and of a campaign of terror in Havana that targeted civilians in hotels and restaurants —reaffirmed his support for further violence against Cuba.  Posada Carriles and his terrorist friends live in Miami.  Why is the Court putting Mr. González’s safety at risk by forcing him to live for the next three years side by side with the very terrorists that he tailed as an unregistered Cuban agent?

Cuban-American terrorists are already responsible for the murders in the United States of Orlando Letelier (ex-Foreign Minister of Chile), Ronnie Karpen Moffitt (an American citizen), Eulalio Negrín and Carlos Múñiz Varela (Cuban-Americans who promoted a dialogue with the government of Cuba), as well as Felix García Rodríguez (a Cuban diplomat at the UN).

A public opinion survey conducted on the eve of the trial of the Cuba Five by legal psychologist Dr. Kendra Brennan concluded that Cuban-Americans in Miami have  “an attitude of a state of war . . . against Cuba.”

Moreover, a 29-page study published a few years ago by Americas Watch said that “the dominant intransigent forces in Miami’s Cuban exile community” try to silence opposing viewpoints in Miami with violence.  For example, a radio station was raided and one of its commentators beaten while other advocates of policy changes were subjected to bombings, vandalism of personal property and death threats. “While in the last few years there have been as many as a dozen bombings aimed at those who favor a more moderate approach toward the Castro regime, none has resulted in a single arrest or prosecution,” the report concluded.

It is irresponsible and dangerous for the United States to force René González to remain in this climate of violence and terrorism for the next three years.  His life is at risk.

Judge Lenard explained that she cannot properly evaluate the “circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.”

Really, judge?  The “circumstances of the offense” are that René González came to the United States not to spy on the U.S. Government or to commit any crimes.  His job was to gather evidence against terrorists who were operating with impunity from the United States and whose targets were innocent civilians in Cuba. In 1997, for example, Cuban-American terrorists organized a series of bombings at the most famous hotels and restaurants in Havana, including Cuba’s emblematic hotel—the Nacional—and the restaurant that Hemingway made famous, the Bodeguita del Medio.  The purpose of the bombing campaign was to destroy Cuban tourism, thereby striking another blow to the Cuban economy that at the time was reeling from the loss of its customary trading partners in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

Especially after 9-11, the United States sustains that it is a matter of national security to punish the terrorists and reward those who combat terrorism.  If that is the case, then René González should be allowed to return home to his family—rather than force him to remain in Miami surrounded by criminals who may very well have it in for him.

Judge Lenard also claims in her decision that, if she allows Mr. González to return to Cuba on October 7, she won’t been able to assess whether the American public “will be protected from further crimes of the defendant.” His only “crime” was failing to register as a foreign agent.  How will Mr. González endanger the American people if he returns to Cuba?  How much time does Judge Lenard need to make to properly evaluate something as clear as spring water?

The judge also alleges that more time is needed to “provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.”   What?!!!

René González has no intention of living in the United States.  His lawyer has already said that his client is prepared to renounce his American citizenship and return home to Cuba.  He has no need of educational or vocational training whose purpose would be to reintegrate him into U.S. society.  He wants to go home to Cuba and be reunited with his family, not be instructed on how to live in this country and endure three more years of estrangement from his family.  As for medical care, he will have access to the best medical care in Cuba and it will be available at no expense to the United States or to himself.

To no one’s surprise, the Assistant United States Attorney in charge of the case, Carolina Heck-Miller, opposed Mr. González’s request to return to Cuba upon completion of his jail time.  This is, after all, the same federal prosecutor who decided not to prosecute Luis Posada Carriles for terrorism, despite a request from the lead attorney on the case at the Department of Homeland Security.

The only saving grace in Judge Lenard’s otherwise inexplicable decision is that she gives Mr. González leave to re-file his Motion at a later time “should circumstances warrant modification.”

What circumstances could she be waiting for?  For a terrorist in Miami to take a potshot at René?

José Pertierra is an attorney.  He represents the government of Venezuela in the case involving the request for the extradition of Luis Posada Carriles.

José Pertierra is an attorney in Washington, DC.

More articles by:
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
Stephanie Van Hook
The Time for Silence is Over
Ajamu Nangwaya
Toronto’s Bathhouse Raids: Racialized, Queer Solidarity and Police Violence
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered: a Fragment (Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre)
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail