FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

FBI Home Invasions in Puerto Rico

by GERVASIO MORALES RODRÍGUEZ

This past February 10, 2006, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation once again violently invaded the homes and places of employment of respected independentistas activists in Puerto Rico. They terrorized entire communities, assaulted members of the press covering the FBI operation and displayed disregard for the government and police of the island. The FBI’s aggression leaves unequivocally clear what is at stake now in Puerto Rico is the same old but vital question asked by Pedro Albizu Campos: either Yankees or Puerto Ricans?

When the assault troops of the FBI launched this new action, less than five months after the brutal assassination in Hormigueros of pro-independence leader Filiberto Ojeda Ríos, they proceeded as usual. They did not bother notifying either the Governor of the island or the local Chief of Police until two hours after ransacking houses and offices, arresting people and assaulting the press. Why didn’t they notify the Governor of the Chief of Police in advance? Because both the Governor and the Chief of Police are Puerto Ricans, and the FBI does not trust them.

When the FBI decided to violently invade the homes of hard-working, well-respected men and women, individuals loved and admired in their communities, they did it because the victims of their abuse are independentistas who believe in the right of Puerto Ricans to be free from colonialism.

The FBI didn’t care a dime about showing their disdain for the Puerto Rican press, making reporters victims of their imperial arrogance. They assaulted and sprayed press members with pepper spray while they were trying to cover the execution of a warrant at Condominio De Diego 444 in Rio Piedras, sending the message that the FBI perceives the press in Puerto Rico as an enemy of their actions and strategies. When the director of the FBI on the Island, with complete lack of seriousness, lied publicly and put the blame for the incidents on the members of the press, it is because he has no regards for the opinion of Puerto Ricans, the vast majority of whom -as he knows- think that the FBI is a rotten institution, as revealed clearly during the wake and funeral of the Machetero Comandante, assassinated in September 2005.

The events on February 10 are not attributable to one or two FBI agents going overboard inadvertently; this is not a case of getting carried away. The members of the press violently attacked by the FBI are collateral damage in the FBI agenda.

What the FBI has decided–as the police arm of the U.S. government in the Island- is to destroy the independentista movement, both in Puerto Rico and the cities in the mainland territories, where half of our population lives. The FBI’s goal is to get rid of the better organized, more efficient and energetic pro-independence activists, in order to prevent them from further organizing, educating and mobilizing Puerto Ricans to our political independence. They have a definite plan to attack those community organizations, labor unions, student organizations, cultural groups, and environmentalists’ organizations that are doing an effective job and in which many independentistas have a leadership role. The FBI agenda ­as in the past- is to damage the prestige of the pro-independence movement by attempting to link it with the so-called war on terrorism and as part of the climate of fear that they promote in the United States and would like to extend to Puerto Rico. The FBI wants to get rid of the independentistas, whether they are linked or not to the Macheteros.

Why is the United States pursing this violent and repressive policy towards the pro-independence movement in Puerto Rico? There are plausible theories about this being considered in the Island. What is clear is that the pro-independence movement has in the past acted as the key force behind every significant political and economic change in Puerto Rico, regardless of its actual military and political strength at a given time. This is exactly that happened in the 19th century when Ramón Emeterio Betances, and the most advanced pro-independence leaders promoted the abolition of slavery and other political and social reforms. The same thing happened at the beginning of the 20th century when José de Diego and the pro-independence movement fought for, among other things, the preservation of our cultural heritage, our Puerto Rican nationality and the use of the Spanish language. Equally meaningful was the role of the nationalist movement under the leadership of Harvard trained Attorney Pedro Albizu Campos, between 1927 and 1965. Albizu’s commitment to the struggle for independence, his extraordinary insight of the nature of U.S. colonialism in Puerto Rico and his uncompromising stand for freedom led to brutal repression of the Nationalist Party and the cosmetic changes introduced by Luis Muñoz Marín, under the so called Commonwealth regime, a political design originating in Washington, D.C.

Now again, the United States government feels threatened by the recent progressive events in Latin America where more and more oppressed people are relying on revolutionary, democratic and progressive governments. These new forces are challenging U.S. domination in a region long considered by Washington, D.C. as a mere backyard and subjected for decades to the exploitation of their populations by U.S. monopolies.

It is in this context of progressive governments in Latin America and a profound social and economic crisis in Puerto Rico that we have to analyze the current repressive agenda on the island. The U.S. government wants to prevent the possibility of a massive, popular and socially progressive pro-independence movement in Puerto Rico that could become a real alternative to the outmoded political system currently in place, particularly given the increasing social inequality.

After the tremendous protests and mass mobilizations repudiating the assassination of Filiberto Ojeda Ríos in September 2005, the United States government is convinced that the pro-independence movement is the main threat to the continuance of colonialism and U.S. political domination of Puerto Rico, despite the fact that the pro-independence movement continues divided and without a clear sense of its historical role as promoters of truly revolutionary change on the island. But, I should point out, we had a similar scenario in 1999, four years prior to the U.S. Navy having to leave Vieques, with the tail between the legs, under the pressure of a mass movement and without the people having fired a single shot. In 1999, however, no one dare to predict a victory over the all mighty U.S. Navy. Yet, the people, on their own, found the right path for liberation.

GERVASIO MORALES RODRÍGUEZ is the director of Claridad, a weekly newspaper in San Juan Puerto Rico that has as main objective to be an efficient tool in the struggle for Puerto Rico’s independence. Established in 1959, Claridad is the oldest still running newspaper in the Island.

 

 

 

Weekend Edition
February 23, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Richard D. Wolff
Capitalism as Obstacle to Equality and Democracy: the US Story
Paul Street
Where’s the Beef Stroganoff? Eight Sacrilegious Reflections on Russiagate
Jeffrey St. Clair
They Came, They Saw, They Tweeted
Andrew Levine
Their Meddlers and Ours
Charles Pierson
Nuclear Nonproliferation, American Style
Joseph Essertier
Why Japan’s Ultranationalists Hate the Olympic Truce
W. T. Whitney
US and Allies Look to Military Intervention in Venezuela
John Laforge
Maybe All Threats of Mass Destruction are “Mentally Deranged”
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: an American Reckoning
David Rosen
For Some Reason, Being White Still Matters
Robert Fantina
Nikki Haley: the U.S. Embarrassment at the United Nations
Joyce Nelson
Why Mueller’s Indictments Are Hugely Important
Joshua Frank
Pearl Jam, Will You Help Stop Sen. Tester From Destroying Montana’s Public Lands?
Dana E. Abizaid
The Attack on Historical Perspective
Conn Hallinan
Immigration and the Italian Elections
George Ochenski
The Great Danger of Anthropocentricity
Pete Dolack
China Can’t Save Capitalism from Environmental Destruction
Joseph Natoli
Broken Lives
Manuel García, Jr.
Why Did Russia Vote For Trump?
Geoff Dutton
One Regime to Rule Them All
Torkil Lauesen – Gabriel Kuhn
Radical Theory and Academia: a Thorny Relationship
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Work of Persuasion
Thomas Klikauer
Umberto Eco and Germany’s New Fascism
George Burchett
La Folie Des Grandeurs
Howard Lisnoff
Minister of War
Eileen Appelbaum
Why Trump’s Plan Won’t Solve the Problems of America’s Crumbling Infrastructure
Ramzy Baroud
More Than a Fight over Couscous: Why the Palestinian Narrative Must Be Embraced
Jill Richardson
Mass Shootings Shouldn’t Be the Only Time We Talk About Mental Illness
Jessicah Pierre
Racism is Killing African American Mothers
Steve Horn
Wyoming Now Third State to Propose ALEC Bill Cracking Down on Pipeline Protests
David Griscom
When ‘Fake News’ is Good For Business
Barton Kunstler
Brainwashed Nation
Griffin Bird
I’m an Eagle Scout and I Don’t Want Pipelines in My Wilderness
Edward Curtin
The Coming Wars to End All Wars
Missy Comley Beattie
Message To New Activists
Jonah Raskin
Literary Hubbub in Sonoma: Novel about Mrs. Jack London Roils the Faithful
Binoy Kampmark
Frontiersman of the Internet: John Perry Barlow
Chelli Stanley
The Mirrors of Palestine
James McEnteer
How Brexit Won World War Two
Ralph Nader
Absorbing the Irresistible Consumer Reports Magazine
Cesar Chelala
A Word I Shouldn’t Use
Louis Proyect
Marx at the Movies
Osha Neumann
A White Guy Watches “The Black Panther”
Stephen Cooper
Rebel Talk with Nattali Rize: the Interview
David Yearsley
Market Music
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail