FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Cuban Five: a Cruel and Bizarre Decision

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.

More articles by:

José Pertierra is an attorney in Washington, DC.

July 14, 2020
Anthony DiMaggio
Canceling the Cancel Culture: Enriching Discourse or Dumbing it Down?
Patrick Cockburn
Boris Johnson Should not be Making New Global Enemies When His Country is in a Shambles
Frank Joyce
Lift From the Bottom? Yes.
Richard C. Gross
The Crackdown on Foreign Students
Steven Salaita
Should We Cancel “Cancel Culture”?
Paul Street
Sorry, the Chicago Blackhawks Need to Change Their Name and Logo
Jonathan Cook
‘Cancel Culture’ Letter is About Stifling Free Speech, Not Protecting It
John Feffer
The Global Rushmore of Autocrats
C. Douglas Lummis
Pillar of Sand in Okinawa
B. Nimri Aziz
Soft Power: Americans in Its Grip at Home Must Face the Mischief It Wields by BNimri Aziz July 11/2020
Cesar Chelala
What was lost when Ringling Bros. Left the Circus
Dan Bacher
California Regulators Approve 12 New Permits for Chevron to Frack in Kern County
George Wuerthner
Shrinking Wilderness in the Gallatin Range
Lawrence Davidson
Woodrow Wilson’s Racism: the Basis For His Support of Zionism
Binoy Kampmark
Mosques, Museums and Politics: the Fate of Hagia Sophia
Dean Baker
Propaganda on Government Action and Inequality from David Leonhardt
July 13, 2020
Gerald Sussman
The Russiagate Spectacle: Season 2?
Ishmael Reed
Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Perry Mason Moment
Jack Rasmus
Why the 3rd Quarter US Economic ‘Rebound’ Will Falter
W. T. Whitney
Oil Comes First in Peru, Not Coronavirus Danger, Not Indigenous Rights
Ralph Nader
The Enduring Case for Demanding Trump’s Resignation
Raghav Kaushik – Arun Gupta
On Coronavirus and the Anti-Police-Brutality Uprising
Deborah James
Digital Trade Rules: a Disastrous New Constitution for the Global Economy Written by and for Big Tech
Howard Lisnoff
Remembering the Nuclear Freeze Movement and Its Futility
Sam Pizzigati
Will the Biden-Sanders Economic Task Force Rattle the Rich?
Allen Baker
Trump’s Stance on Foreign College Students Digs US Economic Hole Even Deeper
Binoy Kampmark
The Coronavirus Seal: Victoria’s Borders Close
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Power, Knowledge and Virtue
Weekend Edition
July 10, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Lynnette Grey Bull
Trump’s Postcard to America From the Shrine of Hypocrisy
Anthony DiMaggio
Free Speech Fantasies: the Harper’s Letter and the Myth of American Liberalism
David Yearsley
Morricone: Maestro of Music and Image
Jeffrey St. Clair
“I Could Live With That”: How the CIA Made Afghanistan Safe for the Opium Trade
Rob Urie
Democracy and the Illusion of Choice
Paul Street
Imperial Blind Spots and a Question for Obama
Vijay Prashad
The U.S. and UK are a Wrecking Ball Crew Against the Pillars of Internationalism
Melvin Goodman
The Washington Post and Its Cold War Drums
Richard C. Gross
Trump: Reopen Schools (or Else)
Chris Krupp
Public Lands Under Widespread Attack During Pandemic 
Alda Facio
What Coronavirus Teaches Us About Inequality, Discrimination and the Importance of Caring
Eve Ottenberg
Bounty Tales
Andrew Levine
Silver Linings Ahead?
John Kendall Hawkins
FrankenBob: The Self-Made Dylan
Pam Martens - Russ Martens
Deutsche Bank Fined $150 Million for Enabling Jeffrey Epstein; Where’s the Fine Against JPMorgan Chase?
David Rosen
Inequality and the End of the American Dream
Louis Proyect
Harper’s and the Great Cancel Culture Panic
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail