Month: November, 2014
Retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson Sends Letter to Obama in Support of the Five
| November 3, 2014 | 8:43 pm | Action, Analysis, Cuban Five, International, Latin America, National | Comments closed

Readers: Please use this as a model for sending your own letters to President Obama!

From the: International Committee for the   Freedom of the Cuban 5

Lawrence Wilkerson is Distinguished Visiting Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia.

His last position in government was chief of staff to Colin Powell at the U.S. Department of State (2002-2005).  He served 31 years in the US Army (1966-1998).

Here is his letter to President Obama:

November 5, 2014

President Barack Obama
The White HouseFree the Cuban 5
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC  20500

Dear Mr. President,

 

It is time to correct an injustice that is in your power to amend. This injustice mars majorly the American system of justice, the U.S. record on human rights and, as importantly, the lives of five men whose dedication to the security of their own country against terrorist attack should be admired and respected, not punished. No doubt you have heard of these men: Gerardo Hernández Nordelo, Ramón Labaniño Salazar, Antonio Guerrero Rodríguez, Fernando González Llort, and Rene González Sehwerert. The world knows them as The Cuban Five.

 

Two of these men are today out of prison, two more might be out in the far future, and one might never see the dawn of a free day.  This latter individual, Gerardo Hernández, I tried to visit-unsuccessfully-in the maximum security prison in Victorville, California.  Though I was unable to visit him, a true and trusted colleague who accompanied me, the late Saul Landau, was able to do so and reported to me that Gerardo remains as courageous and undaunted as ever yet still puzzled over the failure to act of what is supposed to be the world’s greatest democracy.

 

The Cuban Five suffered a gross injustice when they were arrested in 1998. After their arrests they spent 17 months in solitary confinement. Their trial took place in Miami, Florida and in 2001 they were sentenced to long prison terms. At a legal minimum, the trial through which they suffered in Miami should have been moved to another location, as change-of-venue arguments alone were not only persuasive they were overwhelming, testified to amply when the appeals court in Atlanta, voting in a three-judge panel, supported a change of venue. Later, however, this decision was reversed when the political power of George W. Bush’s administration-an administration in which I served-compelled the court, voting in its entirety to reconsider the three-judge panel’s decision and vote differently; they ratified the sentences of two of them, and the case of the other three were sent back to the court in Miami for re-sentencing. The court recognized that the guide of sentencing were wrongly applied and as a result reduced their prison terms.

 

But there is more, much more. In fact, there is the now-indisputable fact that the five were not guilty of the substantive charges brought against them in the first place. The politics surrounding the trial were in the hands of hard-line Cuban-Americans in Florida, as well as in the US Congress. Without their blatant interference with the course of justice, the trial never would have taken place. Moreover, these people spent taxpayer dollars to enlist journalists in Miami to write condemnatory articles, to influence the jury pool for the trial, and to predispose public opinion to a guilty verdict. This trial was a political payoff to hard-line Cuban-Americans and every person in the United States and across the world who pays attention to these matters, knows it. Indeed, you know it, Mr. President. This kangaroo-court trial is a blemish on the very fabric of America’s democracy. It sends a clear signal to all the world-who judge us not as we judge ourselves, by how we feel about issues, but by our deeds.

 

You, Mr. President, cannot erase this blemish; it has lingered too long and too many years have been stolen from these men’s lives by it.  But you can mitigate it, you can make it less formidable. And, vitally, you can clean the reputation of our justice system, and, in the case of Gerardo and the other two men still in prison, you can free them.

 

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions, in May of 2005, declared the imprisonment of the Cuban Five to be a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, placing the United States alongside some of the most heinous countries on earth. The Working Group requested that the U.S. take action to remedy the situation. You, Mr. President, can do just that.

 

Mr. President, you said that “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” But in certain instances, that is wrong and you know it. Would you have us not look back to our Civil War? To the depredations of Black slavery that led to it? To the century-long economic slavery that followed that war? To the racism of our past-a racism that still plagues us today? I think not. And you should not deny the need to look back, review and reverse this mockery of a trial.

 

Take action, Mr. President. Release immediately the three remaining imprisoned members of the Cuban Five. Admit publicly the gross injustice done to all of them and elaborate the reasons. Apologize to the Cuban people and to our citizens and, most of all, to the Cuban Five and their families. Listen to “the better angels of our nature” and put the United States back on the side of justice.zzz-cuban5

 

 

Very Respectfully,

 

     Lawrence B. Wilkerson

Colonel, US Army (Retired)

A Prisoner Swap With Cuba
| November 3, 2014 | 8:15 pm | Analysis, Cuban Five, International, National | Comments closed
 
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
 
NOV. 2, 2014
 
Nearly five years ago, authorities in Cuba arrested an American government subcontractor, Alan Gross, who was working on a secretive program to expand Internet access on the island. At a time when a growing number of officials in Washington and Havana are eager to start normalizing relations, Mr. Gross’s continued imprisonment has become the chief obstacle to a diplomatic breakthrough.
 
There is only one plausible way to remove Mr. Gross from an already complicated equation. The Obama administration should swap him for three convicted Cuban spies who have served more than 16 years in federal prison.
 
Fidel Castro may no longer be president, but his influence endures. His portrait was displayed at a march in Havana last month.
 
Officials at the White House are understandably anxious about the political fallout of a deal with Havana, given the criticism they faced in May after five Taliban prisoners were exchanged for an American soldier kidnapped in Afghanistan. The American government, sensibly, is averse to negotiating with terrorists or governments that hold United States citizens for ransom or political leverage. But in exceptional circumstances, it makes sense to do so. The Alan Gross case meets that criteria.
 
Under the direction of Development Alternatives Inc., which had a contract with the United States Agency for International Development, Mr. Gross traveled to Havana five times in 2009, posing as a tourist, to smuggle communications equipment as part of an effort to provide more Cubans with Internet access. The Cuban government, which has long protested Washington’s covert pro-democracy initiatives on the island, tried and convicted Mr. Gross in 2011, sentencing him to 15 years in prison for acts against the integrity of the state.
 
Early on in Mr. Gross’s detention, Cuban officials suggested they might be willing to free him if Washington put an end to initiatives designed to overthrow the Cuban government. After those talks sputtered, the Cuban position hardened and it has become clear to American officials that the only realistic deal to get Mr. Gross back would involve releasing three Cuban spies convicted of federal crimes in Miami in 2001.
 
In order to swap prisoners, President Obama would need to commute the men’s sentences. Doing so would be justified considering the lengthy time they have served, the troubling questions about the fairness of their trial, and the potential diplomatic payoff in clearing the way toward a new bilateral relationship.
 
The spy who matters the most to the Cuban government, Gerardo Hernández, is serving two life sentences. Mr. Hernández, the leader of the so-called Wasp Network, which infiltrated Cuban exile groups in South Florida in the 1990s, was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. Prosecutors accused him of conspiring with authorities in Havana to shoot down civilian planes operated by a Cuban exile group that dropped leaflets over the island urging Cubans to rise up against their government. His four co-defendants, two of whom have been released and returned home, were convicted of nonviolent crimes. The two who remain imprisoned are due for release relatively soon.
 
A three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overturned the convictions in August 2005, ruling that a “perfect storm” of factors deprived the five defendants of a fair trial. The judges found that widespread hostility toward the Cuban government in Miami and pretrial publicity that vilified the spies made it impossible to impanel an impartial jury. The full court later reversed the panel’s finding, reinstating the verdict. But the judges raised other concerns about the case that led to a reduction of three of the sentences.
 
One of the judges, Phyllis Kravitch, wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that Mr. Hernández’s murder-conspiracy conviction was unfounded. Prosecutors, she argued, failed to establish that Mr. Hernández, who provided Havana with information about the flights, had entered into an agreement to shoot down the planes in international, as opposed to Cuban, airspace. Downing the planes over Cuban airspace, which the exiles had penetrated before, would not constitute murder under American law.
 
Bringing Mr. Hernández home has become a paramount priority for Cuba’s president, Raúl Castro. Cuban officials have hailed the men as heroes and portrayed their trial as a travesty. Independent entities, including a United Nations panel that examines cases of arbitrary detentions and Amnesty International, have raised concerns about the fairness of the proceedings. The widespread view in Cuba that the spies are victims has, unfortunately, emboldened Cuba to use Mr. Gross as a pawn.
 
For years, officials in Washington have said that they would not trade the Cuban spies for Mr. Gross, arguing that a trade would create a false “equivalency.”
 
But a prisoner exchange could pave the way toward re-establishing formal diplomatic ties, positioning the United States to encourage positive change in Cuba through expanded trade, travel opportunities and greater contact between Americans and Cubans. Failing to act would maintain a 50-year cycle of mistrust and acts of sabotage by both sides.
 
Beyond the strategic merits of a swap, the administration has a duty to do more to get Mr. Gross home. His arrest was the result of a reckless strategy in which U.S.A.I.D. has deployed private contractors to perform stealthy missions in a police state vehemently opposed to Washington’s pro-democracy crusade.
 
While in prison, Mr. Gross has lost more than 100 pounds. He is losing vision in his right eye. His hips are failing. This June, Mr. Gross’s elderly mother died. After he turned 65 in May, Mr. Gross told his loved ones that this year would be his last in captivity, warning that he intends to kill himself if he is not released soon. His relatives and supporters regard that as a serious threat from a desperate, broken man.
 
If Alan Gross died in Cuban custody, the prospect of establishing a healthier relationship with Cuba would be set back for years. This is an entirely avoidable scenario, as Mr. Obama can easily grasp, but time is of the essence.
Abbott increases his racist credentials
| November 2, 2014 | 9:15 pm | Action, Analysis, Immigrants' Rights, Local/State | Comments closed

By James Thompson

 

According to a Houston Chronicle article http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/Abbott-photographed-with-militia-leader-5862450.php , the Republican candidate for Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, was caught in a photograph consorting with supporter J.K. Massey in Brownsville. Massey is a convicted felon and was arrested on federal firearms charges four days after the photo with Abbott was taken . According to the Chronicle, Massey had an arsenal similar to that of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.

 

Many Texans are demanding that Abbott, as Texas Attorney General, denounce Massey for his terroristic activities as a militia leader. Apparently, Abbott’s non-response to these demands indicate his tacit support for right-wing terroristic lunatics. It is already well-documented that Abbott has been the beneficiary of fundraisers staged by Ted Nugent who has gone on record advocating that people should be shot as they come across the Texas-Mexico border. Abbott has failed to renounce Ted Nugent’s activities and hate speech to date.

 

Does anyone besides me see a pattern here? How do Texans think that relations between Texas and Mexico will be affected if Abbott is elected governor? Does anyone think that elevating a man who has consorted with open racists to Governor might complicate trade relations with Mexico and result in a reduction of commerce? Does anyone think that if Abbott is elected, Texas’ public image will be enhanced?

 

Bernie Sanders and Sept-Oct Polls on the DP Presidential nomination
| November 2, 2014 | 6:20 pm | Analysis, National | Comments closed
By A. Shaw
An outfit called Polling Report.com collects polling results on a number of electoral races, including the race for the Democratic Party (DP) presidential nomination.
As of late Oct. 2014, Polling Report.com has collected thirteen polling results from various media outlets on the DP presidential nomination race. In almost all of the results, Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner, Vice Pres. Joe Biden is usually second, and US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D.-MA) often comes in as number three. There is no consistency at all in the fourth to tenth positions, indicating that opinions of the liberal sector of the electorate on possible candidates is fluid.
One of the polls, the McClatchy-Marist poll, reflects candidate rankings for Sept. 24th to 29th this year:
                                  %
Hillary Clinton           64
Joe Biden                    15
Elizabeth Warren       8
Bernie Sanders           4
Martin O’Malley         2
Jim Webb                    1
Unsure                         6
With something like a 50-point lead over all of her opponents in the McClatchy-Marist poll, Hillary Clinton seems to be a runaway winner of the DP nomination race, two years before election day.
But Clinton only appears to be winning because her support is only broad, but not deep. Indeed, her support is very shallow. Liberals don’t trust her, independents support her as long as she looks like a winner, and reactionaries openly detest her.
The huge lead of Hillary Clinton perhaps discourages Elizabeth Warren ranked No. 3 in McClatchy-Marist poll.
US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) gave an interview to People magazine  in late October 2014 and was asked if she planned to run for president. Her answer showed quite a bit of discouragement.
“I don’t think so,” Warren told PEOPLE in an interview. “If there’s any lesson I’ve learned in the last five years, it’s don’t be so sure about what lies ahead. There are amazing doors that could open. Right now,” She said “I’m focused on figuring out what else I can do from this spot in the U.S. Senate.”
When Sen. Warren says “There are amazing doors that could open” for her, she suggests Hillary Clinton has offered Warren something that is “amazing.”
Clinton has also offered to open doors for Bernie Sanders, but he is not “amazed” or even interested.
Vice Pres. Joe Biden is not a serious candidate. Warren and Bernie Sanders argue that they are 50-points behind Clinton because they don’t have national name recognition. But Biden has enjoyed national name recognition for decades and he still trails Clinton by almost 50-points. Biden trails by almost 50 points because the national electorate knows what he is. Warren and Sanders trail by 50 points because the national electorate hasn’t had a chance to get to know them, unlike Biden.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a pit bull of a campaigner, is set to move up in the ranking for the DP presidential nomination, especially if Sen. Warren drops out.
Sander’s strategy is to outflank Clinton on the Left, just as Obama outflanked her in 2008. Clinton loves to reach out and embrace reactionaries. She campaigns for the conservative vote much more than her husband who also had reactionary tendencies. This explains why her support from the liberal sector of the national electorate is more shallow than her husband’s support. But Clinton isn’t worried, at the moment, about Bernie Sanders because she says Sanders’ support is neither broad nor deep.
She hasn’t changed since she lost the DP nomination in 2008.