– from Zoltan Zigedy is available at:
http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/

e-mail: zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

One can too easily blame capitalism for debasing the culture and intellectual life of the US. The profit motive has surely placed commercial success ahead of artistic merit. Independent purveyors of art and ideas have been either co opted and absorbed by monopoly corporations or ground to a pulp attempting to compete with corporate-sponsored rivals. Culture has become corporate culture, despite the democratizing relief sometimes offered by the Internet.

From producer to consumer, arts and entertainment corporations are the ever-present intermediaries for successful production and realization of cultural commodities. Their goal is profit and not artistic merit.

Similarly, the humanities have been marginalized through the marketization of higher education. The ever present mantra of “running everything like a business” has deeply infected the process of learning, thus sending philosophy, political studies, literature, history and other humanities to the dustbin. That which cannot pay its way deserves no place in the university, say administrators wedded to best business practices. Consequently, the appreciation for and vibrant generation of the humanities is stunted by the dominance of the “practicality” of the sciences and business. Higher learning becomes learning for a purpose, namely, getting ahead.

But the arts and independent thought are threatened by other factors as well. While even those friendly to capitalism will give a reluctant acknowledgment of the economic factors that diminish culture and humanistic pursuits, few accept the significant role of politics in stunting culture and learning. Of course many will readily agree that right wing zealots chip away politically at the liberal values that are believed to be the foundation for cultural and intellectual enrichment. They will eagerly concede that pornography police and music censors retard the free flow of ideas. But they, nonetheless, celebrate the US democratic spirit that continues to nourish the spring of cultural production and intellectual innovation.

Accordingly, they forget, or purposely overlook, the insidious role of Cold War repression that befell intellectual and cultural life in the US from the late 1940s through the early 1960s, with loud echoes today. For nearly a decade and a half, intellectual conformity on class, race, and Communism was rigorously enforced through punishment or fear, especially in the sensitive areas of culture and ideas (the battle of ideas is not merely in academia or among the men and women of letters but in the unions and mass organizations, where a vibrant incubation of radical ideas was replaced with a tepid, mediocre, and intolerant uniformity). Thousands of cultural and intellectual workers lost their jobs, were shunned, or blacklisted. Tens of thousands were frozen with fear and determined to assiduously avoid anything controversial.

Artists and intellectuals grew timid: ironically, some of the best popular cinema of the otherwise mediocre era was offered by ex-Communists who had made their mea culpas and thus earned the right to tackle edgy themes (for example, A Face in the Crowd (Kazan), Sweet Smell of Success, and The Big Knife (Odets). The best of television, a then-new medium seemingly happy to wallow in mediocrity, came from deeply covert writers who had been expelled from Hollywood. When vibrant African American music in the form of a subversive Rhythm and Blues stood to crack the cultural barriers, US entertainment corporations co-opted and whitened the music while transforming it into mildly titillating Rock and Roll (RCA and Elvis Presley), a safer alternative.

The false radicalism of Abstract Expressionism was promoted by a deeply conservative coterie of wealthy art impresarios intent upon overshadowing any subversive messages borne by representational art (see How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art, Guilbaut). And mildly mocking satire of upper-middle-class and suburban mores a la New Yorker magazine became the gold standard of popular literature.

Youth rebellion, thought to be a biological imperative, found expression in the middle-class angst of the “beat” generation or through revisiting frontier toughness through the cult of the motorcycle. “Alienation” replaced “exploitation” as the theme of critiques of industrial society…..
TO READ THE REMAINDER OF THE ARTICLE, PLEASE GO TO: http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/

http://www.cpusa.org/cpusa-sends-protest-letter-to-president-obama-on-ukraine/

The following is a letter of protest to President Barack Obama from the Communist Party USA regarding the political and violent attacks in the Ukraine by the Right Sector against the Communist Party of the Ukraine, the Ukrainian Jewish communities and other minorities and progressives.

May 14, 2014

Dear President Barack Obama,

We write to you because of our grave concern over recent events in the Ukraine. On May 2, reports state, 1,000 extreme right-wing thugs attacked their fellow Ukrainian citizens in Odessa, setting fire to a union hall to which many had fled. At least 40 people perished in the blaze. A few days later on May 6, members of parliament from the Communist Party of the Ukraine – a party that had won 32 seats in Ukraine’s Rada (federal parliament) in the 2012 election – were banned from the legislative chamber, according to news reports. Under the leadership of the Right Sector, the drive to outlaw the Communist Party and “communist ideology” is underway with a push for legislation that would implement such anti-democratic measures.

This comes on the heels of anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish Ukrainians and synagogues, attacks on other minorities, and attacks on the central office of the Communist Party in Kiev, which was ransacked and burned, and on regional Communist leaders and activists. The list of outrages could go on.

U.S. policy in the Ukraine purports to uphold democracy, yet reports in the German publication Bild indicate that FBI and CIA operatives are active with Ukrainian “security” forces, including these far right wing forces. How is it democratic to purge a legitimately elected party from parliament? How is it democratic to violently target Communists and others in the Ukraine who disagree with the direction of the right-wing-led acting government? Besides violating the basic premise of national sovereignty, U.S. policy is aiding and abetting the most violent and reactionary forces to grab power all in the name of fighting the Russians.

The United States has its own sordid anti-democratic history of banning the Communist Party and conducting witch hunts against Communists and any person suspected of holding left-wing and progressive political views. During the Cold War McCarthy era people went to jail for the simple act of thinking these thoughts – in the legal terminology it was called “conspiracy to teach.” The persecution of left and progressive people during this period has been widely considered a deep stain on the democratic ideals of freedom of speech and freedom of association.

The Communist Party of the Ukraine is a legitimate political party that represents a constituency in that country. The chair of the party is a candidate for president in the U.S.-supported May 25 elections. The party advocates for keeping the Ukraine’s territorial integrity through “the widest possible dialogue between all political forces” and offers a program of “federalization and increase[ing] the powers” of the country’s regional governments as a way to end the current crisis and move forward. The Communist Party of the Ukraine also opposes the “oppressive role of foreign intervention” that includes Russia as well as the United States and any other outside actor.

We urge that your administration take immediate steps to communicate to the Right Sector, Svoboda and their allies that their violent and anti-democratic actions will not be supported by the United States. In fact, the United States government, and individual U.S. politicians and officials, should cease to associate themselves with such elements.

The Communist Party USA, in numerous statements and articles, has said that the overall present U.S. policy in Ukraine is detrimental to the interests of the peoples of Ukraine, Russia and Europe, as well as the United States, as this policy has increased instability and violence that could very easily spiral out of control. The current policy and anti-Russia narrative is reminiscent of the Cold War. We recognize and oppose Putin’s strong-arm tactics in the dispute over Crimea and appeals to reactionary nationalism, but the onus of rectifying this dangerous situation remains on your administration. Russia responded to a provocative policy hatched and executed in Washington, namely the encirclement of the country’s western borders by NATO.

The atrocious incident in Odessa was a predictable result of this policy of turning a blind eye to the active fascist presence in Ukraine. The Communist Party USA expresses its outrage at this incident and its solidarity with the families and friends of the victims of this atrocity.

The CPUSA will continue to work for peace in the Ukraine and express its total solidarity with the Communist Party of the Ukraine, with the Ukrainian Jewish community and with all others who are endangered by the extremist upsurge.

On behalf of the National Board of the CPUSA,

Sam Webb

CPUSA chair

http://mltoday.com/how-much-longer-obama-and-the-cuban-five?utm

by Ricardo Alarcon de Quesada

May 15, 2014

The arrest in Cuba of four Miami residents who came with the aim of carrying out terrorist acts here that were planned there — where they received training, resources and where their bosses are — brings to light once again the absolute injustice committed against our Five compatriots. They were conducting a difficult and risky mission precisely to try to prevent similar crimes.

The heroic task of Gerardo, Ramón, Antonio, Fernando and René was perfectly legitimate. It was based on what is known as “state of necessity” or otherwise known as “necessity defense.” In certain circumstances, to save lives that are in danger a person can commit lesser violations (forcing entry into a home without asking permission and causing material damage in order to rescue someone from a fire, is an easy example to understand).

In this case, to save other lives, they put their own lives in danger, and not just in one heroic act — as in the example of the house on fire — but rather in many heroic acts in the years that they worked inside the worst terrorist groups, in order to discover their plans. They never used arms nor used force or violence. In their daily lives they obeyed the law and their social duties. They were models of civility as their neighbors and co-workers testified in their trial.

Our compatriots technically committed only one fault: they didn’t reveal to authorities the nature of their mission in Miami. That violation of not having registered as a foreign agent is quite common in the United States and it is normally resolved with payment of a fine.

In the case of the Cuban Five that omission is also completely justified. In fact, it was essential. Why would someone struggle against Miami terrorism and at the same time notify the very same authorities who have helped and supported the terrorists for 50 years?

The very trial they were subjected to proves that point to the hilt. From the initial indictments to the sessions where their excessive sentences were imposed and throughout the trial, the prosecutors never hid the fact that they were on the side of the terrorists, that they were their protectors, and to support them they placed our heroes in the docket of the accused in a bizarre subversion of justice.

The judge, for her part, had her own unforgettable moments, which exposed the true essence of what was occurring. This was especially true when she imposed their sentences, which included, at the request of the Government, the so-called “incapacitation clause”, subjecting the defendants to a special regimen — after they were to complete their exaggerated prison terms — that the Prosecution considered “perhaps more important” than the unjust imprisonment.

It had to do with preventing that never again any of the Cuban Five could attempt anything against the terrorists.

Since René and Antonio were U.S. citizens by birth and could not be expelled immediately from the country, as Fernando was recently, they added several years of “probation” with strict conditions that included this very telling one: “As a further special condition of supervised release the defendant is prohibited from associating with or visiting specific places where individuals or groups such as terrorists, members of organizations advocating violence, and organized crime figures are known to be or frequent.”

This outrageous order was issued in December 2001. In those days W. Bush proclaimed that “any government that supports, protects or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes” and motivated by that idea he unleashed everywhere his “war against terrorism.” Wherever it may be, although for Bush obviously Miami is on another planet.

The judge’s clause to protect the terrorists is the very essence of the whole saga of the Five. It is enough to read the order issued by the same judge, 10 years later, when René left the prison. She wanted to force him to remain there, alone, isolated, unarmed, without the possibility of defending himself against any aggression. As if that weren’t enough the judge repeated, word for word, the prohibition given 10 years before. The warning was very clear: They were not going protect René from the terrorists, but rather protect them from René.

Today, like yesterday, the United States government clearly recognizes that they know who the terrorists are in Miami. They also know where they are and what places they frequent. But it also shows, shamefully, that the “Bush doctrine” doesn’t apply to them, and instead of capturing and sending them to jail, it dedicates its efforts to protect them.

That’s why it surprised no one when in 2005 Luis Posada Carriles — wanted for 20 years by Interpol, fugitive from Venezuelan justice who was being tried for the destruction of a civilian airliner in mid-flight in 1976 —decided to install himself in Miami and continue promoting terrorism against Cuba, and no longer while underground, but out in the open.

It was also no surprise that four members of Posada’s terrorist network have come to Cuba several times to prepare new attacks and are now in prison here. They are individuals with a criminal record in Miami, and have even boasted publicly about their criminal intentions.

The impunity with which these criminal groups continue to operate is a direct consequence of the process pursued against our Five comrades. What happened more than 15 years ago was a clear message still in effect: in Miami not only is terrorism against Cuba permitted, but also benefits with the complicity and protection of the authorities.

The conversion of southern Florida to a sanctuary for terrorism can also be a dangerous game for the people of the United States. While the Cuban Five were imprisoned and the infamous trial was conducted against them, the majority of the terrorists who carried out the atrocity on Sept. 11, 2001 were training right there in Miami. None of them raised suspicions; none of them drew the interest of the FBI. Because in Miami, the FBI has no time for those things since they dedicate their all to protect the anti-Cuban terrorism and to punish those who try to prevent their crimes.

Barack Obama is approaching the mid-term of his second and last period as President. When he entered the White House in 2009 he received an immoral and hypocritical conduct he is not responsible for. But he will be if he does nothing to change it.

In his hands is the power to do something so he is remembered as someone different from his predecessor. The first thing would be to grant immediate and unconditional freedom to Gerardo Hernández Nordelo, Ramón Labañino and Antonio Guerrero. He can do it and he knows it. He also knows that if he doesn’t do it, history will not forgive him.

Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada has served as Cuba’s UN ambassador, Foreign Minister and president of the National Assembly.

http://realcuba.wordpress.com/

Op-ed submission to the Houston Chronicle (unpublished)

By James Thompson

The “Golden rule” is taught to all people raised in Christian households, almost from birth. It is a pillar of Christianity.

However, current US foreign policy towards one of our closest neighbors, Cuba, ignores the “Golden Rule” and, in fact, promotes the opposite of many Biblical teachings. US foreign policy has stubbornly supported the embargo against Cuba, which hurts both people in the US and in Cuba as well as many other countries. The embargo has resulted in a restriction of trade with Cuba for US industrial entities and many other companies in other countries. It has resulted in a travel ban for people from the US who want to travel to Cuba, making it, at times, difficult and at other times, nearly impossible, to travel to Cuba.

In the context of the US embargo against Cuba there is another issue which needs redressing.

There has been some international attention to the situation of the Cuban 5, but relatively little in the US. The Cuban 5 were five heroes from Cuba who came to the US to fight terrorism. They gathered information on anti-Cuban terrorist organizations in Miami to prevent the continuation of violence against Cuba. They were successful in thwarting many savage attacks on the Cuban people.

After some success, the Cuban government offered to cooperate with US intelligence agencies in preventing violence against their country and elsewhere.

Instead of cooperation, the Cuban 5 were arrested and have been in prison since 1998. Condemned by many international human rights organization, this action by the US government has been a horrible stain on the reputation of the US and its people. Two of the five have served their sentences and have returned to Cuba. Three still remain in prison.

Alan Gross, a Jewish American was apprehended by the Cubans in December, 2009. He was a subcontractor for the USAID working on a project funded by the 1996 Helms-Burton act. He has been languishing in prison since his arrest. The Cubans maintain that he committed crimes against the Cuban people.

Recently, four more individuals from the US affiliated with anti-Cuban groups have been apprehended and are in prison in Cuba.

There is a movement supporting the release of the Cuban 5. Similarly, there is a movement encouraging President Obama to “bring Alan Gross home.” There could be a movement to bring home the recently apprehended individuals as well.

Many people have suggested that the US negotiate in good faith with the Cubans to secure the release of Alan Gross and to return the remaining Cuban 5 to their homeland. Now, the demand could include the return of the recently apprehended men.

Detaining the Cuban 5 in federal prisons is blatantly anti-Christian and violates many teachings of the Bible to include “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Failure to bargain in good faith for the release of Alan Gross also violates these principles.

It is time for the people of the US to demand that President Obama release the Cuban 5 and “bring Alan Gross home” and to return home the recently apprehended people. This would be an excellent first step towards normalizing relations with Cuba. Normalizing relations with Cuba would demonstrate that the US government has not forgotten the principal teachings of the Bible. To do otherwise is an affront to Christians everywhere.

by: W. T. Whitney Jr.

May 15 2014 People’s World

Beginning over 50 years ago, terror attacks emanating from the United States struck ships, crops, and infrastructure in Cuba. They killed people there and around the world. Cuban leaders faced murder plots. Terrorists bombed an airliner fully loaded with passengers. Such murderous, destructive attacks seemed to stop, however, with the Havana hotel bombings in 1997. But you would have lost your bet that terrorist preparations had ended.
On May 7 Cuba’s Interior Ministry announced that four men of Cuban origin living in Miami were arrested on April 26. Jose Ortega Amador, Obdulio Rodríguez González, Raibel Pacheco Santos, and Félix Monzón Álvarez reportedly “admitted that they intended to attack Cuban military facilities in order to promote violence. [T]hree of them had traveled to Cuba in several occasions in 2013 to study the scene and prepare their actions.”

Why is this no surprise? One, the Miami area continues as a safe haven for Latin American terror perpetrators fleeing their homelands, Cuba in the lead with Venezuela not far behind. Secondly, the U.S. government, not shy about anti-terrorist rhetoric, never really has condemned terror assaults against Cuba. Third, U.S. government actions or inaction may signal official approval for anti-Cuban terror.

Thus Luis Posada entered the United States illegally in 2005, never to be convicted on that count, or for serious crimes, among them: the airliner bombing attack in 1976, Cuban hotel bombings, and his plan with others to assassinate former Cuban President Fidel Castro in Panama. Despite requests, the U. S. government refuses to extradite Posada to Venezuela to face legal proceedings related to the airliner bombing.

And in 1998 the Cuban government gave FBI personnel reams of incriminating material on terror activities in Florida. The FBI responded by arresting Cuban undercover agents who helped collect that intelligence information.

And at their trial in Miami, five of those anti-terrorist agents – now known as the Cuba Five- received sentences so outlandish as to suggest that some terrorism is allowable. Their combined total of four life sentences plus 75 years contrasts sharply with the usual 10-15 sentences handed out to defendants convicted of spying for Iraq, the Philippines, China, Taiwan, or Israel.

Moreover, the U.S. government made sure those anti-terrorists were convicted. Its Office for Cuba Broadcasting subsidized Miami area journalists to produce over 800 prejudicial newspaper reports or television presentation so as to influence community and jury before and during their long trial.

Lastly, for the sake of destabilization a flood of U.S. money flows through private and university affiliated agencies in Southern Florida on its way to counter-revolutionaries in Cuba. Likely fallout from such a program would be a community ethos that encourages the terrorist faithful to move ahead on their own.

The sparse announcement from the Cuban Interior Ministry indicated that the four men arrested “admitted that these plans have been organized under the leadership of Miami-based individuals, such as Santiago Álvarez Fernández Magriñá, Osvaldo Mitat, and Manuel Alzugaray who are closely linked to international terrorist Luis Posada Carriles.”

Lawyer and construction magnate Álvarez contributed mightily to Miami’s terrorist-friendly atmosphere. In August 2004 he sent two airplanes to Panama to fetch Posada and three Miamians released early from prison to which they were sentenced for the assassination attempt against President Castro. Posada was dropped off in Honduras. Álvarez’ yacht brought him to Miami the following year.

In late 2005 Broward County police discovered Álvarez’ cache of 20 automatic weapons, plus grenades, a grenade launcher, ammunition, gas masks, and a silencer. Other illegal weapons belonging to Álvarez surfaced in the Bahamas. Through plea bargaining he and employee Osvaldo Mitat received reduced sentences of 30 months and two years, respectively. Allegedly Álvarez once tried to have Havana’s Tropicana nightclub bombed.

At far as the New York Times is concerned, the arrest in Cuba of men bent on terror is a Cuban problem, not a U.S. one. Its May 8 report said that Álvarez “denies any involvement in the alleged plot. Some others here (Miami) raised questions about how much the case is about crime and how much is about politics…. [A] week after Washington again kept Cuba on its short list of state sponsors of terrorism, the Cuban government publicly announced that violent plots persist. Cuba-watchers said the case was hard to separate from political theater.”

www.thecuban5.org

May 15, 2014

By Salim Lamrani

Since 2009, U. S. agent Alan Gross has been serving a fifteen year prison sentence in Cuba for providing material support to the Cuban opposition. In the meanwhile, three Cuban agents have been incarcerated in the United States since 1998. The possibility of an exchange of prisoners exists. The case of Gerardo Hernández, one of the three Cubans sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment, lends itself particularly well to such a humanitarian agreement. Here, in 25 points, are the reasons why.

1. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, the radical sector of the Florida-based Cuban exile community increased its terrorist attacks against Cuba. The tourism industry – a vital sector of the fragile Cuban economy – was a particular target. Bomb attacks resulted in dozens of casualties. Faced with the immunity these violent fringe groups were receiving from U.S. authorities, the Havana government decided to send several agents to the United States to infiltrate these criminal organizations and prevent the realization of further potentially lethal acts.

2. In June 1998, after gathering evidence about the terrorist activities of 64 exiles living in Florida, the Cuban government invited two FBI officers to Havana in order to present them with the evidence that it had accumulated. But, rather than arresting those responsible for these crimes, the FBI arrested the five Cuban intelligence services agents who had infiltrated the criminal organizations: René González Sehweret, Ramón Labañino Salazar, Fernando González Llort, Antonio Guerrero Rodriguez and Gerardo Hernández Nordelo.

3. Following a trial that has been denounced by many legal institutions for its numerous irregularities, the five Cubans nonetheless won their case on appeal from a three-judge panel of the Atlanta Court of Appeals. The tribunal found that they had not received a fair trial. The U.S. government, however, lodged an appeal and the Five eventually received a total of four sentences of life imprisonment, and an additional sentence of 77 years. On October 13, 2009, the Atlanta Court of Appeals instructed the Florida court to modify the prison sentences for three of the five defendants. The review that was conducted resulted in Antonio Guerrero’s penalty of life imprisonment plus 10 years being changed to 21 years plus 10 months, plus an additional penalty of five years of supervised release. On December 8, 2009, Fernando González’ sentence of 19 years was reduced to 17 years plus nine months. In the case of Ramón Labañino, his sentence of imprisonment for life plus 18 years was reduced to 30 years in prison. Rene González and Fernando González were freed after serving their entire sentences.

4. Gerardo Hernández was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment plus 15 years in prison for conspiracy to commit a quadruple murder. He is accused of being directly involved in an incident that occurred on February 24, 1996. That day two planes, manned by four pilots from the Florida-based organization Brothers to the Rescue (BTTR), were shot down by Cuban armed forces after having violated Cuban airspace 25 times in 20 months.

5. José Basulto, president of BTTR, a former CIA officer who had participated in the Bay of Pigs invasion, is heavily implicated in terrorist acts against Cuba. In a Miami television interview Basulto publicly admitted to having participated in several strikes against Cuba, including a bazooka attack on a hotel in August of 1962.

6. BTTR was founded in 1991 to assist the Cubans trying to reach Florida by sea. In 1994, Washington and Havana signed immigration agreements that authorized the granting of 20,000 visas per year to Cubans wishing to emigrate. These agreements also provide that any person attempting to reach the United States by sea would be returned to Cuba. With this agreement, BTTR lost its reason for being and has since begun organizing raids inside Cuban airspace.

7. A chronology of events permits us to capture the key elements of this story. During the months preceding the serious incident of February 24, 1996, Cuban authorities warned the United States frequently, both through diplomatic notes and unofficial channels, that repeated violations of its airspace constituted a threat to Cuban national security and that the planes involved were running the risk of being shot down. Washington chose to ignore these warnings.

8. Ignoring the risk of being shot down, BTTR aircraft on several occasions provoked the Cuban armed forces by entering Cuban national airspace. In addition to its forays over the capital, BTTR planes created interference between the Havana control tower and aircraft landing at José Martí International Airport, thereby endangering the lives of thousands of Cuban passengers and foreign tourists.

9. On July 13, 1995, BTTR planes flew over the city of Havana and dropped 20,000 leaflets, inciting the population to rise up against the government.

10. On the same day, Cuban authorities sent a letter emphasizing the possibility of a military response to the Federal Aviation Administration. The letter underscored the illegal incursions into Cuban national airspace and the “serious consequences” that such acts could entail if they were to continue .

11. The Government of the United States, instead of taking the necessary measures to prevent such violations of international law, allowed BTTR the latitude necessary to pursue their incursions, despite the fact that the organization, since 1994, had repeatedly filled false flight plans with the Federal Aviation Administration.

12. At no time had Gerardo Hernández participated in the Cuban airspace violations, nor had he incited BTTR members to commit these illegal and dangerous acts. Moreover, Hernandez had never participated at the necessary hierarchical level within BTTR to prevent these flights. Everything was under the control of José Basulto.

13. The State Department issued several statements warning BTTR that its planes ran the risk of being shot down if they continued to violate Cuban airspace.

14. In January 1996, BTTR dropped 500,000 leaflets over Havana inciting the population to overthrow the government. On January 15, 1996, Cuba once again demanded that the U.S. put an end to the repeated violations of its airspace.

15. After new breaches of their national airspace in January 1996, Cuba warned Washington that if these overflights continued, the aircraft would be shot down. Havana reiterated these warnings to all U.S. public figures who visited the island between January 15 and February 23, 1996.

16. On January 22, 1996, the State Department sent an alert to the Federal Aviation Administration: “One of these days, the Cubans are going to shoot down one of those planes .” José Basulto had repeatedly stated in the media that he was aware of the danger.

17. In February 1996, Cuban authorities sent a message to their agents in Miami indicating that in no case should they participate in BTTR flights.

18. On February 23, 1996, the Federal Aviation Agency sent an “Alert Cuba” message to several agencies indicating that BTTR planned a new foray into Cuban airspace the following day. “The State Department said it would be unlikely that the Cuban government would exercise restraint this time .”

19. On 24 February 1996, the government of the United States warned the Cuban authorities that three BTTR planes had taken off from Miami and were able to penetrate Cuban airspace.

20. After several warnings, two of the three planes were shot down by Cuban forces in Cuban airspace, an action that constitutes an act of self-defence under international law. No country in the world – certainly not the United States – would have waited until the 26th violation of its airspace by an organization, after having made numerous appeals for help, to take such a measure.

21. However, the United States asserts that, according to its satellite data, the two planes were shot down in the international zone, which would constitute the crime for which Gerardo Hernández is accused. Of course, publication of satellite data would remove any ambiguity about the matter. However, since 1996, the United States has refused, for reasons of “national security,” to make this information public despite repeated requests from Gerardo Hernández’ lawyers.

22. In any case, Hernández has not been implicated in the decision to shoot down the planes, a decision that was taken by the Cuban authorities at the highest level.

23. In order to convict Gerardo Hernández, the prosecution needed to prove that there had been an illegal scheme afoot to shoot down BTTR aircraft in international airspace and that Hernández had precise knowledge of this scheme and in fact had supported such an action. The prosecution was unable to provide any evidence demonstrating the involvement of Gerardo Hernández in this drama. Better yet, the prosecutor acknowledged that “the evidence presented at trial that attempts [to prove the involvement of Gerardo Hernández] represents an insurmountable obstacle for the United States .”

24. Judge Phyllis A. Kravitch of the Atlanta Court of Appeals has spoken about the case of Gerardo Hernández: “A shoot down in Cuban airspace would not have been unlawful […]. It is not enough for the Government to show that a shoot down merely occurred in international airspace: the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hernández agreed to a shoot down in international airspace. Although such an agreement may be proven by circumstantial evidence, here, the Government failed to provide either direct or circumstantial evidence that Hernández agreed to a shoot down in international airspace. Instead, the evidence points out toward a confrontation in Cuban airspace, thus negating the requirement that he agreed to commit an unlawful act.”

25. For all of these reasons, Barack Obama should use his powers as President of the United States and pardon the three Cubans that are still imprisoned. This will have the immediate effect of freeing Alan Gross and improving relations between Washington and Havana.

Translated from the French by Larry R. Oberg

Docteur ès Etudes Ibériques et Latino-américaines at the University of Paris Sorbonne-Paris IV, Salim Lamrani is a Lecturer the University of La Réunion, and a journalist who specializes in relations between Cuba and the United States.

The author’s latest book is The Economic War against Cuba. A Historical and Legal Perspective on the U.S. Blockade, New York, Monthly Review Press, 2013. http://monthlyreview.org/press/books/pb3409/  (prologue by Wayne S. Smith and preface by Paul Estrade).

http://www.globalresearch.ca/cuban-five-a-prisoner-exchange-that-could-improve-relations-between-cuba-and-the-united-states/5382416

Contact : lamranisalim@yahoo.fr  ; Salim.Lamrani@univ-reunion.fr

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/SalimLamraniOfficiel