The raising of the flags at the embassies on the 20th of July is much anticipated. But what does this all really mean? After more than 56 years of trying to destroy the Cuban Revolution through US sponsored terrorism, an invasion organized and launched by the CIA, biological warfare, an economic and commercial blockade, clandestine infiltrations and a permanent propaganda campaign against Cuba, what would constitute “normal” relations between Washington and La Habana?

The word normal derives from the Latin normalis. In the context of US-Cuba relations it refers to civilized diplomatic behavior, according to historically established philosophical precepts: norms or rules of peaceful conduct between nations.

What rules of peaceful conduct by the United States towards Cuba may we expect from now on? Which normative rules could be considered normal and which abnormal?

It’s normal for two neighboring countries, separated by a mere 90 miles of water, to have diplomatic relations. It’s not normal for the United States to impose an economic, financial and commercial blockade against Cuba.

It’s normal for the US to have an embassy in Havana and for Cuba an embassy in Washington. It’s not normal for the US embassy in Cuba to function without an ambassador, simply because some in the Senate oppose it.

It’s normal for US citizens to travel to Cuba, but it´s not normal to prohibit tourists from the US to travel to the island.

It’s normal for US citizens to travel to Cuba and engage in “people to people” contact, but it’s not normal that the Office of Finance and Assets Control (OFAC) limit it to only group-travel through licensed organizations, thus making travel to Cuba prohibitively expensive and inconvenient for many Americans.

It’s normal for Washington to permit businesses in the US to engage in commerce with private individuals in Cuba, but it’s not normal to make it illegal to do business with state enterprises on the island.

It’s normal for the United States to want a second consulate in Cuba to better serve the public, but it’s not normal that it uses its diplomats to intervene in Cuba’s internal affairs.

It’s normal for the United States to support a process of legal and orderly immigration from Cuba, but it’s not normal for Washington to maintain a Cuban Adjustment Act as a tool to stimulate an illegal, dangerous and disorderly immigration of Cubans to the United States.

It’s normal for the United States Embassy in Havana to provide an open-door policy for Cubans. It’s not normal for its diplomats to organize, direct and employ as salaried dissidents a few Cubans of their choosing.

It’s normal for Washington to contribute to the entertainment of the Cuban people with radio and television programs. It’s not normal for it to maintain a multi-million dollar budget to fund Radio and TV Marti as propaganda instruments.

It’s normal for Washington to want a reputation as a great defender of human rights. It’s not normal for the United States to imprison without due process or civil rights dozens of persons in Guantánamo, as well as torturing them in Cuba.

It’s normal for the United States to have an embassy in Cuba, even a large one, located in prime real estate on the famous Malecón overlooking the bay in Havana. It’s not normal for the United States to occupy, against the wishes of the Cuban people, a large swath of Cuban territory in the province of Guantánamo.

It’s normal for the Pentagon not to invade or send military drones to Cuba. It’s not normal that Washington earmarks a $30 million budget for fiscal year 2016 for a project whose declared purpose is to remove the government of Cuba from power.

It’s normal for Mississippi to be one of the 50 states of the US. It’s not normal for Washington to assume that it has jurisdiction in Cuba as well.

It’s normal for the US to do business with Cuba, but it’s not normal for the US to intervene in her internal affairs.

It’s normal for Washington to condemn terrorism. It’s not normal that it protect in Miami dozens of terrorists, including Luis Posada Carriles, who have committed heinous crimes against civilians in Cuba.

The US blockade against Cuba is a relic of the Cold War whose days are numbered. President Obama’s new Cuba policy, announced on the 17th of December, is a chronicle of the blockade’s death foretold. And it unleashed a torrent of enthusiasm from American businessmen who want to make money by investing there. Businessmen will pressure the Congress to lift the Helms-Burton law that codified parts of the blockade.

But let’s not be naïve. In order to truly say that relations between the US and Cuba are normal, Washington must understand that Cuba does not belong to it, that it is a violation of international law for the US to try and foment regime change in a foreign country and that Cuba must and ought be respected for what it is: a sovereign nation.

President Obama’s Cuba policy is a seismic shift in strategy for the United States. “The old policy did not work. It is long past its expiration date”, said Obama, in his most recent State of the Union speech before Congress. “When what you’re doing doesn’t work for fifty years, it’s time to try something new.”

What is the end game for the United States regarding Cuba? What it is it that US Presidents wished had worked? Clearly, the major premise of Washington’s Cuba policy was always regime change. It failed, and the Cuban Revolution remains strong. That is why President Obama said, that Washington should “try something new”.

Perhaps business can do what isolation could not. Engagement is the new strategy to try and topple the Cuban Revolution.

Cuba is ready for Washington’s policy of engagement. Just as she learned to build trenches to defend the island from invasion, terrorism, biological warfare and a brutal blockade, Cuba will now help the bridges that American businesses will cross to invest there. But Cuba will also be wary. To be sure, Cuba knows that Washington’s end game remains regime change. Cuban laws have always regulated foreign business ventures, and American investment in Cuba will be no different.

Cuba welcomes better relations with the United States and hopes to advance toward normalization. But unless and until the government of the United States has a political metanoia and cancels its desire to dominate Cuba, as it she were its vassal state, normal relations in the true sense of the word will not come to pass.

Article printed from www.counterpunch.org: http://www.counterpunch.org

I want to speak a bit about Chávez the man. He was born into a family of very modest means in 1954 in Sabaneta de Barinas. A small town in the Venezuelan plains: a town that had only three streets, none of them paved.

Hugo was the second of 6 brothers and sisters. He was so poor that his family couldn’t afford to buy him shoes. His grandmother Rosa Inés took him to his first ever day of classes. Hugo wore a pair of alpargatas that she had made out of soft cloth and rope. But the kindergarten teacher would not allow the little boy into the class, until the family could find a way to buy him some shoes. President Chávez remembers he had no toys as a boy and said that he made do by playing with his brother, Adán, imaginary games using imaginary toys: imagen that.

When Americans ask me why there is such an outpouring of emotion among Venezuelans over the death of this man, I point out that the ordinary people of Venezuela saw themselves in President Chávez. The President was a compendium of the very fabric of the country: part black, part indigenous and part white: a man who came from poverty and whose every decision as President was marked by his humble origins. President Chávez never forgot where he came from, and he always remembered who he was.

He dedicated himself to giving a voice to the voiceless: to bringing dignity to a people who had been humiliated for centuries by those in power. To those ends, he empowered the Venezuelan people through the People´s Assemblies he forged throughout the land. Thanks to President Chávez, everything is open to debate in Venezuela. Everything. For the first time in their history, Venezuelans know how to govern themselves.

President Chávez always called Venezuelans hermano, camarada or ciudadano: brother, comrade or citizen. And soon the people began to use those terms when addressing their compatriots. A workingwoman in Caracas summed up how much this meant to her and indeed to the people of Venezuela, when she said: “Citizens? Before Chávez, we didn´t even know we were human beings.”

That, my brothers and sisters, is the President´s legacy.

The Bolivarian Revolution has dramatically reduced poverty in Venezuela, virtually eliminated misery and totally eliminated illiteracy. The wealth generated by its oil company, PDVSA, now goes to people in need, rather than to the foreign oil companies that made billions of dollars from Venezuela´s natural resources—yet managed before Chávez to pay only a 1% tariff on their profits.

The Revolution created Health Missions throughout the country to give free medical care to millions of needy citizens. I once rode in a plane from Havana to Caracas with over a hundred Venezuelans of humble means who were returning home after receiving medical treatment in Cuba, paid for by the Revolution. Many had arrived in Cuba blind in both eyes and they were now cured, thanks to President Chavez’ Operation Miracle.

I will never forget that plane ride. Once they were blind and now they see. Those passengers savored the sight of white clouds against the backdrop of a bright blue sky and marveled at the sight of the aquamarine waters of the Caribbean Sea. They sang during the entire trip. And as the plane was landing, they broke out into a stirring rendition of “Gloria al Bravo Pueblo”, the Venezuelan national anthem, and finished it with choruses of: “Gracias Chávez, Gracias Fidel, Gracias Cuba, Gracias Venezuela.” That, my friends, is what the Revolution is all about.

Yes, it´s true: President Chávez rubbed some the wrong way. The government of the USA, the Venezuelan oligarchy and the media it controls hated him. But the President used to say that unless there is opposition, there is no Revolution. And President Chávez was very much engaged in the business of making Revolution.

He could have been just another Latin American politician: crass and commonplace. But he transcended mediocrity. The President was a leader, a revolutionary, the Simón Bolivar of our time. He fought for a united Latin America, free of the domination long exercised by Spain and the United States.

He was a very unconventional President. He cried with us, sang with us, ate arepas with us, laughed with us and bucked every known rule of diplomatic protocol. He was in a word human. Some talking heads, academicians, businessmen and bankers could never stomach a leader like that, but the people felt his sincerity, his humanity, his brilliance, and his joy of living. He would interrupt his speeches with personal greetings to workers and farmers he had met during his many trips among the people. “Hola Pepe. Un saludo para Pepe en Barquisimeto”. Or, “Gladys en Petare. We are going to finish that project we discussed”.

Or he would break out in English and exclaim with his booming voice. Fidel: How are you Fidel? Or he would send a special message to President Bush in English. Mr. Danger, if you decide to invade Venezuela, I´ll be waiting for you in the Sabana. Come on here, Mr. Danger.” And who can ever forget his exclamation at the UN podium where Bush Jr.

had spoken only a few hours earlier: “Azufre. It still smells like sulfur here.”

He was not an armchair socialist, content to debate the metaphysics of revolution. He was committed to changing Venezuela and he did. He was committed to changing Latin America and he did. He knew that in order for revolutionaries to effect change, they need first of all to seize power and then construct a socialism that is, as Mariátegui said, neither calco ni copia, sino creación heroíca—neither an imitation or a copy, but instead a heroic creation.

President Chávez was a Bolivarian tsunami. He radically changed Venezuela and indeed all of Latin America. Some have said that he has left a vacuum that can never be filled. I disagree. As José Martí said, “Dying is the same as living and even better still, if in life we have done what we ought to.” President Chávez’ deeds exceeded expectations. In death, he is now greater than ever. He shines a bright light on the dark wilderness of poverty, repression and exploitation.

Twelve elections he won before his death at the young age of 58: a remarkable record. Yet his enemies called him a despot. How many elections did Mr. Danger win? King Juan Carlos of Spain, who so criticized President Chávez, has never stood for elections. Kings believe that they should not have to stoop to such trivial matters. They believe they have inherited a God-given right to rule over us mere commoners.

Whenever I arrived in Caracas, turned on the television and saw President Chávez´ face I smiled. I smiled anticipating what he would say next. Among the many attributes that we assign to him, let us never forget fun. Yes. President Chávez was fun. He was a fun guy, and that is another reason he appealed to so many. Another reason he reached even the little children in our society.

A few years ago, I watched a children´s theatre company performing in Caracas. After their performance, President Chávez went on stage to thank the kids. They were in their performance costumes. “What are you dressed as?” the President asked a little girl who was wearing a black cape, a pink blouse that glowed in the dark and a top hat. The little girl responded, “I am a magician.” “Well, don´t make me disappear”, he said to her. “No Mr. President. You, I would have to multiply”, she responded.

Well ladies and gentleman, President Chávez is now multiplied. Today, together we are all Chávez. He is in our hearts and minds. But as President Nicolás Maduro said on Sunday in Caracas, “We are all Chávez, only if we are united. If we are divided, we are nothing.”

Please allow me a variation on the words of one of the most beautiful of national anthems, Cuando el despotismo levanta la voz, seguid el ejemplo que Chávez nos dió. (When despotism raises its voice, follow the example that Chávez gave us). My brothers and sisters, we can make our dream a reality, but only if we remain united. As President Chávez sang to us many times, Compatriotas fieles, la fuerza es la unión. (Faithful fellow citizens, our strength is in our unity).

Our north star is the south. It is Bolivar’s dream of a united Latin America, our dream of a better tomorrow for the poor people of this earth, our dream of making possible the seemingly impossible, our dream de tomar el cielo por asalto (to take heaven by storm): President Chávez’ dream to reach the unreachable star.

It’s the same star that the Man of La Mancha also followed.

This was his quest

To follow that star

No matter how hopeless

No matter how far

To fight for the right

Without question or pause

To be willing to march into Hell

For a heavenly cause

And he knew if he would only be true

To this glorious quest

That his heart would lie peaceful and calm

When he´s laid to his rest

And the world will be better for this

That one man, scorned and covered with scars

Still strove with his last ounce of courage

To reach the unreachable star

Que viva el President Chávez!

Que viva el Presidente Nicolás Maduro!

Que vivan los pobres de la tierra!

Comandante Presidente Hugo Chávez Frías: te acompañaremos siempre!

Chávez Vive, Maduro Sigue!

Bridgetown, Barbados

At the Cave Hill campus of the University of the West Indies in Barbados, Professor Cecilia Karch-Braithwaite also heard the loud droning of a passenger plane overhead. She told me, “It was unusual, because the aircraft was flying too low and was on a path that planes never take when they approach the airport.” She remembers seeing smoke coming from the side of the plane as it banked to the right and dove nose first into the waters of Paradise Beach. The university is located on a hill five miles from the beach.

I met Guiller and Karch-Braithwaite in Barbardos during last week’s ceremonies to commemorate the 35^th anniversary of the murder of the 73 people aboard the Cuban passenger plane that crashed only a few minutes after takeoff from Seawell International Airport in Barbados. Their memories of that day are still vivid.

THE VICTIMS

The aircraft was a DC-8, flown by Cubana de Aviación. It had received its regular maintenance only 10 days earlier and carried 73 persons the day it crashed. The average age on board was a mere 30 years of age, because 24 members of the Cuban  fencing team were returning to Cuba after having swept the gold medals at the Pan American games in Caracas, Venezuela. They boarded the plane wearing their medals. In total, there were 57 Cubans, 11 Guyanese, and 5 Koreans. http://www.granma.cu/barbados/galeria.html

THE BOMBS

At 1:23 p.m., local time, Seawell International Airport reported that the pilot, Wilfredo Pérez, called to report an emergency on board, “Seawell! Seawell! CU-455 Seawell…! We have an explosion on board….. We have a fire on board.” A forensic investigation made by Dr. Julio Lara Alonso established that two bombs exploded aboard CU-455, causing it to crash into the sea. The first bomb—under a passenger seat—ignited a fire near the front of the plane, and the second bomb, which exploded about eight minutes later in the rear bathroom of the plane, brought the plane down in seconds.

“I KILLED MORE THAN THE JACKAL”

Two Venezuelan nationals, Hernán Ricardo and Freddy Lugo, had left the bombs on the plane, before disembarking in Barbados. Lugo later told police officials that Ricardo boasted that the 73 people he killed on the plane were “more than the Jackal,” alluding to the famous terrorist Carlos the Jackal. “Now I’m the one who has the record, because I’m the one who blew up that thing,” he told Lugo.

Ricardo confessed to Barbadian and Trinidad officials who were investigating the crime that he and Lugo bombed the plane and that they worked for the CIA and Luis Posada Carriles. He even drew a diagram for them of the detonator he used to ignite the C-4 explosives he placed in the aircraft. He admitted to receiving $25,000 for downing the plane.

Lugo and Ricardo were extradited to Venezuela by Trinidad and Tobago. There they were convicted for their role in downing the plane and sentenced to 20 years. After serving their time, they were released. Lugo still lives in Caracas, driving a taxi to earn his living. The Miami Herald reported that Ricardo is now an undercover operative in Florida for the Drug Enforcement Administration.

THE MASTERMIND

In 1985 Luis Posada Carriles was indicted and prosecuted as the mastermind of the murder of the 73 persons aboard that plane. But before the Venezuelan court could pronounce a verdict, he escaped from prison.  Within a few weeks, he landed a job with the CIA in an operation that later became known as the Iran-Contra scandal. The United States has never bothered to explain how it was possible for an international fugitive charged with 73 counts of first-degree murder to so quickly land a $120,000-a-year job with the CIA, arming Nicaraguan Contras.

THE HORROR

When he saw the plane crash into the water, Dalton Guiller immediately swung his small ski boat around and in two minutes arrived on the scene. “I was with two other chaps, and we went to see whether there were any survivors. Unfortunately, there were none,” he said. Surrounded by a strong of smell of fuel, Guiller surveyed the horror. “I saw suitcases, seats, and personal effects.  I saw bodies: only one or two of them intact. The others were not full bodies.” He added, “They were suspended at the level of the sea. Perhaps the seat belts cut them off, I could not tell. It was just striking that two or three of the bodies were perpendicular under the sea. Trousers, but no top. Top, but no bottom.”

The forensic report performed by the Barbadian coroner describes the condition of the body of little Sabrina, a nine-year old Guyanese girl who was traveling with her family to Cuba: “Body of a girl around 9 years of age…. Brain missing, only facial bones, scalp, and hair remaining. Lungs and heart destroyed. Liver and intestines shattered. Buttocks missing on right lower limb. Compound fracture of tibia and fibula …“

THE HATRED

The impetus for the horror that invaded paradise that day in Barbados was hatred. Since the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, terrorists have murdered 2,478 Cubans and incapacitated 2,099 others.

Declassified U.S. intelligence cables reveal that Luis Posada Carriles had spoken of plans to “hit” a Cuban airliner only days before Ricardo and Lugo blew up CU-455. The CIA informed Washington, but no one uttered a word of warning to the Cuban or Venezuelan governments.

What happened in Barbados three and a half decades ago is not an isolated incident. The threat persists.  From his lair in Miami, one of the masterminds of the attack on the Cuban airliner, Luis Posada Carriles, continues to call for violence against the Cuban people. His friends continue their efforts to violently lash out at the people of Cuba in an effort to terrorize them into supporting the forceful overthrow of the Cuban government.

OUR MAN IN LATIN AMERICA

Posada Carriles readily admits his relationship with the CIA. His lawyer told a federal court judge that everything his client did in Latin America he did in the “name of Washington.”

What, then, is it that Mr. Posada did in Latin America “in the name of Washington”? Besides the mass murder of the people aboard that passenger plane, Posada tortured Venezuelans in the 1970s, assisted in the murder of Nicaraguans in the 1980s, and trained Guatemalan and Salvadoran death squads in the 1980s and 1990s.  He also planned a series of bombings at prominent Cuban hotels and restaurants in 1997, resulting in the murder of Italian businessman Fabio DiCelmo and the wounding of several others. He also conspired to assassinate the president of Cuba, Fidel Castro, several times, including in 2000 at the University of Panamá, where he planned to use 100 pounds of C-4 explosives to blow up a university auditorium full of students along with the Cuban president.

The cruelty of a 50-year war of terror against Cuba is abhorrent. The training that the United States has given Cuban-American terrorists is immoral. Providing them with weapons is a scandal: continuing to protect them an outrage.

THE DOUBLE STANDARD

In contrast to the United States, Venezuela does not assassinate those it alleges are terrorists. It relies on the rule of law to pursue them, but for the rule of law to be effective, the other parties to those laws, including the United States, must observe their legal obligations. When Posada Carriles illegally arrived in the United States in 1985, Venezuela immediately filed an extradition request, based on an extradition treaty that dates back to 1922 and on an international convention designed to combat terrorism: the Montreal Convention on Civil Aviation. Rather than extraditing Posada Carriles to Venezuela, the U.S. government instead tried him for minor immigration violations in El Paso, and a jury acquitted him of those in April of this year. He now lives freely in Miami.

United Nations Resolution 1373 forbids the harboring of terrorists by member nations. This resolution was introduced by the United States to combat terrorism after the tragedy of 9-11. Does it not also oblige the United States to extradite the terrorists it harbors?

THE CUBAN FIVE

Thirteen years ago, the United States government arrested, convicted and subsequently sentenced Five Cubans in Miami to long prison terms, but they were not terrorists.

The Five had gone to Miami to gather evidence against Cuban-American terrorists. In 1998, Cuba turned the evidence over to the FBI in the hope that the terrorists would be arrested and prosecuted. Yet the U.S. government didn’t arrest or charge the terrorists. Instead it arrested, charged, and imprisoned those who had gathered the evidence. The Cuban Five have been in jail now for 13 cruel years.

Gerardo Hernández is serving two life terms plus 15 years. The Court of Appeals ratified his sentence. Even if he dies in prison twice and resurrects each time, he would still not have completed his sentence.

Ramón Labañino was sentenced to a life term plus 18 years—subsequently the Court of Appeals ruled the sentence to be in violation of the law for being too harsh, vacated it and remanded his case to the same judge who had sentenced him. Judge Joan Lenard in Miami re-sentenced him and reduced the sentence to “only” 30 years.

Antonio Guerrero was sentenced to a life term plus 10 years. The Court of Appeals vacated his sentence, and Judge Lenard reduced it to “only” 21 years and ten months.

Fernando Gonzalez was sentenced to 19 years. The Court of Appeals vacated it, and Judge Lenard reduced it to “only” 17 years and 9 months.

René González was sentenced to 15 years. The Court of Appeals ratified his sentence, and he was released from jail on October 7. However, his release comes with conditions. He is not allowed to return to Cuba, as he wishes, to rejoin his wife and children but must instead remain in the United States for three more years—an additional punishment as cruel as it is irresponsible. The terrorists that the United States protects are free and would relish exacting their revenge on the man who monitored their activities on behalf of Cuba.

INDIFFERENCE VS. INDIGNATION

Getting the United States to extradite Luis Posada Carriles is not easy, and convincing President Barack Obama to free the Cuban Five will also be difficult. Neither case appears on the radar of American public opinion. The United States counts on the indifference of people. It knows that indifference is the unsung ally of injustice.

But as people learn about the history of terrorism against Cuba they grow indignant and demand justice.  Indifference crumbles when confronted with indignation.

THE MEMORY OF THOSE KILLED

The 73 persons assassinated in cold blood 35 years ago in Barbados are not forgotten. As I stood on Paradise Beach in front of the monument to their memory, I listened to the national anthems of Cuba and Barbados and scanned the sea before me, where the plane lies at the bottom of Deep Water Bay., remembering that the remains of 58 persons were never recovered.

Standing next to me at the monument was the son of Wilfredo Pérez, the brave pilot who steered the aircraft away from the sandy beach to avoid killing dozens of Barbadians on shore. Wilfredo (he is named after his father) could have easily allowed hatred to consume him, but instead he became a psychologist.  His life’s work is to help broken people to mend.

Killed aboard that plane was also Nancy Uranga, a pregnant 22-year-old fencer from Cuba. It is well known that 73 persons were killed that day over Barbados, but few know that Nancy was pregnant and that the terrorists killed her unborn child as well.

The terrorists also killed Carlos Cremata that day. Carlos was 41 years old. He was a member of the crew and also an actor. His friends and family recall that Carlos always greeted them with, “Viva la vida” (Long live life). One of his sons, Carlos Alberto Cremata, founded one of the world’s most renowned children’s theater companies—La Colmenita (The Little Beehive)—whose mission is “sembrar el amor” (to sow love). La Colmenita is now on tour in the United States.

There is a history of injustice in the waters of Paradise Beach in Barbados. The cold-blooded murder of the 73 people aboard that passenger plane was a crime against them, their families, and their countries. It was also a crime against Barbados and its people.

THE BAJAN-AMERICAN

The Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder Jr., is a Bajan-American. He was raised in a Bajan household in New York. His father, Eric Sr., was born in Barbados and married the daughter of Barbadian immigrants.

When he visited Barbados in 2008, the soon-to-be nominated Attorney General said, “I feel that I grew up partly in Barbados and partly in New York.”

History has now given him an opportunity to solve a mass murder that occurred in his parents’ home country 35 years ago. Mr. Holder can present to a United States District Court Venezuela’s request for the extradition of Luis Posada Carriles. He can also recommend that President Obama exercise his constitutional power of executive clemency to free the Cuban Five.

THE CHARACTER OF THE UNITED STATES AS A NATION

The extradition of Luis Posada Carriles to Venezuela and the liberation of the Cuban Five are the responsibility of the United States and its people. More than merely legal issues, they are a moral imperative. At stake are not simply the facts of two particular criminal cases but bedrock principles of social justice and the character of the United States as a nation.

Will Eric Holder and President Barack Obama be up to the task? Will the people of the United States demand justice?

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

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?

By José Pertierra

The attorney for one of the convicted killers of Chilean diplomat, Orlando Letelier, testified today in El Paso on behalf of Luis Posada Carriles.

José Dionisio Suárez Esquivel was convicted for conspiring to murder Letelier and his assistant Ronni Karpen Moffitt in Washington, D.C., on September 21, 1976. Michael Townley, a U.S. citizen, confessed to having placed the bomb underneath the car. Suárez Esquivel and his accomplice Virgilio Paz detonated it as Letelier’s car was passing near the Chilean embassy that rainy morning.

Afterwards, Suárez Esquivel went underground. He lived as a fugitive for 14 years, until his arrest in Florida in 1990. He later confessed to his role in the double-murder conspiracy and was sentenced to eight years in a penitentiary.

With a straight face Ralph E. Fernández, the attorney for Suárez Esquivel, argued the novel legal theory that the rain—not his client—had detonated the bomb that killed Letelier and Moffett. Not surprisingly, no one bought his story. The Government didn’t indict the rain, and his client was convicted of murder.

The expert’s knowledge

Ralph E. Fernández took the stand in El Paso and testified that he left Cuba as an eight-year-old-child. He said that he has not set foot on Cuban soil since the day he left in 1961, yet he dared to declare to the jury, “I know everything that goes on in Cuba. It is difficult for me to be modest about this.” Fernández is now a practicing attorney in Tampa, Florida.

Judge Kathleen Cardone qualified the witness as an expert in matters relating to Cuba. As such, Fernández was able to freely air his opinions without any need to establish an experiential foundation.

Fernández’s testimony was being sought by the defense to impeach the testimony of the Cuban investigator, Roberto Hernández Caballero, who testified several weeks ago. The Cuban witness had established that bombs exploded in several Cuban hotels and restaurants in 1997.  Fernández maintains that Hernández Caballero falsified evidence—years ago—against a client whom the attorney defended in Tampa on federal charges of skyjacking a Cuban plane.

The prosecutor’s 71 objections

The U.S. government attorney, Timothy J. Reardon, III, vigorously opposed Ralph Fernández’s testimony and moved that Judge Cardone not allow the witness to testify. “He is simply a defense attorney who cross-examined Hernández Caballero some years ago, defending a client of his who was accused of hijacking a Cuban airplane,” argued Reardon. The judge rejected his argument and allowed the testimony.

During the two hours that followed, defense attorney Rhonda Anderson questioned Fernández, and Reardon rose to make 71 forceful objections. Reardon challenged practically all of the defense attorney’s questions. But Judge Cardone overruled approximately 95 per cent of the objections.

Reardon’s main complaint was that the witness’ testimony was totally irrelevant to this case. The skyjacking of a Cuban airplane years ago is not related to the charges pending in El Paso against Posada Carriles, Reardon said. Moreover, Fernández has no personal knowledge whatsoever about the bombs that exploded in Havana in 1997. Lastly, argued Reardon, the defendant is Luis Posada Carriles and not the Republic of Cuba.

The judge did not offer her reasons for overruling the prosecutor’s objections.

The only time that Posada Carriles’ full name was mentioned during Fernández’s testimony was when Reardon mentioned it in order to object to the irrelevance of the Tampa attorney’s statements.

The informant

The witness astonished the judge, the attorneys, the prosecutors and the jury, when without anyone asking, he blurted out in open court that he was an FBI informant. “I collaborated with U.S. intelligence even while representing my client, because I thought there were certain common interests,” declared Fernández. The Tampa attorney did not explain whether he had sought his client’s permission before informing the FBI.  It must be hoped that he did.

“My handlers are with the FBI,” the witness said proudly. “A handler is the agent who directs you,” he declared during direct examination by the defense attorney.

The startled prosecutor rose and said, “Excuse me. Did he just say that his handlers are with the FBI?” Defense attorney Anderson confirmed that the witness had said precisely that.

Reardon objected to the testimony again and was overruled.

Attorney Anderson then told the witness that she wanted to ask him about a letter he received from his FBI handler. Fernández turned to the jurors and dropped this tantalizing phrase, “We are now entering into matters that have to do with the national security of the country.”

Reardon, who had just been handed a copy of the letter, jumped from his seat and bellowed, “Your Honor, this is a ‘Dear Ralph’ letter from an FBI agent. It’s not even been offered as evidence yet, Your Honor!”

The judge called the attorneys for a sidebar conference. We don’t know what they discussed in private, but when attorney Anderson renewed her direct examination, she made no further mention of the ‘Dear Ralph’ letter from the FBI. We presume “the national security of the country” is safe for now.

But this witness continued to divulge alleged secrets without any encouragement. For example, he suddenly revealed that he had helped another of his clients, Adel Regalado, collaborate with the Assistant United States Attorney in Miami, Caroline Heck-Miller, to convict the Cuban Five. “Regalado was an ‘asset.’ This has not been previously divulged,” said the attorney smugly, as if he was giving an exclusive for the local nightly news. I almost expected him to add, “Details at 11:00.”

A quick check of the Internet reveals that the news was not as exclusive as the witness had made it sound. Fernández had already given that “exclusive” story to a Florida paper in 2002. He told the press that a Miami prosecutor had informed an immigration judge that Regalado provided the Government with information about the Cuban Five that was useful to their prosecution.

Brothers to the Rescue

Attorney Anderson then turned to the shooting down of the Brothers to the Rescue aircraft by Cuban Mig fighter planes in 1996. This also had nothing to do with the case at hand. Posada Carriles was not even remotely involved in that incident. Nevertheless the judge allowed it.

“In that case, Cuba introduced falsified evidence, trying to establish that the shoot-down occurred over Cuban waters,” said Fernández while admitting that he had also represented José Basulto, the founder and head of Brothers to the Rescue.

In response to questions by the defense about Brothers to the Rescue, Fernández testified about the organization’s alleged humanitarian work, but never spoke about José Basulto’s acts of violence against civilian targets in Cuba.

Cuba films its tourists going to the bathroom?

The expert witness repeated that he knew everything there is to know about Cuba, and declared under oath that Castro’s communist government films all foreigners who visit the island, even when they are using the bathroom. Satisfied that she had laid a proper foundation for her next line of questions, defense attorney Rhonda Anderson asked the witness whether the hotels in Cuba have the necessary video equipment to do this surveillance.

“Do you know if Cuba does videotaping in the hotels?” asked Attorney Anderson.

The answer was worthy of the type of nonsense expounded by the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland. Fernández said, “Not as different from everywhere which is everywhere. Everything is videotaped everywhere in Cuba, according to our intelligence.”

With a look of “What did he just say?” on his face, Reardon lodged three objections. They were each overruled. Judge Cardone allowed Fernández to finish his narrative about the alleged videotaping habits of the Cuban government. “From bathrooms to kitchens, everything is videotaped in Cuba,” he declared under oath.

The witness did not tell the jurors how many video cameras there are on the island nor how much it would cost to record all the bathrooms, kitchens and corners of an entire country.

The prosecutor was stunned. “I don’t even know where to begin with this objection,” he told Judge Cardone. He needn’t have bothered.  The judge resoundingly rejected his objection and allowed the witness to continue to tell the jurors about how Cuban communists tape the tourists as they use the toilet.

The judge was annoyed, but not by the witness’ testimony. She threatened the prosecutor. “I’m very close to imposing sanctions, Mr. Reardon.” The prosecutor apologized, but continued to object throughout the rest of the questioning of Fernández.

An “expert” opinion

Moving from the expert witness’ special insights into the voyeuristic habits of communists in Cuba, attorney Anderson asked him, “Do you have any opinion about Roberto Hernández Caballero?”

The prosecutor objected again, but for naught. The judge overruled him, and allowed the witness to answer. “Colonel Hernández Caballero does whatever serves the interests of Cuba,” said Fernández.

The defense attorney then concluded her cross-examination.

“I am proud to be an American”

It was Reardon’s turn to ask questions. “Do you support the assassination of Fidel Castro?” he asked.

“No. I want him to live 20 more years in order to see him debilitated, so that he pays for everything that he has done,” said Fernández. “I want the world to see him debilitated, because Castro is the founding father of terrorism,” added the attorney for the man who murdered Orlando Letelier.

Reardon then asked what cause Fernández advocated. The witness liked the question. He immediately answered with evident pride in his voice, “First, for Cuba’s freedom, and second, for the security of the United States. One cannot be a good Cuban if one is not a good American [referring to U.S. citizens and not to the inhabitants of the rest of the American continent].”

He further explained that if a conflict between Cuba’s freedom and the security of the United States occurred, he would side with the latter.  “I am proud to be an American,” said the witness.

Recalling that Fernández had twice stated that he knew “everything that happens in Cuba,” Reardon showed him a photo of the Copacabana Hotel, the hotel where Fabio Di Celmo was murdered on September 4, 1997 by shrapnel from a bomb that Posada Carriles is alleged to have sent to Cuba. “It is a building that I have never seen before,” said the expert.

“Do you have personal knowledge that there are video cameras monitoring this hotel?” asked the prosecutor. Fernández tried to explain that he had been told that there were, and Reardon insisted that the witness’ answer be limited strictly to what he himself had observed. “No,” the witness had to respond. “I’ve never been there.”

Having unmasked the expert before the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Reardon concluded cross-examination.

The Honduran witness

The defense then called Fernando Lardizábal as its next witness. An officer in the Honduran navy in the 1980s, Lardizábal admitted that he, too, had no information about the bombs that exploded in Havana in 1997.

Reardon asked the judge to dismiss the entire testimony of Lardizábal as completely irrelevant. But Judge Cardone rejected the prosecutor’s request and allowed the Honduran to state that Posada Carriles was a “senior U.S. intelligence officer who fought in the name of the United States in the 1980s in Central America.”

He said that Posada Carriles represented the CIA in various high-level meetings in Honduras and that he was in charge of supplying the Nicaraguan Contras during that decade. “Posada Carriles was in the CIA,” stated Lardizábal.

The defense’s strategy

Why such eagerness by the defense to bring up Posada Carriles’ history with the CIA? Since his client’s arrest by U.S. Government officials in the spring of 2005, Arturo Hernández has been threatening to tell everything he knows regarding his client’s years in the CIA. The prosecution has fought tooth and nail against the declassification of certain sensitive documents that Posada’s lawyers wanted released.

This afternoon, for example, the prosecution filed a motion under seal that it prepared three days ago regarding information that the defense has asked the Government to declassify.

The testimonies of Fernández and Lardizábal are meant to remind the judge and the prosecutor that Posada is a man who knows a lot.  That if they continue to pressure him, he is capable of divulging certain CIA secrets that the United States would rather that he did not tell.  Fernández left it very clear that he also knows a lot, and it would appear that he has a great desire to talk about it.

Until now, the defense has not rebutted the evidence that the Government presented in its case in chief:

* Bombs exploded in key hotels in Havana in 1997, one of which killed Fabio Di Celmo on September 4, 1997, in the Copacabana Hotel.
* Posada Carriles told an immigration judge and various immigration officials under oath that he was not involved in those bombings.
* Posada Carriles admitted to the New York Timesthat he’d been the mastermind of those terrorist actions and that he even received financing from New Jersey to carry out the campaign against the Cuban tourism industry in 1997.

We shall see if the defense is thinking of rebutting the prosecution’s evidence or if the jurors will have to listen to the defense attorney demonizing Cuba to sanctify Posada and if it will continue to threaten to let the skeletons of the CIA’s fifty-year war against Cuba out of Langley’s closet.

José Pertierra practices law in Washington, DC. He represents the government of Venezuela in the case to extradite Luis Posada Carriles.
Translated by Machetera and Manuel Talens. They are members of Tlaxcala, the international network of translators for linguistic diversity.
Spanish language version:http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2011/04/01/diario-de-el-paso-la-ignorancia-del-experto-y-las-71-objeciones-del-fiscal

]]> http://en.cubadebate.cu/authors/jose-pertierra/2011/04/11/el-paso-diary-experts-ignorance-and-71-objections-from-prosecution/feed/ 2 http://en.cubadebate.cu/authors/jose-pertierra/2011/04/08/el-paso-diary-witness-from-maria-elvira-live/ http://en.cubadebate.cu/authors/jose-pertierra/2011/04/08/el-paso-diary-witness-from-maria-elvira-live/#comments Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:10:05 +0000 José Pertierra http://en.cubadebate.cu/?p=1265 El Paso Diary: Day 39 of the Posada Carriles Trial

By José Pertierra

The María Elvira, Live! show came to El Paso this week. Luis Posada Carriles’ defense attorney turned the federal trial into a television talk show. The defense called Roberto Hernández del Llano as a star witness in an attempt to impeach the previous testimony of Cuban investigator Roberto Hernández Caballero, who had inspected the bombing scenes in Havana in 1997.

Hernández del Llano is one of María Elvira’s favorite guests. He is an habitué of television talk shows, where he holds forth on the personal lives of Fidel Castro, his wife and their children. He never offers any proof of what he says. He simply declares his assertions are true, so they can spread like wildfire in Miami’s Little Havana. Hernández del Llano tried to do the same here in El Paso.

Cuba on trial (again)

Before the witness testified, prosecutor Jerome Teresinski objected without success to Judge Kathleen Cardone. He reminded the judge that she had previously ruled that she would not allow Cuba to be put on trial. “This case is about the crimes of Luis Posada Carriles. It is not about Cuba,” he said.

The judge only partially agreed and said, “I havedecided that the government of Cuba is not being tried here, but I will allow the witness to testify. As the questioning proceeds, you may object to the question, and I will decide if I will allow a response.”

Knowing that even an elephant can fit through the eye of the legal loophole the judge had just left open, Teresinski repeated his objection. “Your Honor, I don’t want to appear to quibble …”

“Hah!” bellowed the defense attorney from counsel table with a loud laugh.

Teresinski became livid. Without finishing his sentence, he said to the judge: “I see nothing funny here His [the defense attorney’s] laughter is stunning.  It is a lack of professionalism.”

The judge tried to placate him, but Teresinski continued to stew for the rest of the day. Each question that the defense attorney directed at the witness met a forceful objection from Teresinski.

The judge overruled nearly all of them, and Hernández del Llano was able to make under oath and in federal court the kinds of outrageous statements that have established his reputation as a provoking television personality on the María Elvira, Live!

The witness’ colorful declarations

He said that Roberto Hernández Caballero, the Cuban investigator who testified last month in El Paso, had personally tortured him in April 2005 at the Villa Marista prison in Cuba. He offered no details. He simply mentioned it.

The witness did not explain why he had never said this in any of his many television appearances on María Elvira, Live! Such a declaration would certainly have boosted the ratings, gotten him a raise and turned him into a hero in Miami’s Little Havana.

Hernández del Llano told the jurors that he had been a major in Cuba’s Interior Ministry (MININT), but that he resigned more than 20 years ago. He said he defected in 2007 and now lives–where else?–in Miami.

He declared that in 2003, two MININT counter-intelligence agents tried to re-recruit him. “The work that they wanted me to do involved a friend of mine and a relative, and so I refused,” he said. “Did you suffer any consequences?” asked attorney Arturo Hernández. “Yes.  They threatened me and shortly thereafter, troops from Villa Marista invaded the home of my brother Pedro Hernández del Valle and evicted his family,” answered Hernández del Llano.

HHH

The direct examination of the witness sounded like blues in H flat: attorney Hernández asking Roberto Hernández about Roberto Hernández.

Roberto Hernández del Llano told attorney Hernández that Roberto Hernández Caballero was the one responsible for his arrest in 2005.  “Since January of 2003, Hernández has directed an entire repressive operation against me,” said Hernández del Llano. “He tortured me physically and beat me.”

At that the judge called a recess. Maybe she wanted to sort out the Hernándezes. But also she had a number of pending matters she wanted to resolve. She has several other cases on her docket besides this one, and there were a dozen criminal defense attorneys in the courtroom (their clients in the court’s holding cell) waiting for sentencing hearings.

Arturo Hernández is not finished with his direct examination, and the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Roberto Hernández del Llano is still to come. The Government has access to the witness’ records, which includes his 2007 application for asylum. It also has access to FBI records regarding the witness and can ask Cuba for its records, assuming that the witness was actually a prisoner there.

The defense’s medical expert

Yesterday a pathologist hired by attorney Hernández also testified: Dr. Ronald K. Wright. He came to El Paso looking like Kentucky Fried Chicken’s Colonel Sanders, in a white suit and a bow tie. With a strong southern accent, he stated that he has testified in 520 cases, 178 of which were criminal cases.

With the exception of about six cases, he has always testified for the defense. “It’s because the prosecutors have cornered the market on forensic pathologists,” he said. He testified that Posada Carriles paid him $4,500 for his testimony. If we counted only the criminal cases in which he testified and multiply them by the $4,500 he was paid for this one, Dr. Wright would have earned more than $800,000 for his testimony over the years. Not a bad gig.

Fingers

Defense attorney Rhonda Anderson questioned Dr. Wright, and he testified that the shrapnel that struck the throat of Fabio Di Celmo was not the cause of death. The thirty-two-year-old Italian businessman died, said Dr. Wright, because of inadequate medical attention by the Cubans.

“If I’d been there, he wouldn’t have died,” the doctor said brimming with confidence. Of course, the Miami-based doctor did not explain how he could be so sure that if he’d been at the side of Di Celmo he could have avoided the shrapnel that fatally wounded the decedent.

“You just needed to hold down the bleeding by putting something on it. It’s a very simple procedure,” he declared. Lifting both arms in the air and moving his fingers around, the doctor said to the jurors. “Fingers, fingers, fingers.  It’s quite simple. If somebody had used his fingers, Di Celmo could have survived for several hours.”

Vanity

The vainer the witness, the easier the cross-examination. Prosecutor Timothy J. Reardon quickly managed to get the witness to admit that Fabio Di Celmo died due to a severe hemorrhage.

“Mr. Di Celmo died, isn’t that true?” he asked.

Upon hearing the witness’ affirmation, he said, “You weren’t there, isn’t that true?”

“Correct,” answered the doctor.

“Are you saying that Di Celmo did not bleed to death?” Reardon snapped.

Dr. Wright hesitated and finally said, “Well, yes. But it didn’t have to happen.”

“It didn’t have to happen, because you would have known how to attend to him immediately with your fingers?” the prosecutor asked with obvious disdain.

Reardon didn’t wait for an answer. He pivoted away from the witness and walked to the prosecutor’s table saying, “I have no further questions.”

José Pertierra practices law in Washington, DC. He represents the government of Venezuela in the case to extradite Luis Posada Carriles.
Translated by Machetera and Manuel Talens. They are members of Tlaxcala, the international network of translators for linguistic diversity.
Spanish language version:http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2011/03/29/diario-de-el-paso-el-testigo-de-maria-elvira-live

swing trading strategies

jfdghjhthit45

]]> http://en.cubadebate.cu/authors/jose-pertierra/2011/04/08/el-paso-diary-witness-from-maria-elvira-live/feed/ 0 http://en.cubadebate.cu/authors/jose-pertierra/2011/04/06/el-paso-diary-sound-and-fury-otto-reich/ http://en.cubadebate.cu/authors/jose-pertierra/2011/04/06/el-paso-diary-sound-and-fury-otto-reich/#comments Wed, 06 Apr 2011 14:51:05 +0000 José Pertierra http://en.cubadebate.cu/?p=1192 El Paso Diary: Day 38 of the Posada Carriles Trial

By José Pertierra

Portada de Newsweek. Foto: Página web de Otto Reich www.ottoreich.com

The defendant’s name was barely mentioned in court in today. Instead, Judge Kathleen Cardone allowed the defense attorney to put the New York Times, its journalist Ann Louise Bardach and the Republic of Cuba on trial.

Last week, after 11 grueling weeks and 23 witnesses, the Government rested. The prosecution’s final witness was Ann Louise Bardach. Now it is the defense’s turn to present its case-in-chief.

A brief biography of the witness

Luis Posada Carriles’ first witness was Otto Reich. He came to court dressed like a banker, wearing a tailored dark blue suit with a light blue tie that stood out from his starched white shirt.

Reich told the jurors that he was born in Havana in 1945 and immigrated to the United States in 1960. “I was 14 years old. My father decided to make our home in North Carolina, because he couldn’t find work in New York,” he said.

“Did you perform military service for our country?” asked defense attorney Arturo Hernández.

“Yes. From July of 1966 to November of 1969,” answered Reich. He did not say and was not asked if he’d served in Vietnam during that period. With evident pride in his voice, Reich told the jurors that he’d worked for President Ronald Reagan and also for both Presidents Bush.

Some pearls of wisdom from Otto

After Reich testified that his duties under Reagan included matters relating to Cuba, Judge Cardone ruled that he could testify as an expert witness. As such, he need not limit his testimony to facts he has witnessed. He may testify about what he thinks, rather than only what he knows.

As an “expert on Cuba,” Reich offered these pearls of wisdom to the jury:

• There are 50,000 soldiers being held prisoner in Cuba and not for insubordination.
• The rafter crisis of 1994 occurred because burly construction workers on Havana’s seaside Malecón hit people over the head during an uprising.
• Our FBI and CIA agents are decent people who obey the laws and rules of humane conduct, whereas their counterparts in Cuba’s intelligence service do not and even kidnap people and kill them.

Since he had been declared an expert, there was no need to establish a foundation for his opinions. Reich’s putative gnosis carries a weight all its own.

His expert opinions, however, fly in the face of well-established wisdom.

According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London—hardly a lefty think tank—Cuba’s troop strength is believed to be somewhere between 50,000 to 60,000. To posit that 50,000 of those troops are in prison, as Reich maintains, means that hardly anyone in the Cuban armed forces has escaped incarceration to defend the country from invasion. Moreover, neither the CIA, the State Department or human rights groups remotely suggest a thing. Only Otto Reich is out on a limb on this issue.

According to Amnesty International, the 1994 rafter crisis was caused by a combination of events—notably the downturn in the island’s economic conditions due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern European nations, Cuba’s long-time trading partners. The U.S. embargo, coupled with laws that virtually guaranteed the legalization of Cubans who took to the seas to illegally immigrate to the United States also fueled the exodus, said Amnesty International. To allege that “burly construction workers” precipitated a mass exodus because they allegedly hit some people over the head at a demonstration is naïve—at best—and irresponsible.

Hasty generalizations are never recommended and ought to be avoided by expert witnesses. Otto Reich’s expert opinion that U.S. intelligence officers “are people who obey the law and the rules of human behavior… whereas Cuban intelligence officers do not” also flies in the face of established fact. According to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, army soldiers as well as American intelligence officers and contractors were responsible for physical, psychological and sexual abuse of prisoners, including torture, rape and sodomy.

Prosecutor Reardon objected vigorously, throughout Reich’s direct examination. “Objection, relevance!” he said repeatedly. Curiously, the prosecutor did not object that the statements were wrong, naïve and without any foundation—nor did he point out that any one of Aesop’s Fables contains more truth than all of Otto Reich’s testimony today.

Judge Cardone overruled virtually all of Reardon’s objections, because she found Reich’s statements relevant for the purpose of impeaching previous witnesses.

It is curious, however, that to impeach the testimony of the two Cuban witnesses, Reich directed his testimony against the country of Cuba. He has no personal knowledge of either the Cuban investigator or the Cuban forensics specialist who testified previously, so he could make no reference to them. But Judge Cardone, by allowing Reich to attack Cuba, allowed him to attack them vicariously.

The Office of Disinformation and Propaganda

Among the posts that Reich held under President Ronald Reagan was Director of the so-called Office of Public Diplomacy, from 1983 to 1986. “It was the first time that the State Department created an office to get ahead of the critics of our foreign policy,” said Reich.

An investigation by the U.S. Comptroller General found that at the end of the 1980s, the office headed by Reich had tried to influence public opinion in favor of the Nicaraguan Contras using “prohibited, covert propaganda.”

Here in El Paso, the Government passed on the opportunity to ask him about a report, dated September 7,1988, from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which evaluated the work of the office directed by Reich and concluded:

“…[S]enior CIA officials with backgrounds in covert operations, as well as military intelligence and psychological operations specialists from the Department of Defense, were deeply involved in establishing and participating in a domestic political and propaganda operation run through an obscure bureau in the Department of State which reported directly to the National Security Council rather than through the normal State Department channels.”

The report added that “…the Department of State was used, and perhaps compromised, by the CIA and the NSC to establish, sustain and manage a domestic covert operation designed to lobby the Congress, manipulate the media and influence domestic public opinion.”

“My office was investigated and they didn’t find anything,” Reich stated today. However, in his first speech as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs at the State Department, Reich joked about the controversy and greeted his “former colleagues” and “unindicted co-conspirators.”

The alleged biases of the New York Times and Ann Louise Bardach

Perhaps because of Reich’s extensive knowledge about how to misinform and manipulate the media, the defense attorney wanted to bring him to El Paso. Attorney Hernández asked him to give the ladies and gentlemen of the jury his evaluation of the pre-eminent newspaper in the United States, the New York Times.

“The New York Times is biased against Cuban Americans in general and against anti-Castro Cuban-Americans in particular,” the expert testified. He also offered an opinion about Ann Louise Bardach, the journalist who wrote for the New York Times and to whom Posada Carriles had confessed to being the mastermind behind the 1997 bombings in Havana.

Using the phrase made famous by Fox News, the rightwing news channel, Attorney Hernández asked, “In your opinion, is Ms. Bardach fair and balanced?”

“She is anything but fair and balanced,” answered Reich.

Hernández then read aloud—in a mocking tone—various phrases from one of Bardach’s books, where the author mentions Reich. Without asking for explanations, he asked Reich if Bardach’s information was correct. “No, it isn’t,” Reich answered tersely.

None of the cited passages had to do with the indictment against Luis Posada Carriles. The essential point of Reich’s testimony consisted of character assassinations of the New York Times and Bardach. “She manipulates information and falsifies things,” stated Reich with the same self-assured tone he used earlier to opine about Cuba.

Eileen Murphy, the vice president of corporate communications for the New York Times, responded this afternoon to the witness’s opinions: “Otto Reich has not demonstrated any factual errors in the [Bardach] stories, nor has anyone else in the 13 years since their publication,” she said.

From Santa Barbara, California, Bardach also responded to Reich’s statements. “Reporters with bias against exiles are not granted interviews with Orlando Bosch, Antonio Veciana, Salvador Lew, Juanita Castro, Angel Alfonso, Raúl Masvidal—and literally scores of Cuban-Americans in Miami I have been granted. The well-deserved criticism of Otto Reich—known for his vendettas with journalists and his perceived critics—by myself and many other reporters is not a reflection on any other Cuban-American,” she said.

It is noteworthy that Judge Cardone would not allow Otto Reich to share his opinion about Luis Posada Carriles with the jurors, yet she permitted him to render vacuous opinions about Cuba, Venezuela, Latin America, the New York Times and Ann Louise Bardach.

No mention of the Venezuelan coup d’état or of Orlando Bosch

In El Paso, no one touched on Otto Reich’s role in the coup d’état in Venezuela in 2002, his criticism of the Venezuelan democratic process and his immediate support for the coup plotters when he was working in the State Department of George W. Bush.

In April of 2002 The Guardian revealed that sources in the Organization of American States (OAS) confirmed that during the months immediately preceding the coup, Reich had a series of meetings with the principal organizers of the coup, where details of the coup were discussed, including its timing and chances for success, which they believed to be excellent.

The day of the coup, according to the Guardian, “Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America and the Caribbean to his office. He said the removal of Chávez was not a rupture of democratic rule, as he had resigned and was ‘responsible for his fate.’ He said the U.S. would support the Carmona government.”

Prosecutor Reardon also did not ask the witness about the cables from the State Department in 1986 and 1987, which confirm that Reich, then the U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela, asked Washington repeatedly for information about the possibility that Orlando Bosch might enter the United States, despite his long history of terrorism and his having been a co-conspirator with Posada Carriles in blowing up a passenger airliner.

Cuban culture

Reardon did ask the witness about the bombings in Havana in 1997. Despite considering himself an expert on Cuba, Otto Reich admitted that the only thing he knew about that terrorist campaign is what he had read in the papers. “I haven’t studied the incident of the bombs,” he said.

“Do you believe that the bombs in Havana in 1997 affected tourism on the island?” Reardon asked the expert. “Mr. Reardon,” explained Reich, as though he was teaching a course on international relations to high school sophomores, “violence is part of Cuban culture.”

Macbeth

What did the jurors think of Otto Reich’s testimony in El Paso? It’s impossible to tell, although he did communicate an allegiance to the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan and both Bushes. It was also evident that Reich doesn’t care for communists or for the New York Times. And it was obvious that he personally detests Ann Louise Bardach.

Yet it was also plain that Reich had absolutely nothing to say about the bombings in Havana in 1997 or about Posada Carriles’ voyage on the Santrina in March of 2005. He was not in Havana in 1997 nor in Isla Mujeres in 2005. He said that he met Posada Carriles for the first time last night in El Paso.

Reich’s testimony in El Paso recalls Macbeth’s speech at Dunsinane Castle:

“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”

Sidebar

I first met Otto Reich in December of 1999, when we both appeared on PBS’s NewsHour, in one of the first televised debates about the Elián González case.

During our several debates over the course of the next several months, Reich defended the proposition that the child should remain in Miami with distant relatives, and I argued that it was up to the father to decide where his son should live. “Elián is not your son, Otto,” I told him many times. I was part of the legal team that represented Elián’s father. I’ve not seen Reich since we won Elián’s case. The little boy returned to Cuba to live with his father 11 years ago. When we saw each other last night at the hotel, Reich mentioned our debates, “Pertierra, I haven’t seen you since the Elián case.”

“Otto, that case we won,” I reminded him.

José Pertierra practices law in Washington, DC. He represents the government of Venezuela in the case to extradite Luis Posada Carriles.
Translated by Machetera and Manuel Talens. They are members of Tlaxcala, the international network of translators for linguistic diversity.
Spanish language version: http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2011/03/26/diario-de-el-paso-el-cuento-de-otto-reich

]]> http://en.cubadebate.cu/authors/jose-pertierra/2011/04/06/el-paso-diary-sound-and-fury-otto-reich/feed/ 3 http://en.cubadebate.cu/authors/jose-pertierra/2011/04/04/el-paso-diary-swinging-doors/ http://en.cubadebate.cu/authors/jose-pertierra/2011/04/04/el-paso-diary-swinging-doors/#comments Mon, 04 Apr 2011 17:17:28 +0000 José Pertierra http://en.cubadebate.cu/?p=1182 El Paso Diary: Day 37 of the Posada Carriles Trial

Ann Louise Bardach

A pair of swinging doors separates the well of the court from the seating area for the press and invited guests. They swing four or five times every time someone pushes on them to pass through. This afternoon, after the defense attorney for Luis Posada Carriles finished his cross-examination of the journalist Ann Louise Bardach, he barreled through the doors with such force that they swung 12 times altogether. I know because I counted.

Hernández knew that he did not succeed in discrediting the journalist, despite his desperate effort to accomplish that. Bardach left the stand, having firmly established that the recording of her 1998 interview of Posada Carriles, which the jurors heard, was authentic. She also evidenced that the Solo fax was written and signed by the defendant.

The jurors listened to the recording and heard Posada Carriles confess to being the mastermind behind the bombings in Havana, and they read the Solo fax, which revealed that the money trail for the bombings began in New Jersey and led directly to Posada Carriles in Guatemala and El Salvador.

Last chance

Today was the last chance for the defense attorney to impeach Bardach. After watching him in action for the past two and a half months, the jurors have learned to gauge the defense attorney’s temperament. For one thing, his ears give him away. The redder they get, the nastier his demeanor. This afternoon they were the color of ripe tomatoes.

Hernández opened fire with a statement, rather than a question. “Ms. Bardach, each time I ask you about the conversation that you had with Mr. Posada after you turned off the tape recorder, you take advantage and add or subtract whatever occurs to you.”

Bardach responded defiantly, “You want to ask and answer your own question, and you are making wild accusations against me. It’s too bad you’re doing this.”

Posada’s pride

Hernández then focused on an article that Bardach and her colleague Larry Rohter had written for the New York Times and which the Times published on the front page of its Sunday edition on July 12, 1998. The defense attorney read aloud from Bardach’s article, “Mr. Posada proudly admitted authorship of the hotel bomb attacks last year. He described them as acts of war intended to cripple a totalitarian regime by depriving it of foreign tourism and investment.”

Hernández followed that question with this one, “Where in the transcript—out of Mr. Posada’s mouth—did he tell you that he ‘proudly admitted’ to the bombings?”. “I asked him and he told me ‘yes,’” answered Bardach. “I took that as an affirmative response. We journalists are in the information collection business, and you lawyers in the deletion business.”

Cherry picking

One way of twisting the meaning of the compromising statements Posada Carriles made to Bardach is to try to take them out of context, something that on the stand she repeatedly called cherry picking. That is, selecting the most desirable phrases.

This exchange between the attorney and the witness is an excellent example of Hernandez’s cherry picking today. He read a portion of the Bardach interview out loud, in a voice that was alternately monotonous and derisive:

Bardach: Okay…then, the part about Colombia is … true. He conspired to move plastic explosives from Guatemala to Cuba last fall, hiding them in diapers, shampoo bottles and…you know, Guatemalans can pass as tourists.

Posada: True, more or less.

Bardach: True, more or less.

Posada: It’s not … it’s not …

Bardach: Not completely.

Referring only to that portion of the transcript, Hernández asked Bardach, “Mr. Posada denied there having introduced explosives into Cuba from Guatemala, but you say ‘not completely.’ Isn’t it true that you are putting words in my client’s mouth?”

“Wrong!” said Bardach, at the same time mimicking the sound of a bell. “What you’re doing is shameful.” She pointed out to the defense attorney that in the part of the interview he selected, Posada was talking about an article that appeared in the Miami Herald the previous month, which alleged that Posada had planted bombs in Guatemala.

“In the part of the interview you cherry picked, I was reading to him the Miami Herald article, and he responded by telling me that no bombs went off in Guatemala,” said Bardach. “He was telling me that the Miami Herald is wrong, that the bombs went off in Cuba—not in Guatemala.”

In apparent exasperation, she added, “Let the jurors read the entire interview, including the parts you censored. Let them also read my three articles from the New York Times, as well as my books (Cuba Confidential and Without Fidel). It would be much better for them.”

You don’t want to hear the truth

The exchanges between Posada Carriles´lawyer and the journalist got testier. Hernández’s face reddened and he raised his voice at the witness. “How can you, with God as your witness, say that my client was proud [of what he’d done]?” he bellowed.

Bardach didn’t flinch. She said, “Would you stop yelling at me and using that tone of voice?”. She added, “You don’t want to hear the truth.  Posada was proud of what he’d done, and he got to be on the cover of the Sunday New York Times. That’s as good as it gets!”

The purpose of cross-examination is to suggest to the jurors that the witness is lying. There is a danger, though. If the jurors believe that the cross-examiner has become abusive, is playing tricks or manipulating the evidence, then it’s the attorney—not the witness—whose credibility is undone.

During cross-examination, attorney Hernández insulted Bardach. He mocked and tried to ridicule her. When he couldn’t make any headway with his aggressive questions, he lost his temper and shouted at her.

Had he bothered to look at the jurors, he would have observed that they were enjoying Bardach.  They liked her idiosyncrasies and her quick retorts.

But it was a rough cross-examination. When Hernández finally finished, Bardach left the stand, walked directly into the arms of her husband Bob and burst into tears.

The King of Hearts, the Unhappy Lizard and Arturo Hernández

The defense attorney’s questions were reminiscent of the cross-examination by the King of Hearts at the trial of the Knave of Hearts in the Lewis Carroll story, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. As the White Rabbit announced in open court, the Knave was indicted for stealing the Queen of Hearts’ tarts. The King cross-examined the witness:

What are tarts made of?”

“Pepper, mostly,” said the cook.

“Treacle,” said a sleepy voice behind her.

“Collar that Dormouse,” the Queen shrieked out. “Behead that Dormouse! Turn that Dormouse out of court! Suppress him! Pinch him! Off with his whiskers!”
The King’s questions in Wonderland made no sense. They were pure gibberish. Bill, the unhappy Lizard in the jury box, tried to take notes but soon realized that his scratches made no marks on the slate.

Here in El Paso, the jurors’ notepads were also blank. They stopped taking notes because they had come to realize that Hernández’s questions were no more than nonsensical wordplay. At the end, the defense attorney looked like he, too, wanted to behead the witness, but he had to confine the unleashing of his frustration to the courtroom’s swinging doors.

Sidebar

This afternoon a giant of the legal profession, Leonard Weinglass, passed away at the age of 78. He was the attorney for the Cuban Five, a fighter for justice.

Weinglass did not become a lawyer to make money or to run for office. His clients weren’t bankers or drug-traffickers. He chose to defend los pobres de la tierra (the poor people of the earth) and those who struggled for a better world.

Weinglass’ life taught us that justice is not the law we find in books. He showed us that the finest advocacy is not merely interpreting the law but striving for justice.

Leonard Weinglass, ¡Presente!

José Pertierra practices law in Washington, DC. He represents the government of Venezuela in the case to extradite Luis Posada Carriles.
Translated by Machetera and Manuel Talens. They are members of Tlaxcala, the international network of translators for linguistic diversity.
Spanish language version:http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2011/03/24/el-diario-de-el-paso-puertas-batientes

]]> http://en.cubadebate.cu/authors/jose-pertierra/2011/04/04/el-paso-diary-swinging-doors/feed/ 1 http://en.cubadebate.cu/authors/jose-pertierra/2011/03/30/el-paso-diary-posada-tango/ http://en.cubadebate.cu/authors/jose-pertierra/2011/03/30/el-paso-diary-posada-tango/#comments Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:53:27 +0000 José Pertierra http://en.cubadebate.cu/?p=1122

By José Pertierra

Posada y su abogado Arturo Hernández

It’s one thing for an attorney to zealously defend his client’s interests and quite another for him to embrace the defendant’s premises. An attorney is most effective, when he keeps a certain critical distance.

Here in El Paso, Luis Posada Carriles’ attorney has adopted his client’s cause as his own—thus coloring his cross-examination to the point of silliness. His nutty questions about Cuba are pregnant with the false postulates of certain exiles in Little Havana who haven’t set foot on Cuban soil in more than five decades. It’s evident that the Miami defense attorney hasn’t done his research.

The art of cross-examination

A good defense attorney takes charge during cross-examination, but he should be careful that the jurors do not perceive him as abusive of the witness. The secret is in being able to develop a narrative for the jury, through skillful questions, that is convincing yet different from the story the witness wants to tell.

But if the jurors feel that the attorney is bullying the witness, the cross-examination backfires. And if the questions are fraught with dubious assumptions, the witness can easily disarm them and expose the attorney’s theory of the case as sheer fantasy.

Many of the questions posed today by defense attorney Arturo Hernández to Ann Louise Bardach revealed more about the attorney, than the witness.

The attack begins

Hernández arrived this morning in a dark grey suit, white shirt and purple tie. With a furrowed brow and reddened ears, he adjusted his spectacles on the tip of his nose and began firing away at the witness.

“Having established, Ms. Bardach, that you have been in Cuba 10 times and that you have interviewed Fidel Castro on two occasions, isn’t it true that only people who are trusted by the Comandante manage to obtain an interview?” Hernández asked.

With that question, the hand-to-hand combat that began yesterday between the Miami attorney and the journalist from California, resumed.  “That’s not true,” answered Bardach.

“Isn’t it true that only journalists favored by the regime are granted the privilege of interviewing theComandante?”

Annoyed by his cynicism, Bardach raised her voice and said, “That’s not true, Mr. Hernández. The correspondents Maria Shriver, Ted Koppel, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings have also interviewed him. Do you think that they’re all agents of the Cuban Revolution?”

Attorney Hernández then showed a photograph to the witness for identification. “It’s a photograph that shows me with Fidel Castro,” said Bardach.

“The photograph shows you in close proximity to theComandante,” said Hernández, sneering each time he said Fidel Castro’s rank.  Without knowing where Hernández was headed with this question, Bardach answered, “Yes. This is our sit-down interview,” and shrugged her shoulders.

“Is that a pen in your hand?” asked the defense attorney? Without waiting for the answer to the question, Hernández asked another, “Isn’t it true that journalists are not allowed to interview Fidel Castro with a pen in their hand?” “I’ve never heard such a thing,” answered Bardach.

“Isn’t it true that journalists are forbidden to sit so close to Fidel Castro?” inquired the Miami attorney. Incredulous, Bardach answered, “No, that’s not true.”

I feel slandered

“But isn’t it true that you have a history of writing articles critical of the Cuban American community in Miami?” asked Hernández.

Bardach, who has earned numerous prizes and recognition for excellence in journalism—including a place on a Miami Herald top ten books list—reacted sharply.  “That’s not true, sir, and you know it.” “I don’t demonize anyone in my stories. I feel as if I am being slandered here.”

Hernández then asked Bardach several more times why hadn’t she interviewed or written previously about dissidents in Cuba. In vain Bardach tried to explain to the Miami attorney that she had spoken with dissidents in Cuba and even spent quite a bit of time with General Patricio de la Guardia, the twin brother of Colonel Tony de la Guardia, who was executed in Cuba along with General Arnaldo Ochoa in 1989 for drug-trafficking and treason. Patricio de la Guardia received a 30-year prison sentence. He is now serving the remainder of his sentence under house arrest.

“Are you referring to the Patricio de la Guardia who is the paid assassin of Fidel Castro?” asked Hernández, looking toward the jury.  “I’ve never heard that,” said Bardach. “Look, Mr. Hernández, you know that Mr. Posada’s sister is a colonel in the Cuban army. Let’s not criminalize everybody who lives in that country,” the thoroughly irritated Bardach answered.

Hernández is known to ask the same question in a variety of ways during cross-examination, and so he asked again, “You think that you haven’t written critically about the Cuban-American community?”

“Look, Mr. Hernández,” answered Bardach. “The truth is that there are people in that community that have broken the law.” She offered the example of David Rivera, a Cuban American congressman from Miami who is under investigation for financial irregularities, as well as Jorge Mas Canosa, linked to, “That funny business with Miami County. The entire community is not tarnished simply because of the mistakes of certain individuals,” stated Bardach.

Hernández: “Are you mocking me?”

Hernández directed Bardach’s attention to Cuba once again. “The Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR) are instruments used by the Castro regime to maintain control of the country, isn’t that true?” asked the attorney.

“They also distribute food and help neighbors resolve certain daily problems,” she said.

The vein on the Miami attorney’s neck bulged and his face reddened. “Are you mocking me?” he demanded. “Fifty years of exile and you are telling me …?”

He didn’t finish the question. Prosecutor Timothy J. Reardon rose and made an objection, which Judge Kathleen Cardone immediately sustained. “Move on,” she said.  Hernández changed the subject, but only slightly.

“Didn’t you write in your book that the Miami community is a mirror image of the CDRs in Cuba?” he asked.

“Look, Mr. Hernández, the idea you are presenting here—that I have a dog in this fight—is a lie—sir,” Bardach answered.

The gap

There is a four-minutes-and-twenty-seconds gap within the more than six hours of tape recordings that Bardach made during her interview of Posada Carriles in June of 1998.

The defense attorney directed Bardach’s attention to it, “I want you to listen to the gap.”

A perplexed Bardach responded, “Mr. Hernández, I’m confused. You want me to listen to a gap?”

That was exactly what attorney Hernández wanted. For more than four long minutes, the judge, the attorneys, the prosecutors, the witness, the interpreters, the bailiffs, the clerks, the assistants, the jurors and the journalists listened to the gap in the tape. “A dramatic pause,” as the prosecutor later referred to it.

At the end of the sound of silence, Hernández drew his finger across his throat and his colleague, Rhonda Anderson, switched off the recording. “Ms. Bardach, now that we’ve heard a gap of four minutes and twenty seconds, you may explain to us what may have caused that.”

“I don’t know. Perhaps someone pressed the wrong button when the transcript was made. That sometimes happens. But if anything significant had happened during that brief time, it would be in my notes—and there’s no indication of that,” answered Bardach.

“You erased that part of the recording?” Hernández asked accusingly.

“Please! That’s absurd,” answered Bardach. “I am in the information collecting—not the destroying—business. I’m a journalist,” answered Bardach.

The size of the recorder

The defense attorney also accused Bardach of recording the interview without having sought his client’s permission. “That’s almost funny. The tape recorder was practically on Posada’s lap many times. He himself turned it off when he didn’t want something recorded. It’s huge. It’s more than six inches high,” answered the journalist, mouthing an audible “duuuh.”

The jurors will remember the answers, not the questions

Hernández failed to impeach Bardach’s testimony. He knew it. He looked deflated. Tomorrow he will have another opportunity, but today his questions didn’t hurt her.

Bardach proved to be difficult to cross-examine. She is a brilliant and eccentric witness. Hernández could not box her in. She turned the tables on him, giving the jurors lengthy explanations that put Hernández’s questions into a context that suited her.

While on the stand, Bardach nearly drove the judge, the prosecutors and the defense attorney over the edge. The jurors, however, clearly enjoyed her. Bardach gave them a lesson on the role of Posada Carriles in the 1997 bombing campaign in Havana, as well as a history of the terrorism Cuba has faced over five decades, including the role played by the Cuban American National Foundation.

Today the jurors will remember Bardach’s stories, not Hernández’s questions.

The tango and the confession

The day ended with a clip from the interview. The jurors heard the unmistakable voice of Posada Carriles, but in the background they also heard a trio singing one of Carlos Gardel’s most famous tangos:

El día que me quieras
no habrá más que armonía.
Será clara la aurora
y alegre el manantial.
Traerá quieta la brisa
rumor de melodía.
Y nos darán las fuentes
su canto de cristal.
El día que me quieras
endulzará sus cuerdas
el pájaro cantor.
Florecerá la vida
no existirá el dolor.

(The day that you love me/There’ll be only harmony/The dawn will be clear/and the spring joyful./The breeze will carry a quiet/hint of melody./And the fountains will give us/their crystal song./The day that you love me,/the songbird’s call/will be sweetened./Life will blossom,/there will be no pain.)

In the foreground, Posada was singing a different sort of tango, one about being the mastermind behind the bombings in Havana and the murder of Fabio Di Celmo in the Copacabana Hotel.

Bardach: So, you’re like … “el jefe.”
Posada: Sí.
Bardach: The mastermind …
Posada: Compartmentalized … I know everybody but they don’t know [me] …”
Bardach: So you were saying … the intention was to scare off the tourists, not to kill the tourists.
Posada: Yeah.  Sure.
Bardach: But one, you know, one person was killed.
Posada: Yeah.  But you know what happened?
Bardach: No.
Posada: Sixty feet away … here was this poor guy … in the chair …
Bardach: Yeah.
Posada: … and the bits … small …
Bardach: Shrapnel …
Posada: … ahhh … and took the jugular. This was the unluckiest guy in the world … because it took the jugular … It’s sad … because it is not our intention … But we can’t stop because … eh … that Italian was sit down … at the wrong time … at the wrong place.

José Pertierra practices law in Washington, DC. He represents the government of Venezuela in the case to extradite Luis Posada Carriles.
Translated by Machetera and Manuel Talens. They are members of Tlaxcala, the international network of translators for linguistic diversity.
Spanish language version: http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2011/03/23/diario-de-el-paso-el-tango-de-posada

Winter said its goodbyes to El Paso last night. Spring is here. But the equinox doesn’t bring flowers to El Paso: only dust, lots of dust. Forty-mile-an-hour winds blew through this border town this afternoon. Leaving the courthouse exhausted from an afternoon of cross-examination by Luis Posada Carriles’ attorney, Ann Louise Bardach confronted the storms from the Chihuahuan Desert that blew sand in her eyes as she leaned into the wind to return to her hotel.

This is her fourth day on the stand. Bardach is now confident and self-assured as a witness. Her husband Bob gave her a kiss on the cheek, and with a brisk step she took her place, ready for battle.

Her testimony today established that Posada Carriles admitted to her 13 years ago that he was the mastermind of the bombing campaign in Havana in 1997. She also testified that Raúl Cruz León, the Salvadoran who was tried and sentenced in Cuba for having placed several of the bombs—one of which killed the Italian tourist Fabio Di Celmo—worked for Posada Carriles. Under grueling cross-examination, Bardach defended the articles she had written for theNew York Times in July 1998 as faithful to the statements that Posada Carriles had given during the interview in Aruba a month before.

The censored version of the interview

The interview lasted more than 13 hours and took place over three days. But only six and a half hours were recorded, because every time they touched on details about what Posada Carriles called “delicate” matters, he asked Bardach to turn the tape off.  Sometimes, said Bardach, Posada himself turned it off.

Before trial, the defense attorneys negotiated with the prosecutors over the censoring of certain parts of the interview that had nothing to do with the El Paso trial against Posada Carriles.

Posada Carriles is not on trial for terrorism or murder. This means the jury is not allowed to learn about the downing of a passenger plane in 1976 that killed all 73 persons on board. They are not permitted to hear of Posada Carriles’ service to the CIA that lasted more than three decades, nor of the era at the beginning of the 1970s when he was chief of special operations for the Venezuelan intelligence service (DISIP), nor of the violent operations he carried out for Jorge Mas Canosa in the organization called the Representación Cubana en el Exilio—with the training and support of the CIA—in the 1960s.

The jurors will also not learn here that Posada Carriles was a key player in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s, nor of his secret relationships with the paramilitary organizations of El Salvador and Guatemala, also in the 1980s. The details of the assassination attempt on Cuban President Fidel Castro in 1997 at Isla Margarita are also beyond the scope of what the jury may be told.

To keep the jury members in the dark, the court edited the recordings from six and a half hours to two hours and forty minutes.

The charges

Three of the charges against Posada Carriles in El Paso have to do with the bombings in Havana. One charge of perjury accuses him of having lied under oath when he said that he had not solicited the assistance of other people to place bombs in Cuba.  Another charge, also perjury related, alleges that he lied when under oath in saying that he had not made arrangements to send Raúl Cruz León to Cuba with explosives. The third count is for having obstructed a federal investigation into international terrorism by denying the statements he’d previously made to the New York Times in 1998.

The three charges are closely tied to the interview by Ann Louise Bardach in Aruba.

The confession

The jury clearly heard Posada Carriles’ voice admitting to involvement with the bombings in Havana hotels. The exchange went like this:
Luis Posada Carriles: In the … bombs in the … hotels …
Ann Louise Bardach: hm mmm.
LPC: …we tried … to put small explosives … We didn’t want … because we didn’t want to hurt anybody.

A few minutes further in the recording Posada Carriles told Bardach that Fabio Di Celmo is the “unluckiest in the world,” because the shrapnel cut his jugular vein. “We can’t stop,” he told Bardach, just “because that Italian was sitting in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

Alice in Wonderland

The defense attorney, Arturo Hernández, has the difficult task of convincing the jury that during his conversation with Bardach, Posada Carriles said what he meant—but didn’t mean what he said. The defense argument is reminiscent of the conversation between Alice, the March Hare, and the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland. Lewis Carroll wrote that Alice’s solution was “to say what you mean…[or] mean what [you] say—that’s the same thing, you know.”

“Did Posada Carriles explicitly say to you that he had written the Solo fax?” asked Hernández. “Yes,” answered Bardach. “Where in that recording did he say those words?” he asked again. “Where did my client say, ‘I wrote the Solo fax’?” he added. “Isn’t it true that he never uttered those words?”

Bardach answered with irritation: “I asked him if he wrote the Solo fax and he answered ‘yes.’ Afterwards, we talked about that for several hours.”

“Isn’t it possible that he didn’t actually say ‘yes,’ but laughed instead?” asked Hernández.

“He said yes while he laughed. We’d been talking about his use of the alias ‘Solo.’ It was his favorite.  That’s why he laughed,” answered the witness. Yesterday she’d explained that Posada’s favorite alias comes from a character in the 1960s TV program, The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

Hernández tried to plant a seed of doubt in the jurors’ minds concerning Tony Álvarez, the Cuban-American businessman who intercepted the fax from Solo in his office in Guatemala and who heard Posada Carriles say that he knew a mechanic at the Guatemalan airline who could take explosives to Cuba.

“Didn’t you suspect that Tony Álvarez might have been the one who wrote the Solo fax?” Hernández suddenly asked Bardach.  “Frankly, no,” Bardach answered bluntly.

Realizing that he was not getting anywhere with this plan of attack, Hernández tried another. “Don’t you think it’s inconsistent that Posada should have written the fax but also told you that he didn’t know the people whose names appeared on the fax?” he asked.

“No. It’s not inconsistent in the least. Mr. Posada protects his collaborators in order not to hurt them,” said Bardach. “Furthermore he told me that he was the boss, the mastermind. It’s in the tapes.”

Raúl Cruz León

Raúl Cruz León is a Salvadoran who was convicted in Cuba for planting the bomb that killed Fabio Di Celmo at the Copacabana Hotel.  The defense attorney tried to exploit Posada Carriles’ statement to Bardach that he didn’t know Cruz León personally. “Don’t you believe that it might have been a violation of the journalistic code of ethics to say in the New York Times that Cruz León worked for Mr. Posada?” asked Hernández.

At that, the witness had had enough. Bardach straightened in her chair, raised her voice and answered, “Mr. Hernández, he did work for Posada. Posada told me so himself—‘I’m the boss,’ ‘el jefe,’ ‘the mastermind’—the one ‘in charge of the operation.’”  She added, “Lots of CEOs don’t know who their employees are.”

Who is “the guy”?

Hernández was persistent. He began to read the part of the transcript where Posada Carriles said that “another guy” hired Cruz León. “Another guy!  It could have been anyone who hired him,” said the lawyer, without following his statement with a question.

Bardach responded with annoyance, “I know who the guy is, you know who the guy is, they [the prosecutors] know who the guy is.  Everyone knows who the guy is but we can’t say who the guy is. You don’t want us to say who the guy is,” said Bardach. “Let’s call him Mister X. This guy would never have hired Cruz León without Posada wanting him to hire Cruz León.”

The “guy” is Francisco Chávez Abarca. He was tried, convicted and sentenced in Cuba for terrorist activities. Chávez Abarca confessed to hiring a number of Guatemalans and Salvadorans, including Raúl Cruz León, to carry out terrorist actions in Havana on behalf of Luis Posada Carriles.  But last December the judge ruled that she would not allow Chávez Abarca to be deposed in Havana. The jury, therefore, will not learn of the important link between Posada Carriles, Chávez Abarca and Raúl Cruz León.

The defense attorney continued to press Bardach on the subject. “Where did you get that information [about “the guy”]?” he asked. “The entire recording is saturated with it,” answered the witness. “Posada was the boss. Cruz León worked for him. He hired Mister X. This is typical of paramilitary operations and organizations,” said Bardach.

“Play the whole thing”

“It’s not in the transcript and this case has to go strictly by the evidence. Where is it in the transcript?” said the attorney.