NLG Says Politics Motivated Decision in Cuban Five Case

Two Judges on Three-Judge Panel Uphold Conspiracy to Commit Murder Conviction Despite Government’s Lack of Evidence

New York. The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) believes that politics influenced yesterday’s federal appeals court decision upholding the convictions of five Cuban patriots accused of spying in the United States. The so-called Cuban Five were gathering information on U.S.-based exile groups planning terrorist actions against their island nation.

The court did, however, vacate the sentences of three of the Five, including two serving life terms. A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals returned the three cases to a federal judge in Miami for re-sentencing based on findings that the three men had gathered no classified information.

The full 11th Circuit court in August 2006 upheld the convictions of the Five: Gerardo Hernández , Fernando González , René González , Ramon Labañino, and Antonio Guerrero. It rejected claims that their federal trial should have been moved out of Miami because widespread opposition to the Cuban government among Cuban-Americans would make it impossible to get a fair and impartial jury.

In the appeal ruled on yesterday, the Five challenged rulings on the suppression of evidence from searches conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, sovereign immunity, discovery procedures, jury selection, prosecutorial and witness misconduct, jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions, and sentencing.

In this latest decision, the panel voted 2-1 to affirm the life sentence for Gerardo Hernández, who was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in the deaths of four Miami-based pilots shot down by Cuban jets in 1996. In her 16-page dissent, Judge Phyllis Kravich wrote that the government failed to present evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hernández agreed to participate in a conspiracy to shoot down planes over international airspace, resulting in the deaths of four pilots from an anti-Castro organization, Brothers to the Rescue. The panel also affirmed Rene González's 15-year sentence for acting as a non-registered foreign agent and conspiracy to act as a non- registered foreign agent.

The panel vacated the life terms of Labañino and Guerrero, agreeing with their contentions that their sentences were improperly configured because no "top secret information was gathered or transmitted." The judges also vacated Fernando González's 19-year sentence because he was not a manager or supervisor of the network. The panel remanded these cases to the district court for re-sentencing.

After a trial that lasted six months, the Five were convicted in 2001 of acting as unregistered Cuban agents in the United States and of conspiracy to commit espionage for attempting to penetrate U.S. military bases. A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit overturned the convictions in 2005, saying there should have been a change of venue. But the full court reversed that decision, 10-2.

"Conspiracy has always been the charge used by the prosecution in political cases," said NLG attorney Leonard Weinglass, who represents Guerrero. "In the case of the Five, the Miami jury was asked to find that there was an agreement to commit espionage. The government never had to prove that espionage actually happened. It could not have proven that espionage occurred. None of the Five sought or possessed any top secret information or US national defense secrets," Weinglass added. "The sentence for the conspiracy charge is the same as if espionage were actually committed and proven. That is how three got life sentences. The major charges in this case were all conspiracy related, the most serious being conspiracy to commit murder levied against Gerardo Hernández."

"Anti-Cuba sentiment has tainted all possibility of a fair trial for the Five since their original arrest and confinement, which the UN Rapporteur on Torture described as violating the Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment," said NLG Executive Director Heidi Boghosian. "During the original trial, the Bush administration paid journalists to write unfavorable stories about Cuba. Anti-Cuban extremists tried to intimidate the jurors, and even prospective jurors admitted that they would be afraid to return not-guilty verdicts against the Five."

"For nearly 50 years, anti-Cuba terrorist organizations based in Miami have engaged in countless terrorist activities against Cuba," said NLG President Marjorie Cohn. "In the face of this terrorism, the Cuban Five were gathering intelligence in Miami in order to prevent future terrorist acts against Cuba."

Read on >>

Guantánamo Detainees' Fate at Stake in Boumediene

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday in Boumediene v. Bush. Most of the 34 detainees whose fate hangs in the balance in this case were brought to Guantánamo after being picked up by bounty hunters or tribesmen in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yet the Bush administration has fought hard to keep them away from any independent court where they could contest the legality of their confinement.

In February, two judges on a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that strips the statutory rights of all Guantánamo detainees to have their habeas corpus petitions heard by U.S. federal courts. The Supreme Court will decide in Boumediene whether these men still have a constitutional right to habeas corpus.

If the lower court decision is left to stand, they can be held there for the rest of their lives without ever having a federal judge determine the legality of their detention.

Background on the Guantánamo cases

In June 2004, the Supreme Court decided Rasul v. Bush, which upheld the right of those detained at Guantánamo to have their petitions for habeas corpus heard by U.S. courts, under the federal habeas statute.

The ink was barely dry on Rasul when Bush created the Combatant Status Review Tribunals, ostensibly to comply with the Rasul ruling. But these tribunals amounted to an end-run around Rasul. They were established to determine whether a detainee is an enemy combatant.

At the end of last term, the Supreme Court struck down Bush's military commissions in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld because they did not comply with due process guarantees in the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. Military commissions are criminal courts to try prisoners for war crimes.

Then, in October of last year, in another end run, this time around Hamdan, Bush rammed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 through a Congress terrified of appearing soft on terror in the upcoming midterm elections. The Act does many things, but it notably amends the habeas corpus statute to strip statutory habeas rights from all Guantánamo detainees.

Do detainees retain constitutional right to habeas corpus?

The two-judge majority in Boumediene upheld the Military Commissions Act's stripping of statutory habeas jurisdiction that the Supreme Court had recognized in Rasul.

Art. I of the Constitution contains the Suspension Clause, which says that Congress can suspend the right of habeas corpus only in times of rebellion or invasion when the public safety may require it. We are not now in a state of invasion or rebellion, and Congress did not make such a finding.

The two-judge majority in Boumediene said: (1) in the absence of a statutory habeas right (which Congress eliminated in the Military Commissions Act), the Constitution only protects the right of habeas corpus that was recognized at common law in 1789; (2) the law in 1789 did not provide the right of habeas corpus to aliens held by the government outside of the sovereign's territory; and (3) Guantánamo is outside U.S territory for constitutional purposes, even though the U.S. has complete control over it.

This reasoning is erroneous for three reasons.

First, the Supreme Court held in INS v. St. Cyr that the Constitution protects the writ as it existed in 1789 "at the absolute minimum." The high court in Rasul cited St. Cyr.

Second, although the Boumediene majority relies on the treaty that says Cuba, not the U.S., has sovereignty over Guantánamo, the Supreme Court rejected that argument in Rasul, when it said: "By the express terms of its agreements with Cuba, the United States exercises 'complete jurisdiction and control' over the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, and may continue to exercise such control permanently if it so chooses. . . Aliens held at the base, no less than American citizens, are entitled to invoke the federal courts' authority under §2241."

Third, although the Rasul Court was analyzing the pre-Military Commissions Act habeas statute, it also cited Johnson v. Eisentrager, which construed the constitutional right of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court in Eisentrager denied habeas jurisdiction to German citizens who had been captured by U.S. forces in China, then tried and convicted of war crimes by an American military commission in Nanking.

The Eisentrager court listed six factors to determine whether an alien is entitled to constitutional habeas jurisdiction in U.S. courts. These factors were cited in Rasul, which said:

"In reversing that determination, this Court [in Eisentrager] summarized the six critical facts in the case:

“We are here confronted with a decision whose basic premise is that these prisoners are entitled, as a constitutional right, to sue in some court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus. To support that assumption we must hold that a prisoner of our military authorities is constitutionally entitled to the writ, even though he (a) is an enemy alien; (b) has never been or resided in the United States; (c) was captured outside of our territory and there held in military custody as a prisoner of war; (d) was tried and convicted by a Military Commission sitting outside the United States; (e) for offenses against laws of war committed outside the United States; (f) and is at all times imprisoned outside the United States.”

"On this set of facts, the [Eisentrager] Court concluded, “no right to the writ of habeas corpus appears.”

The Rasul court continued:

"Petitioners in these [Guantánamo] cases differ from the Eisentrager detainees in important respects: They are not nationals of countries at war with the United States, and they deny that they have engaged in or plotted acts of aggression against the United States; they have never been afforded access to any tribunal, much less charged with and convicted of wrongdoing; and for more than two years they have been imprisoned in territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control.

"Not only are petitioners differently situated from the Eisentrager detainees, but the Court in Eisentrager made quite clear that all six of the facts critical to its disposition were relevant only to the question of the prisoners’ constitutional entitlement to habeas corpus."

Combatant Status Review Tribunals not adequate substitute for habeas corpus

In Boumediene, the Bush administration asked the Court of Appeals to review the Combatant Status Review Tribunals. But the court declined, saying it had an inadequate record before it.

The Combatant Status Review Tribunals do not provide a meaningful opportunity to challenge detention. The prisoner is not entitled to an attorney, only a "personal representative," and anything the detainee tells his personal representative can be used against him. After reviewing the cases of 393 detainees, a Seton Hall legal team found that in 96 percent of the cases, the government had not produced any witnesses or presented any documentary evidence to the detainee before the hearing. Detainees were allowed to see only summaries of the classified evidence offered against them, and that evidence was always presumed to be reliable and valid. Requests by detainees for witnesses were rarely granted.

In addition, the personal representatives said nothing in 14 percent of the hearings and made no substantive comments 30 percent of the time. Some personal representatives even advocated for the government's position. In three cases, the detainee was found to be "no longer an enemy combatant," but the military continued to convene tribunals until they were found to be enemy combatants. These detainees were never told of the favorable ruling and there was no indication they were informed or participated in the second or third hearings.

As the dissenter in Boumediene pointed out, the procedure set up in the Detainee Treatment Act for reviewing decisions of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals "is not designed to cure these inadequacies. The court may review only the record developed by the CSRT to assess whether the CSRT has complied with its own standards. Because the detainee still has no means to present evidence rebutting the government's case - even assuming the detainee could learn of it contents - assessing whether the government has more evidence in its favor than the detainee is hardly the proper antidote."

The suspension of habeas corpus will certainly have profound effects on non-citizen detainees. Consider the case of Abu Bakker Qassim, an Uighur from China who was held at Guantánamo for four years. He wrote in the New York Times: "I was locked up and mistreated for being in the wrong place at the wrong time during America's war in Afghanistan. Like hundreds of Guantánamo detainees, I was never a terrorist or a soldier. I was never even on a battlefield. Pakistani bounty hunters sold me and 17 other Uighurs to the United States military like animals for $5,000 a head. The Americans made a terrible mistake."

Rasul v. Bush was a 6-3 decision. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, O'Connor and Kennedy voted with the majority. The dissenters were Justices Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist.

The Supreme Court should reverse the Court of Appeals decision in Boumediene, probably in a 5-4 vote with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito voting with the dissent. Surely the Court will not decide that Bush has succeeded in placing the detainees beyond the reach of our federal courts by sending them to Guantánamo. It should also conclude that the judicial review of the decisions of Combatant Status Review Tribunals does not provide an adequate substitute for constitutional habeas corpus.

Read on >>

Remembering Victor Rabinowitz: Legal Giant of the Left

On November 16, 2007, Victor Rabinowitz, one of the giants of the legal profession and a tireless fighter for social justice, died at the age of 96. One of the founders of the National Lawyers Guild 70 years ago, Victor defended unpopular clients when other lawyers were afraid to touch them. During the McCarthy period, he and his partner Leonard Boudin represented unions that were considered to be left-wing. The firm counted as clients Daniel Ellsberg, Paul Robeson, Julian Bond, Dashiell Hammett, Dr. Benjamin Spock, the Rev. Philip Berrigan, Alger Hiss, the Black Panthers, the Salvador Allende government in Chile, and the Cuban government.

Victor handled several landmark cases. In 1950, he challenged the provision of the Taft-Hartley Act that prevented unions from representing workers unless all union officers swore a loyalty oath that they were not members of or affiliated with the Communist Party. He lost the case 5 to 4 in the Supreme Court. His work in the Supreme Court case of United States v. Yellin was instrumental in the demise of the notorious House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). In 1964, in a 8 to 1 decision, the Supreme Court held in Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino that U.S. courts cannot review the legality of the Cuban nationalizations of U.S.-owned property under international law. Victor represented the government of Cuba in that case.

John Mage, prominent radical lawyer and Officer and Director of the Monthly Review Foundation, wrote a review of Victor's book, Unrepentant Leftist: A Lawyer's Memoir, for Monthly Review. Mage recalled his favorite Victor story: "In the Cuban bank litigation, Victor (representing the Cubans) was served with a discovery demand that he forwarded to the Cuban Finance Ministry, at that time headed by Che. Shortly afterwards he was in Havana for an anniversary celebration and was invited to accompany Guevara. Che directed Victor's attention to the confetti being thrown from an office tower and said 'remember that discovery demand? . . . There it is.'"

The Rabinowitz Boudin partnership "constituted the defining invention of radical lawyering," said Northwestern law professor Bernardine Dohrn, a leader of the Weathermen who became the Guild student organizer while Victor was NLG president in 1967. The firm "always represented the most controversial victims of oppressive state power: labor struggles, the Community Party cases, constitutional right to travel and political speech issues, defense of the Cuban revolution, support for the civil rights/Black Freedom Movement, defense of anti-Vietnam War activists, and legal defense of Palestinian political activists," Dohrn added.

In his book, Victor characterized McCarthyism as "the era of Great Fear." In those days, it was the fear of Communism; today, it is the fear of Terrorism that the administration uses as an excuse to decimate civil liberties. Describing the government repression against Communists, leftists, and those suspected of being associated with them, Victor wrote, "It was the worst of times . . . It was a terrible and terrifying time." Even the ACLU "succumbed to the red scare" in those days.

"It became dangerous to utter radical or even progressive thoughts in an audible tone of voice," he added. The motion picture industry, teachers, progressive Congress members, progressive organizations, and those who read books considered "un-American" were targeted. "Thousands of people lost their jobs, with little prospect of finding new ones quickly. Families were destroyed and friendships were wrecked," Victor reported.

Rabinowitz Boudin "probably represented more clients before McCarthy and HUAC than any other law firm in the country, mostly for little or no fee," said Michael Krinsky, a partner in the firm.

Victor wrote, "I was under surveillance by the FBI from the early fifties until the late sixties. The earliest report on me I've found in my FBI files states that on June 23, 1943, I was believed to be a member of the Communist party, and it further described me as an 'agile-minded labor attorney' [Thanks]." Victor joined the Communist Party in 1942 after the Soviet Union and the United States became allies; he remained a member until the early 1960s.

During the Vietnam War, the Rabinowitz Boudin firm represented hundreds of men facing the draft or criminal charges for refusing induction due to their opposition to the war.

Lawyers pick and choose the cases they take for various reasons. Victor's decisions were always based on principle. "I had always adhered to a few basic rules," Victor observed. "I would not represent a landlord against a tenant; I would not represent a drug dealer; I would not represent an employer against a union; I would not represent a fascist or right-wing institution."

Victor helped found the National Lawyers Guild, to, in his words, "counter the anti-New Deal corporation-controlled American Bar Association (ABA), which at that time did not admit black lawyers or Communists to membership." As former Guild president and Yale law professor Thomas Emerson wrote, "The National Lawyers Guild was born in revolt - a revolt that embraced the entire intellectual life of the times."

Victor's efforts contributed mightily to the Guild's survival after the McCarthy period. He counted his work with the Guild as perhaps his most significant accomplishment. "There are a few things I can point to with some pride," Victor reflected. "The National Lawyers Guild is almost sixty years old, and I played some part in building it. I cannot think of more than a handful of national progressive organizations that have lived so long in this perilous world."

Tributes to Victor are legion. Doris Brin Walker, the first woman president of the Guild and one of its leaders during the McCarthy period, said, "Victor was inspirational, witty, insightful, tolerant/intolerant, humane, didactic - one of the most important and beloved persons in my life. And he will remain so." Ann Fagan Ginger, another Guild leader in this era, noted, "During the McCarthy/Truman repressive period, Victor played a particularly important role in meeting with other lawyers to figure out the best strategies to defend against, and finally to attack, the Red Baiters. His principles were larger than his ego, and after the meetings, he went back to his office and saw to it that the tasks agreed on were actually carried out." She called the Rabinowitz Boudin firm "a place of refuge and hope for many whose jobs, reputations, and family relationships were under attack."

"In each decade, Victor managed to stay utterly committed to the revolutionary principles of his youth," according to Dohrn, "to work with the highest intellectual and professional standards of the law, and to attract clients of the most urgent issues of the moment. His passionate love of books, his dedicated friendships, and his wry humor abide in our hearts."

The National Lawyers Guild and all justice-loving people will miss Victor Rabinowitz. He was a giant of a man.

Read on >>

Fighting Terror Selectively: Washington and Posada

Since the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration has made the "war on terror" the centerpiece of its domestic and foreign policy. Bush cries terror where there is none - as he did in Iraq and in the communications of ordinary Americans. Meanwhile, he protects the real terrorists in our midst.

Luis Posada Carriles is a Cuban-born terrorist who has accurately been called the Osama bin Laden of the Western hemisphere. He boasted of helping to detonate deadly bombs in Havana hotels 10 years ago. Declassified FBI and CIA documents at the National Security Archive reveal that Posada was the mastermind of a 1976 bombing of a civilian Cuban airplane that killed 73 people. He escaped from a Venezuelan prison where he was being tried for his role in the first in-air bombing of a commercial airliner. Posada then played a central role in the illegal Iran-Contra scandal.

Posada entered the United States in March 2005 using false papers and was charged in El Paso with lying to Immigration and Customs officials. FBI agent Thomas Rice swore in a June 2005 affidavit that "the FBI is unable to rule out the possibility that Posada Carriles poses a threat to the national security of the United States." Yet on April 19, 2007 Posada was released on bail despite being a flight risk.

This stranger-than-fiction story has a logical explanation. Posada has a long history of ties to the U.S. government. He became a CIA agent in 1961. The U.S. government claims his CIA service ended in 1976. But on April 30, Posada filed a motion in federal court declaring that he continued to work for the CIA for more than 25 years. That puts him on the CIA's payroll when he engineered the terrorist airline bombing. In his motion, Posada asserted the right to present evidence of his CIA work as a defense to the perjury charges. The specter of Posada revealing the dirty deeds committed by the CIA when George H.W. Bush was CIA director was intolerable to Washington.

The government was caught between a rock and a hard place. There had been pressure to try Posada for his terrorist crimes, as required by Security Council resolution 1373 and three international treaties. Resolution 1373, passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, mandates that all countries deny safe haven to those who commit terrorist acts, and ensure that they are brought to justice. These provisions of resolution 1373 are mandatory, as they were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The treaties require the United States to extradite Posada to Venezuela for trial or try him in U.S. courts for offenses committed abroad. The Department of Justice elected instead to charge him with perjury for lying about how he entered the United States in 2005.

But the government could not take the risk that Posada might sing like a canary. On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone dismissed all charges against Posada. In her ruling, Cardone wrote that "the Government engaged in fraud, deceit, and trickery" by using a "routine" immigration interview to investigate possible criminal charges against Posada. But questions about Posada's prior criminal conduct were relevant to the moral character determination at the immigration interview. Posada is not a "routine" guy and his lawyer was present throughout the interview to protect him against self-incrimination. Cardone found the government's tactics "grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice." She then disingenuously claimed, "This Court's concern is not politics; it is the preservation of justice."

It is shocking and outrageous that Luis Posada Carriles, whose crimes rival those of al Qaeda, is now walking free in Miami. And Cardone's decision is deeply political.

Rep. William Delahunt has called for a congressional hearing to examine the U.S. government's role in promoting impunity in the Posada case. Delahunt sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales requesting an explanation as to why the Justice Department did not invoke the USA Patriot Act to declare Posada a terrorist and detain him, stating, "The release of Mr. Posada puts into question our commitment to fight terrorism."

That commitment is also belied by the way Washington has dealt with the Cuban Five. These men peacefully infiltrated criminal exile groups in Miami to prevent terrorism against Cuba. The Five turned over the results of their investigation to the FBI. But instead of working with Cuba to fight terrorism, the U.S. government arrested the five Cubans and tried and convicted them of conspiracy-related offenses. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta reversed their convictions, finding they could not receive a fair trial in Miami. In August 2006, a majority of the full circuit rejected the earlier ruling and sent the matter back to the panel where further appeals are pending. The U.S. media has been irresponsibly silent on the case of the Cuban Five and the irregularities of the trial.

The Los Angeles Times, however, showed singular insight on April 20 when it said the release of Posada "exposed Washington to legitimate charges of hypocrisy in the war on terror." The editorial criticized the U.S. for holding men at Guantánamo without due process while releasing Posada. "The U.S. government has done many odd things in 46 years of a largely failed Cuba policy," the Times said, "but letting a notorious terrorist walk stands among the most perverse yet."

Read on >>

The Perfect Storm

Here, a new trial was mandated by the perfect storm created when the surge of pervasive community sentiment, and extensive publicity both before and during the trial, merged with the improper prosecutorial references.
- Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals, three-judge panel opinion reversing the convictions of the Cuban Five, August 9, 2005

Many of our leaders seem to view Florida's Cuban conservatives, including the assassins and terrorists among them, as People Who Vote.
- Alice Walker, introduction, The Sweet Abyss

Since September 11, 2001, George W. Bush has made "the war on terror" the centerpiece of his policy. He uses this mantra to justify his wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, his warrantless surveillance of American citizens, and his escalating threats against Iran.

But Bush defines "terrorist" selectively. When it comes to Cuba, the Bush administration harbors the terrorists and punishes the anti-terrorists. The 700,000 Cuban-Americans in Miami are "people who vote," as evidenced by their critical role in both the 2000 and 2004 US elections.

On June 8, 2001, five Cuban men known as the Cuban Five were convicted of criminal charges in US district court in Miami. Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando González and René González are serving four life sentences and 75 years collectively for crimes including conspiracy to commit espionage and conspiracy to commit murder.

In a 93-page decision, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit US Court of Appeals unanimously overturned their convictions on August 9, 2005, because the anti-Cuba atmosphere in Miami, extensive publicity, and misconduct by the prosecutor denied them the right to a fair trial.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appealed the panel's ruling. The case is now pending before the whole, or en banc, Court of Appeals. The court will decide whether the district court wrongly denied the defendants' motions to change venue and move the trial out of Miami because an impartial jury could not be selected there.

The three-judge panel said that its review of the evidence at trial was "more extensive than is typical for consideration of an appeal involving the denial of motion for change of venue ... because the trial evidence itself created safety concerns for the jury which implicate venue considerations."

For more than 40 years, anti-Cuba terrorist organizations based in Miami have engaged in countless terrorist activities against Cuba and anyone who advocates the normalization of relations between the US and Cuba.

Terrorist groups including Alpha 66, Omega 7, Comandos F4, Cuban American National Foundation (CANF), Independent and Democratic Cuba (CID) and Brothers to the Rescue (BTTR), operate with impunity in the United States - with the knowledge and support of the FBI and CIA.

Ruben Dario Lopez-Castro, associated with a number of anti-Castro organizations, and Orlando Bosch, who planted a bomb on a Cubana airliner in 1976, killing all 73 persons aboard, "planned to ship weapons into Cuba for an assassination attempt on Castro," one witness testified at the trial.

The panel noted that "Bosch had a long history of terrorist acts against Cuba, and prosecutions and convictions for terrorist-related activities in the United States and in other countries."

Luis Posada Carriles, the other man responsible for downing the Cubana airliner, has never been criminally prosecuted in the United States.

Percy Francisco Alvarado Godoy and Juan Francisco Fernandez Gomez described in depositions attempts between 1993 and 1997 by affiliates of CANF to recruit them to engage in violent activities against several Cuban targets. They both said they were asked to place a bomb at the Caberet Tropicana, a popular Havana nightclub and tourist attraction.

The panel found:

Alpha-66 ran a paramilitary camp training participants for an invasion of Cuba, had been involved in terrorist attacks on Cuban hotels in 1992, 1994, and 1995, had attempted to smuggle hand grenades into Cuba in March 1993, and had issued threats against Cuban tourists and installations in November 1993. Alpha-66 members were intercepted on their way to assassinate Castro in 1997. Brigade 2506 ran a youth paramilitary camp. BTTR flew into Cuban air space from 1994 to 1996 to drop messages and leaflets promoting the overthrow of Castro's government. CID was suspected of involvement with an assassination attempt against Castro. Comandos F4 was involved in an assassination attempt against Castro. Commandos L claimed responsibility for a terrorist attack in 1992 at a hotel in Havana. CANF planned to bomb a nightclub in Cuba. The Ex Club planned to bomb tourist hotels and a memorial. PUND planned to ship weapons for an assassination attempt on Castro.
Several terrorist acts in Havana were documented in the panel's decision, including explosions at eight hotels and the Cuban airport. An Italian tourist was killed, people were injured and all locations sustained property damage. Posada has twice publicly admitted responsibility for these bombings.

The panel characterized Posada as "a Cuban exile with a long history of violent acts against Cuba."

In the face of this terrorism, the Cuban Five were gathering intelligence in Miami in order to prevent future terrorist acts against Cuba. Former high-ranking US military and security officials testified that Cuba posed no military threat to the United States. Although none of the five men had any classified material in their possession or engaged in any acts to injure the United States, and there was no evidence linking any of them to Cuba's shooting down of two small aircraft flown by Cuban exiles, the Cuban Five were nonetheless convicted of all charges.

A survey conducted before trial showed that 69 percent of all respondents and 74 percent of Hispanic respondents were prejudiced against persons charged with engaging in the activities alleged in the indictment.

Legal psychologist Dr. Kendra Brennan characterized the results of a poll of Miami Cuban-Americans as reflecting "an attitude of a state of war ... against Cuba" which had a "substantial impact on the rest of the Miami-Dade community." She found that 49.7 percent of the local Cuban population strongly favored direct US military action to overthrow the Castro regime.

Dr. Lisandro Pérez, Director of the Cuban Research Institute, concluded that "the possibility of selecting twelve citizens of Miami-Dade County who can be impartial in a case involving acknowledged agents of the Cuban government is virtually zero ... even if the jury were composed entirely of non-Cubans, as it was in this case."

One prospective juror stated that he "would feel a little bit intimidated and maybe a little fearful for my own safety if I didn't come back with a verdict that was in agreement with what the Cuban community [in Miami] feels, how they think the verdict should be."

A banker and senior vice president in charge of housing loans was "concern[ed] how ... public opinion might affect [his] ability to do his job" which could "affect his ability to generate loans."

David Buker stated he believed that "Castro is a communist dictator and I am opposed to communism so I would like to see him gone and a democracy established in Cuba." Buker became the foreperson of the jury.

During deliberations, "some of the jurors indicated that they felt pressured." They "expressed concern that they were filmed 'all the way to their cars and [that] their license plates had been filmed,'" according to the panel's opinion.

The change of venue motion occurred during the Elian Gonzalez matter. "It is uncontested," wrote the panel, "that the publicity concerning Elian Gonzalez continued during the trial, 'arousing and inflaming' passions within the Miami-Dade community." The panel noted "the various Cuban exile groups and their paramilitary camps that continue to operate within the Miami area." It concluded, "The perception that these groups could harm jurors that rendered a verdict unfavorable to their views was palpable."

The panel found: "Despite the district court's numerous efforts to ensure an impartial jury in this case, we find that empaneling such a jury in this community was an unreasonable probability because of pervasive community prejudice."

Noted criminal defense attorney and long-time National Lawyers Guild member Leonard Weinglass represents Antonio Guerrero. Weinglass told me, "In seeking a review of the panel decision, the government has asked the en banc court to convert the finding of a 'perfect storm' of prejudice (reached unanimously after a 16-month scrupulous review of the record on venue) into a 'sunny day' of placid tolerance."

The US government's 47-year economic blockade of Cuba was mirrored by the US media's blockade of press coverage of the trial. In spite of the avalanche of coverage in Miami, it was hardly mentioned in the national media.

"It is inexplicable that the longest trial in the United States at the time it occurred, hearing scores of witnesses, including three retired generals and a retired admiral, as well as the President's Advisor on Cuban Affairs (all called by the defense) and a leading military expert from Cuba, all the while considering the dramatic and explosive 40-year history of US-Cuba relations, did not qualify for any media attention outside of Miami," Weinglass said.

The Cuban Five were placed in solitary confinement for 17 months, in tiny cells where they could barely stand, until the start of their trial. Two have been denied visits from their wives for the last seven years in violation of US laws and international norms.

Hopefully, the Court of Appeals will agree with its three-judge panel that the poisonous atmosphere surrounding the trial of the Cuban Five in Miami warrants a new trial.

Read on >>

Human Rights Hypocrisy

Last week, the President of the United Nations General Assembly announced a new proposal to revamp the UN Human Rights Commission and rename it the UN Human Rights Council. The product of months of negotiations between the 53 member nations of the Commission, the proposal will be voted on by the General Assembly next month. The United States, however, immediately denounced the compromise. John Bolton, US ambassador to the United Nations, said it has too many "deficiencies" and should be renegotiated.

Bolton stated last month, "Membership on the Commission by some of the world's most notorious human rights abusers mocks the legitimacy of the Commission and the United Nations itself." But Bolton was not referring to the United States, which invaded Iraq in violation of the UN Charter, killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, and tortured and abused prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay.

The United States and Western European countries have criticized the Human Rights Commission because it has elected countries such as Sudan, Zimbabwe, Libya and Cuba, whom the Western nations have accused of human rights violations.

In a press release issued last week, the Permanent Mission of Cuba to the United Nations said, "If any government does not deserve to be part of the Council, it is the one who represents a State that benefited from the slavery and the transatlantic slave trade, that kept a 'constructive commitment' to extend the existence of the apartheid regime, that protects and bestows impunity to the human rights violations perpetrated by the Israeli occupation of Palestine and other Arab territories, that supported the bloody military dictatorships of Latin America, that today tortures and murders in the name of liberty which the majority of its own citizens do not benefit from, that fails to meet its commitments and obligations of official development assistance to the Third World, and that threatens and attacks the Southern countries."

The United States objects to the new proposal's commitment to the protection of economic, social and cultural rights. The refusal to enshrine rights such as employment, education, food, housing, and health care in US law is the reason the United States has not ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Since the Reagan administration, there has been a policy to define human rights in terms of civil and political rights, but to dismiss economic, social and cultural rights as akin to social welfare, or socialism.

Indeed, the United States' inhumane policy toward Cuba exemplifies this dichotomy. The US government criticizes civil and political rights in Cuba while disregarding Cubans' superior access to universal housing, health care, education and public accommodations and its guarantee of paid maternity leave and equal pay rates.

The US also opposes the new proposal's affirmation that the right to development is on par with the rights to peace and security, and human rights, as the three pillars of the United Nations system. Last year, the United States and Australia were the only nations to vote against a General Assembly resolution on the Right to Development, which was passed by a vote of 48 to 2, with 2 abstentions. It reaffirmed the principle that the right to development is an "inalienable human right."

A member of the Commission since it was formed in 1947, the US was furious when it was voted off the Commission in 2001. Many countries were angry with the United States for its policies in the Middle East, and its opposition to the International Criminal Court, the treaty to ban land mines, the Kyoto Protocol, and making AIDS drugs available to everyone.

It was only after behind the scenes negotiations among Western nations that the US was able to manipulate its way back onto the Commission one year later.

The new proposal provides that members of the Council will serve for a period of three years and shall not be eligible for immediate re-election after two consecutive terms. This is objectionable to the United States, which wants to guarantee a spot on the Council for the five permanent members of the Security Council - France, Britain, Russia, China and the US.

The United States also wants open voting on Council membership instead of the secret ballot elections that the proposal calls for. The US would like to make it easier to blackmail smaller nations for their votes.

In his statement last week, Bolton also said, "We consider the United States a champion of human rights. It is a fundamental and bedrock tenet upon which our country was founded. Thus, when the United States falls short of the high standards we set for ourselves, we move swiftly and decisively to vigorously prosecute offenders who are US citizens in our courts." Yet only a few low-ranking soldiers and a chief warrant officer have been prosecuted for the widespread and systematic torture and abuse of prisoners in US custody.

Ironically, two weeks ago, the UN Human Rights Commission issued a report decrying the torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners by United States forces at Guantánamo. It called on the US government to ensure that "all persons found to have perpetrated, ordered, tolerated or condoned such practices, up to the highest level of military and political command, are brought to justice." The United States, which has refused to allow UN or other human rights experts to speak directly with the Guantánamo prisoners, rejected the Commission's report.

The US has a history of scuttling Commission investigations when they focus on the United States as a human rights violator.

Last spring, the United States refused a request by Jean Ziegler, the UN Human Rights Commission's Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, to meet with State Department officials to discuss the impact the US embargo on Cuba was having on the Cuban people's right to food. Last fall, Ziegler reported that both Coalition Forces and the insurgents in Iraq "have adopted the cutting of food and water supplies to cities under attack." Ziegler noted that "the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is prohibited in both international and non-international armed conflict," citing the Protocols to the Geneva Conventions.

The United States likewise pressured the Commission to withdraw Professor Cherif Bassiouni, the Commission's Independent Expert on Human Rights in Afghanistan, from his mission after he issued a report critical of the US. Professor Bassiouni accused United States troops of breaking into homes, arbitrarily arresting residents and torturing detainees. He also alleged that US-led forces had committed "sexual abuse, beatings, torture and use of force resulting in death." He wrote, "When these forces directly engage in practices that violate ... international human rights and international humanitarian law, they undermine the national project of establishing a legal basis for the use of force."

"The United States and the coalition forces consider themselves above and beyond the reach of the law," Professor Bassiouni told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! "They feel that human rights don't apply to them, the international conventions don't apply to them, nobody can ask them what they're doing, and nobody can hold them accountable."

Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh concurs. He wrote, "In the cathedral of human rights, the US is more like a flying buttress than a pillar - choosing to stand outside the international structure supporting the international human rights system but without being willing to subject its own conduct to the scrutiny of the system."

The composition of the new Council will not likely differ significantly from the old Commission. "That reality," according to Phyllis Bennis, a senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, "reflects the failure of the John Bolton-led US effort to impose an entirely new human rights infrastructure on the United Nations, one that would privilege those countries given a seal of approval by Washington to serve on the Council, with others, especially those in bad graces in Washington, prohibited from serving."

In the next few weeks, we can expect some strong arm-twisting by the United States to scuttle the new proposal.

Read on >>

Graham Amendment Invokes Constitutional Crisis

The "accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

In blatant defiance of the Constitution's guarantees of Habeas Corpus and separation of powers, the Senate on Thursday approved the Graham Amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 49 to 42. Five Democrats joined all but 4 Republican Senators in giving the President unfettered power to hold prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for the rest of their lives, with no criminal charges, and no right to challenge their confinement by Habeas Corpus.

Last year, the Supreme Court held in Rasul v. Bush that the Guantánamo detainees are entitled to file habeas petitions in US courts to contest their detentions. The high court determined that non-US citizens held at Guantánamo, "no less than American citizens, are entitled to invoke the federal courts' authority" to hear their petitions under 28 USC § 2241, the US Habeas Corpus statute.

The Supreme Court stated firmly in Rasul, "Consistent with the historic purpose of the writ, this Court has recognized the federal courts' power to review applications for habeas relief in a wide variety of cases involving Executive detention, in wartime as well as in times of peace."

The Graham Amendment is crafted to render Rasul a nullity by cutting off the rights of Guantánamo prisoners to have their habeas petitions considered by the federal courts. The Amendment limits federal court review to the narrow issue of the validity of decisions rendered by Combatant Status Review Tribunals. These kangaroo courts were set up to determine whether the Guantánamo prisoners are "enemy combatants." They are not independent judicial tribunals, but rather administrative proceedings stacked with military officials who can use secret or even fabricated evidence. The prisoner is not entitled to be represented by an attorney.

Only a handful of prisoners at Guantánamo have been charged with crimes. Their cases will be heard in military commissions that George W. Bush established to impose long sentences and even execute detainees with virtually no judicial oversight. Without habeas access to federal courts, Bush and Donald Rumsfeld will ostensibly serve as prosecutor, judge and executioner in the military commissions. This flies in the face of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. Three days before the Graham Amendment was passed, the Supreme Court announced it would review the legality of those military commissions in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.

Even though the majority of prisoners detained at Guantánamo admittedly pose no threat to the United States, they continue to languish in virtual isolation under torturous conditions. Two hundred of them, who have decided death is preferable to life, are trying to starve themselves in a hunger strike.

Last month, the Senate passed the McCain Amendment, which makes it unlawful for any "individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location [to be] subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment." Bush and Cheney have fought this measure tooth-and-nail because it would interfere with their ability to torture prisoners with impunity. The Graham Amendment will undermine the ability of tortured prisoners to enforce the McCain Amendment in federal courts.

By foreclosing judicial review of sentences imposed by the military commissions, the Graham Amendment also violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, a ratified treaty and therefore part of US law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. That article prohibits "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." Unlawful combatants are protected by Common Article 3.

Violations of Common Article 3 constitute war crimes under the federal War Crimes Act. Violators can receive life in prison, or even the death penalty if the victim dies.

Sen. Lindsey Graham's pernicious Amendment was proposed and passed with no debate about its far-ranging implications and without any hearings. The senators who voted for it bought into Bush's "war on terror" mantra, ignoring the basic constitutional principles that inform our system of government.

These senators will have the opportunity to rectify this grave threat to the Constitution. As early as today, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) will attempt to strike from the Graham Amendment the language barring Guantánamo prisoners from habeas relief. Senator John McCain may support a compromise. He said, "Based on ongoing discussions, it is entirely possible that the current version of the amendment will be modified to address concerns about lawful treatment and the scope of independent appeals."

More than 100 legal scholars, including this writer, have signed a letter urging senators to adopt an amendment of the kind proposed by Senator Bingaman. The Center for Constitutional Rights concurs: "Habeas Corpus is a fundamental right that our entire legal tradition is founded on. Unfettered Executive power jeopardizes our free and democratic society. Creating 'no law zones' of unreviewable Executive power at Guantánamo undermines the moral standing of the United State in the eyes of the world and endangers the lives of US soldiers abroad."

The Graham Amendment has also drawn opposition from Judge John Gibbons, who argued Rasul v. Bush before the Supreme Court; John Hutson, Dean of Franklin Pearce Law Center and former Judge Advocate General of the US Navy; and the National Institute for Military Justice. NIMJ President Eugene R. Fidell wrote, "We disable ourselves from objecting to flagrant lawlessness elsewhere when we shut the doors to our courts, which are the jewel in the crown of our democracy."

Habeas Corpus, known as The Great Writ, is the final bastion of liberty for those unjustly held. There was an attempt to suspend Habeas Corpus during the internment of tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans during World War II. That travesty is now universally recognized as a shameful chapter in our nation's history. To suspend The Great Writ while allegations of systematic torture continue to emerge from US prisons, will threaten our Constitution and render "quaint" our democracy.

The Democrats who voted in favor of the Graham Amendment were Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Ben Nelson (Neb), Mary L. Landrieu (La), and Ron Wyden (Or).

Read on >>

The Two Americas

Last September, a Category 5 hurricane battered the small island of Cuba with 160-mile-per-hour winds. More than 1.5 million Cubans were evacuated to higher ground ahead of the storm. Although the hurricane destroyed 20,000 houses, no one died.

What is Cuban President Fidel Castro's secret? According to Dr. Nelson Valdes, a sociology professor at the University of New Mexico, and specialist in Latin America, "the whole civil defense is embedded in the community to begin with. People know ahead of time where they are to go."

"Cuba's leaders go on TV and take charge," said Valdes. Contrast this with George W. Bush's reaction to Hurricane Katrina. The day after Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, Bush was playing golf. He waited three days to make a TV appearance and five days before visiting the disaster site. In a scathing editorial on Thursday, the New York Times said, "nothing about the president's demeanor yesterday - which seemed casual to the point of carelessness - suggested that he understood the depth of the current crisis."

"Merely sticking people in a stadium is unthinkable" in Cuba, Valdes said. "Shelters all have medical personnel, from the neighborhood. They have family doctors in Cuba, who evacuate together with the neighborhood, and already know, for example, who needs insulin."

They also evacuate animals and veterinarians, TV sets and refrigerators, "so that people aren't reluctant to leave because people might steal their stuff," Valdes observed.

After Hurricane Ivan, the United Nations International Secretariat for Disaster Reduction cited Cuba as a model for hurricane preparation. ISDR director Salvano Briceno said, "The Cuban way could easily be applied to other countries with similar economic conditions and even in countries with greater resources that do not manage to protect their population as well as Cuba does."

Our federal and local governments had more than ample warning that hurricanes, which are growing in intensity thanks to global warming, could destroy New Orleans. Yet, instead of heeding those warnings, Bush set about to prevent states from controlling global warming, weaken FEMA, and cut the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for levee construction in New Orleans by $71.2 million, a 44 percent reduction.

Bush sent nearly half our National Guard troops and high-water Humvees to fight in an unnecessary war in Iraq. Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Paris in New Orleans, noted a year ago, "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq."

An Editor and Publisher article Wednesday said the Army Corps of Engineers "never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security - coming at the same time as federal tax cuts - was the reason for the strain," which caused a slowdown of work on flood control and sinking levees.

"This storm was much greater than protection we were authorized to provide," said Alfred C. Naomi, a senior project manager in the New Orleans district of the corps.

Unlike in Cuba, where homeland security means keeping the country secure from deadly natural disasters as well as foreign invasions, Bush has failed to keep our people safe. "On a fundamental level," Paul Krugman wrote in yesterday's New York Times, "our current leaders just aren't serious about some of the essential functions of government. They like waging war, but they don't like providing security, rescuing those in need or spending on prevention measures. And they never, ever ask for shared sacrifice."

During the 2004 election campaign, vice presidential candidate John Edwards spoke of "the two Americas." It seems unfathomable how people can shoot at rescue workers. Yet, after the beating of Rodney King aired on televisions across the country, poor, desperate, hungry people in Watts took over their neighborhoods, burning and looting. Their anger, which had seethed below the surface for so long, erupted. That's what's happening now in New Orleans. And we, mostly white, people of privilege, rarely catch a glimpse of this other America.

"I think a lot of it has to do with race and class," said Rev. Calvin O. Butts III, pastor of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem. "The people affected were largely poor people. Poor, black people."

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin reached a breaking point Thursday night. "You mean to tell me that a place where you probably have thousands of people that have died and thousands more that are dying every day, that we can't figure out a way to authorize the resources we need? Come on, man!"

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff had boasted earlier in the day that FEMA and other federal agencies have done a "magnificent job" under the circumstances.

But, said, Nagin, "They're feeding the people a line of bull, and they are spinning and people are dying. Get off your asses and let's do something!"

When asked about the looting, the mayor said that except for a few "knuckleheads," it is the result of desperate people trying to find food and water to survive.

Nagin blamed the outbreak of violence and crime on drug addicts who have been cut off from their drug supplies, wandering the city, "looking to take the edge off their jones."

When Hurricane Ivan hit Cuba, no curfew was imposed; yet, no looting or violence took place. Everyone was in the same boat.

Fidel Castro, who has compared his government's preparations for Hurricane Ivan to the island's long-standing preparations for an invasion by the United States, said, "We've been preparing for this for 45 years."

On Thursday, Cuba's National Assembly sent a message of solidarity to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. It says the Cuban people have followed closely the news of the hurricane damage in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, and the news has caused pain and sadness. The message notes that the hardest hit are African-Americans, Latino workers, and the poor, who still wait to be rescued and taken to secure places, and who have suffered the most fatalities and homelessness. The message concludes by saying that the entire world must feel this tragedy as its own.

Read on >>

Close Guantánamo Prison

Last month, in a little-noticed vote, the Senate rejected Democratic Senator Robert Byrd's proposal to delete funding for the US prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The amendment to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 would have stripped HR 1268 of $36 million earmarked for construction of a permanent, 220-person military prison at Guantánamo. Opponents of the amendment said a new prison would keep detainees from being transferred to the United States, where terrorists might seek to free them.

These folks may well see the US federal courts, which now hear the Guantánamo inmates' habeas corpus petitions, as "terrorist." Before the Supreme Court instructed the Bush administration it must give prisoners access to our courts to challenge their detentions (see Supreme Court: War No Blank Check for Bush), the International Committee of the Red Cross called the Guantánamo prison a "legal black hole." Between 500 and 600 men and boys have been detained there for more than three years with no criminal charges against them, in violation of US and international law.

Many Republican opponents of Byrd's amendment are those who strive to destroy the time-honored filibuster in order to appease their right-wing Christian base. Some, such as Pat Robertson, would put independent judges in the same category as terrorists. In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Robertson affirmed that judges who don't share his Christian values are a more serious threat to us than Al Qaeda.

It is not just Republican senators who voted against de-funding a permanent prison at Guantánamo Bay. Seventeen Democrats, including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, joined all Republicans senators except Arlen Specter in supporting the new prison construction.

Although Democratic senators are currently waging a valiant battle to preserve the independence of the judiciary, many have wilted in the face of Bush's conflating of the war in Iraq with his "war on terror." They are afraid to stand up to him, demand that we save thousands of lives by pulling out of Iraq, and vote to bring a halt to the disgrace that is, in the words of the National Lawyers Guild and the American Association of Jurists, a veritable "concentration camp" at Guantánamo Bay.

Desecration of the Koran

Last week, the Bush administration forced Newsweek to back off a story about the desecration of Korans at Guantánamo after it provoked demonstrations, riots and more than a dozen deaths in Afghanistan. The Pentagon refuses to release the Southern Command's report, on which Newsweek based its article. Publicizing its content could disprove the magazine's allegations, if they are indeed false, as the Pentagon claims. The Red Cross documented "credible information" that supports "multiple" instances of disrespecting or mishandling the Koran there. Yesterday's Los Angeles Times reported that court records and transcripts contain "dozens of accusations involving the Koran." Allegations include having a guard dog carry the Koran in its mouth, guards scrawling obscenities inside Korans, kicking Korans across the floor, urinating on the Koran, ridiculing the Koran, walking on the Koran, and tearing off the cover and throwing the Koran into trash or dirty water.

Hunger strikes erupted in 2002 at Guantánamo after word got around that Korans were being desecrated. On Friday, 500 British Muslims chanted "Desecrate today, die tomorrow," in front of the United States Embassy in London.

Illegal US Occupation of Guantánamo

The real question the media should be asking is why our government continues to illegally operate its prison at Guantánamo Bay, scene of widespread of torture and abuse. The occupation of Guantánamo by the US military violates the 1903 and 1934 treaties concluded between the United States and Cuba.

Guantánamo Bay came under United States control in 1903 when Cuba was occupied by the US army after its intervention in Cuba's war of independence against Spain. The Platt Amendment, which granted the US the right to intervene in Cuba, was incorporated into the Cuban Constitution as a prerequisite for the withdrawal of US troops from Cuba. That provision provided the basis for a treaty granting jurisdiction over Guantánamo Bay to the United States.

The 1903 Agreement on Coaling and Naval Stations gave the United States the right to use Guantánamo Bay "exclusively as coaling or naval stations, and for no other purpose." Twenty-one years later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a new treaty with the Republic of Cuba, which abrogated the Platt Amendment and the 1903 treaty.

But this 1934 treaty, in the spirit of Roosevelt's "Good Neighbor" policy, maintained US control over Guantánamo Bay in perpetuity until the United States abandons it or until both Cuba and the U.S. agree to modify it. The new treaty, however, specified that "the stipulations of [the 1903] agreement with regard to the naval station of Guantánamo shall continue in effect." That is, Guantánamo Bay can be used only for coaling or naval stations. Additionally, article III of the 1934 treaty provides that the Republic of Cuba leases Guantánamo Bay to the United States "for coaling and naval stations." Nowhere in either treaty did Cuba give the United States the right to utilize Guantánamo Bay as a prison camp.

Torture at Guantánamo Prison

US forces have used the Guantánamo prison to engage in torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners, in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Statute.

A high-level military investigation concluded last month that several prisoners at Guantánamo were mistreated or humiliated. The findings were based on FBI agents' accounts that were never meant to be made public. The agents saw female interrogators forcibly squeeze male prisoners' genitals, and witnessed detainees stripped and shackled low to the floor for many hours.

Psychological torture has also been documented at the Guantánamo prison. "At least since 2002," according to Physicians for Human Rights, "the United States has been engaged in systematic psychological torture" of Guantánamo prisoners.

Several detainees released from Guantánamo last month allege they were tortured by US military guards. Seventeen Afghans said they had been victims of "indescribable tortures." Nasser Nijer Naser Al-Mutairi was picked up on an Afghan battlefield in 2001. His lungs and right leg were severely injured. After he was shipped to Guantánamo, he underwent several chest operations and an interrogation session that almost killed him, he said.

Mustafa Ait Idr, an Algerian citizen living in Bosnia, has been detained at Guantánamo Bay for three years. He filed a lawsuit alleging that US military guards jumped on his head, resulting in a stroke that paralyzed his face, broke several of his fingers, and nearly drowned him in a toilet.

Guantánamo: Symbol of US Hypocrisy

Instead of furthering the war on terror, the torture and abuse of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay has had the opposite effect. "For many Muslims, Guantánamo stands as a confirmation of the low regard in which they believe the United States holds them," according to the New York Times. "For many non-Muslims, regardless of their feelings toward the United States, it has emerged as a symbol of American hypocrisy."

Testimonials and photographs of atrocities emerging from Guantánamo feed anti-American sentiment. "Guantánamo provides rhetorical fodder for politicians seeking to bring down United States-allied rulers in their own countries," the New York Times reported. "It offers a ready rallying point against American dominance, even in countries whose own police and military have been known for severe violations of human rights."

As in US-run prisons in Afghanistan and Iraq, high-ranking military and civilian officials remain unaccountable for their torturous policies at Guantánamo. (See Team Bush Goes Unpunished for Torture). The State Department disclosed that 11 soldiers have been punished for abusing detainees at Guantánamo Bay. Yet only one was court-martialed, and he was acquitted.

Human Rights Watch says the United States should allow UN human rights monitors, including the special rapporteur on torture, to visit detainees held at Guantánamo Bay. If it had nothing to hide, the US would welcome the monitors.

The National Lawyers Guild and the American Association of Jurists have called on the United States to close its concentration camp at Guantánamo, release the prisoners there or hold trials in accordance with international legal norms, and return Guantánamo Bay to Cuba.

As a January editorial in the French daily, Le Monde, said, "The simple truth is that America's leaders have constructed at Guantánamo Bay a legal monster."

Democrats in the Senate must find their voice, not just on the filibuster, but also to oppose the perpetuation of one of the most disgraceful situations the United States has ever created.

Read on >>

Senators Challenge Bolton on Contempt for UN

John Bolton refused to come clean at his confirmation hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, playing down his contempt for the UN and for international law. Bolton, who claimed in 1994, "there is no such thing as the United Nations," pledged to forge a "close partnership" with the UN if confirmed as US Ambassador to the United Nations.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Cal) confronted Bolton with a videotape of a 1994 speech in which he said, caustically, "If the U.N. Secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." Boxer said, "I see the anger, the hostility. What we saw here was the real John Bolton."

Boxer then observed, "My overall assessment, Mr. Bolton, is that you have nothing but disdain for the United Nations. It's hard for me to know why you'd want to work at an institution that you said didn't even exist."

Bolton, Bush's most controversial nominee among many, explained his statement that the UN "does not exist" with his theory of "the fallacy of false concreteness" - the United Nations does not exist apart from the member states which comprise it. Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill) turned Bolton's characterization back on him, saying it follows that we should not then blame the United Nations for the corruption in the oil-for-food program - the responsibles were member states, not the UN itself. Conservatives have recently used the oil-for-food scandal to discredit the UN.

The major theme that ran throughout the questioning was that Bolton is an ideologue who manipulates intelligence to fit his own analysis, and his acrimonious temperament may pose a threat to our security.

Obama challenged Bolton for his overstatement of Syria's aggressive capabilities, saying, "The CIA had to reign you in." He criticized Bolton's claim that Libya surrendered its weapons of mass destruction program as a result of watching the US get tough with Iraq. Obama contended that diplomacy convinced Libya. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass) pointed out that Bolton may have actually tried to scuttle the diplomatic dialogue between the US and Libya. Bush also shuns diplomacy in favor of bullying less powerful nations.

In North Korea, Iran and Syria "we can't afford to cry wolf," Obama told Bolton. "If we gild the lily and overstate our case," said Obama, it will harm our troops abroad and our national security.

Kerry also zeroed in on whether Bolton might make us less safe, saying, "We've just come off the most massive intelligence failure in history." Kerry maintained it's vital to the security of the American people to know whether Bolton was a party to that failure.

Much of the questioning focused on Bolton's allegation that Cuba had a biological weapons program, and his retaliation against two intelligence experts who challenged his now-discredited view. Bolton insisted his differences with the two were procedural, that they had gone behind his back with their suggested changes to his proposed speech. The Senators successfully established that Bolton really quarreled with the content of the criticism.

Bolton had wanted to say, "The United States believes Cuba has a developmental offensive biological warfare program and is providing assistance to other to rogue state programs." After it was vetted by numerous intelligence agencies, the language was softened to say, "Cuba has at least a limited offensive biological warfare research and development effort. Cuba has provided dual-use biotechnology to other rogue states." Cuba, which has an advanced biomedical program, adamantly denies it has ever had a biological weapons program of any sort. And ironically, two months after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bolton vehemently opposed the Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention that would have required member states, including the US, to submit to inspections of their biological weapons.

Bolton denied trying to have the two men who disagreed with him fired. Members of the Senate committee, however, spoke with seven intelligence officials who contradicted Bolton's assertion. One said Bolton had dismissed the opinion of Christian Westermann, the chief bioweapons analyst at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, as "a midlevel INR munchkin analyst." Boxer noted that this "midlevel munchkin" was a war hero who served in the US military for 23 years.

The toughest questions didn't come just from the Democrats on the committee. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska, referring to Iraq, asked Bolton, "How could the UN weapons inspectors be so right and us so wrong?... How could the UN inspectors be right and how did we miss it?" To bolster the case for war with Iraq, Bolton pushed for Bush to include in his State of the Union address the false statement about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger, over the opposition of the State Department.

When Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis) asked Bolton whether the United States made a mistake by failing to stop the genocide in Rwanda 11 years ago, Bolton had no substantive response. "We don't know if it was logistically possible to do anything different," Bolton replied. "Your answer is amazingly passive," Feingold told Bolton.

Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del), the ranking Democrat on the committee, said he had "grave concern" about Bolton as UN ambassador. "We need a strong voice in New York who knows the UN and who can advance our reform agenda," Biden asserted. "And I fear that knowing your reputation - and your reputation is known well at the UN - people will be inclined to tune you out." Biden was concerned that sending Bolton to New York would be "like sending a bull into a China shop."

Even if all 8 Democrats on the committee vote against the Bolton nomination, it could go to the full Senate unless at least one Republican joins them. Senator Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Republican from Rhode Island, who faces reelection next year, has received tremendous pressure from his heavily Democratic constituency, "overwhelmingly" opposed to Bolton's nomination. Although Chafee charged that Bolton's sharp comments about North Korean president Kim Jong Ill "seem to be impeding our progress" in the talks over Pyongyang's nuclear program, the Senator said he was leaning toward voting for Bolton anyway.

Yesterday's hearing was interrupted by protestors from Code Pink, a women's peace group, who carried signs saying "No Bolton - Yes UN" and "Bolton = Proliferation." They were escorted out of the hearing room.

The hearing continues today with the testimony of other witnesses, including some of the intelligence officials who dispute Bolton's report of his handling of the Cuba intelligence matter.

Read on >>

Chavez Victory: Defeat for Bush Policy

The Bush administration is gritting its collective teeth at the outcome of Sunday’s recall election in Venezuela, which overwhelmingly affirmed President Hugo Chavez’s tenure. If President Jimmy Carter had not lent his enormous credibility to the election results, Bush and his minions would surely be crying foul in unison with the opposition.

Chavez was popularly elected by his countrymen and women in 1998 and 2000. Yet in spite of Bush’s claims to support democracy around the world, his administration has given succor those trying to overthrow Chavez’s government before, during and since the aborted coup in April 2002.

Officials at the Organization of American States affirmed that the Bush administration had sanctioned the coup. Bush’s then-Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, Otto Reich, met with leaders of the coup for months before it was executed. Elliot Abrams, one of the neoconservative policymakers in Bush’s inner circle, approved the coup, according to the London Observer. And John Negroponte, now our ambassador to Iraq, was in on it, too.

Reich, Abrams and Negroponte comprised the troika that administered the “Reagan doctrine” in the 1980s, which supported vicious dictatorships in Central America, including those in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala.

As documented in the film, “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised,” Chavez was forcibly removed from the presidential palace on April 11, 2002 by forces acting on behalf of Venezuela’s propertied class. Pedro Carmona, head of Venezuela’s confederation of business and industry, declared himself president. Within hours, Carmona purported to repeal laws enacted under Chavez that the executives of foreign oil companies opposed.

Forty-eight hours later, after thousands of workers and peasants stormed the palace demanding Chavez’s return to power, the military did an about-face and brought him back. The filmmakers, fortuitously present at the scene, were caught inside the palace and filmed the class struggle that played out with Chavez’s ouster and reinstatement.

Former U.S. Navy intelligence officer Wayne Madsen told the Guardian that our navy helped with communications jamming support to the Venezuelan military during the would-be coup. An American plane was present on the island to which Chavez was whisked away. The Bush administration provided financial backing to key participants in the coup attempt, which resulted in the deaths of 19 people.

Chavez incurred the wrath of Team Bush by championing the interests of the working class over the oil-igarchy in Venezuela. The fifth largest oil supplier in the world, Venezuela is a key provider of U.S. petroleum. By using oil profits to help his people instead of the multinational corporations, Chavez created an alternative model to Bush-backed neoliberal globalization.

Hugo Chavez’s plan of Bolivarianism – named after Simon Bolivar, father of Venezuelan independence – focused on a redistribution of the massive wealth generated by his country’s rich oil profits. He passed a law that doubled royalty taxes paid by ExxonMobil and other oil companies on new finds.

Chavez enacted the Ley De Tierras, which provided for unused land to be given to the landless; he instituted free health care and public education to all; he backed a new Constitution that enshrines rights for women and indigenous peoples; and he lowered the inflation rate.

Unlike the U.S.-backed Iraqi interim government, which shut down Al Jazeera for its broadcasts critical of the occupation, Chavez never shut down or censored private media controlled by tycoons trying to unseat him in the months leading up to Sunday’s election.

Nearly 95 percent of the electorate voted in the election, the largest percentage Jimmy Carter has ever seen. Carter and the Organization of American States have independently verified the validity of Sunday’s election results, and have even supported an audit, which Carter calls “infallible,” according to The New York Times. Nevertheless, the opposition refuses to sanction the results of the election or the audit.

Opposition exit polls, which Carter has dismissed as inaccurate and “deliberately distributed … in order to build up, not only the expectation of victory, but also to influence the people still standing in line,” were funded by the National Endowment for Democracy.

NED, a U.S. government organization purporting to promote democracy, was set up in the early 1980s by Reagan to counter negative revelations about the CIA’s covert operations in the late 1970s. NED successfully manipulated the Nicaraguan elections in 1990 and worked with right-wing groups in the late 1990s to oust Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Just last February, the Bush administration engineered a coup d’etat in Haiti, as I described in my editorial, Coup d’Etat – This Time in Haiti. The U.S. Marines put democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide on a plane out of Haiti after officials from the United States threatened him into signing a purported resignation letter. Aristide, like Chavez, fell out of favor with Bush by resisting neoliberalism.

Hugo Chavez is, according to The Wall Street Journal, “Washington’s biggest Latin American headache after the old standby, Cuba.” Indeed, Venezuela is Cuba’s top trading partner, selling it discounted oil, while Cuba has sent thousands of doctors, teachers and engineers to work in Venezuela.

Speaking of Cuba, NED donated a quarter-million dollars in the early 1990s to the Cuban-American National Fund, the terrorist anti-Castro group in Miami. CANF financed Luis Posada Carriles, notorious for his involvement in the blowing up of a Cuba airplane in 1976, which killed 73 people.

Chavez, now trying to reunify his country in the wake of a contentious election, says: “Violence can only be ended if actions are taken so that all human beings have access to the fundamental human rights, including education, housing, work and health.” In a déjà vu from a hot-button issue facing us in the United States, Chavez told journalist Greg Palast: “Our upper classes don’t even like paying taxes. That’s one reason they hate me. We said, ‘You must pay your taxes.’”

Critical of the Bush administration’s covert activity against him and Fidel Castro, Chavez maintains: “They are also manipulating the U.S. people because there is a dictatorship in the United States.”

One would hope our election results in November are as reliable as Venezuela’s. If Bush is elected, we can expect him to go after Chavez again, and Castro as well. This would likely destabilize Latin America in much the same way Bush has destabilized the Middle East with his war on Iraq.

Leaders of countries throughout Latin America congratulated Hugo Chavez on his victory Sunday. Yet the Bush government, although grudgingly accepting the results, did not hail the exercise of democracy in Venezuela.

Bush’s agenda was roundly defeated with Chavez’s triumph. Chavez has opposed U.S. policy in Latin America, including military aid to Colombia and efforts to spread free trade agreements throughout the region. Voters who supported him understood that a vote to recall Hugo Chavez would be a vote for U.S. imperialism.

Read on >>

The Concentration Camp at Guantánamo: Wrong Treatment in the Wrong Place

Anyone who has traveled to Cuba or listened to mariachis sing in myriad Latin restaurants is familiar with the lovely song, Guantanamera - the little girl from Guantánamo. Based on a poem by Jose Marti, the father of Cuban independence, the song is narrated by "an honest man from where the palm tree grows," who speaks of the beauty of Cuba. In stark contrast, the post 9/11 Guantánamo Bay is home to a veritable "concentration camp," in the words of the Cuban government, the National Lawyers Guild, and the American Association of Jurists.

More than 600 prisoners have been incarcerated there for nearly two years. They are kept in small cages, with no charges against them, without access to the courts to challenge their confinement.

The United States government illegally occupies that part of Cuba's territory. It is held under a lease negotiated between Cuba and the U.S., which gave the United States the right to use Guantánamo Bay "exclusively as coaling or naval stations, and for no other purpose." Nowhere does Cuba give the United States the right to utilize this land as a prison or a concentration camp.

President Fidel Castro, who calls the Guantánamo base "a dagger plunged into the heart of Cuban soil," refuses to cash the rent checks the U.S. government sends annually. He says: "An elemental sense of dignity and absolute disagreement with what happens in that portion of our national territory has prevented Cuba from cashing those checks." The United States, according to President Castro, has transformed Guantánamo base into a "horrible prison, one that bears no difference with the Nazi concentration camps." In December, Cuba's National Assembly decried the Guantánamo "concentration camp," saying: "In the territory illegally occupied by the Guantánamo naval base, hundreds of foreign prisoners are subjected to indescribable abuses."

Indeed, nearly half the prisoners are interrogated each week in sessions lasting up to 16 hours. A prisoner released in May told Amnesty International that the interrogations "were like torture." Australian lawyer Richard Bourke asserted on ABC Radio that prisoners had been subjected to "good old-fashioned torture, as people would have understood it in the Dark Ages." He reported: "One of the detainees had described being taken out and tied to a post and having rubber bullets fired at them. They were being made to kneel cruciform in the sun until they collapsed."

Shortly after September 11, the Cuban government did not oppose housing the U.S. prisoners at Guantánamo: "Although the transfer of foreign war prisoners by the United States government to one of its military facilities - located in a portion of our land over which we have no jurisdiction, as we have been deprived of it - does not abide by the provisions that regulated its inception, we shall not set any obstacles to the development of the operation."

Cuba, which boasts one of the most advanced medical systems in the world, offered to provide medical services and sanitation programs for the Guantánamo prisoners. The Cuban government, in its January 2002 statement, expressed satisfaction at "the public statements made by the U.S. authorities in the sense that prisoners will be accorded an adequate and humane treatment that may be monitored by the International Red Cross."

But the Red Cross, which recently concluded a two-month visit to the Guantánamo camp, "observed a worrying deterioration in the psychological health of a large number of them." The Red Cross reported that "the US authorities have placed the internees in Guantánamo beyond the law. This means that, after more than eighteen months of captivity, the internees still have no idea about their fate, and no means of recourse through any legal mechanism." Indeed, The New York Times reported 32 suicides in 18 months and several detainees being treated for clinical depression as a direct result of the uncertainties of their situations.

The Bush administration has denied these prisoners access to U.S. courts to challenge their detention, disingenuously claiming that the U.S. is not sovereign over Guantánamo Bay. The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which decided last month that U.S. courts do have jurisdiction to hear the prisoners' complaints, said that by employing Guantánamo as a prison camp, "our government has purposely acted in a manner directly inconsistent with the terms of the Lease and the continuing Treaty, [which] ... limit U.S. use of the territory to a naval base and coaling station."

However, the appellate court was perhaps most alarmed at the government's assertion during oral argument that these prisoners would have no judicial recourse even if they were claiming the government subjected them to acts of torture or summary execution. The Ninth Circuit said: "To our knowledge, prior to the current detention of prisoners at Guantánamo, the U.S. government has never before asserted such a grave and startling proposition." The court said this was "a position so extreme that it raises the gravest concerns under both American and international law." During its present term the Supreme Court will decide whether U.S. courts have jurisdiction over these prisoners.

An editorial in The New York Times described the Guantánamo situation as a "scandal," saying: "Whoever they are, their treatment should be a demonstration of America's commitment to justice, not the blot on its honor that Guantánamo has become." The United States government must immediately close its concentration camp, and release or try the prisoners in accordance with international norms. It should return Guantánamo Bay to its rightful owner, the Republic of Cuba.

Read on >>