|
The
Untold Story of the Cuban Five (Part II)
By Ricardo Alarcón, president of the
National Assembly of People's Power
As they recognized during voir dire, the kidnapping
of Elian González and its consequences for the
community was very much in the minds of those chosen
to be jurors at the trial of the Cuban Five a few
months after the six-year-old boy was rescued by the
federals.
Like everybody else they had followed the events
related to Elian which saturated the news. The faces
of the kidnappers, their promoters and supporters,
as well as others involved in the scandal had become
quite familiar to the jury members. The faces, and
two features of the Elian drama: its unique nature
and its direct connection with the trial of the five
Cubans.
First, the perplexing behavior of every Miami public
official, from its Federal Congress members, the
mayor and the city commissioners, to firefighters
and members of the police force, who openly refused
to obey the law and did nothing to put an end to the
most publicized case of child abuse ever to occur.
And, secondly, but no less incredibly, that nothing
happened to a group of individuals who had so
clearly violated the law with the abduction of a
child and the violence and disturbances that they
created all over the city when he was rescued by the
federal government. Nobody was prosecuted, arrested,
or fined. No local authority was dismissed, replaced
or asked to resign. The Elian case demonstrated how
anti-Castro impunity reigns in Miami.
When the jurors first took their seats in the Court
room to do their citizens’ duty they were probably
taken by surprise. There, live, were the “Miami
celebrities” that they were so used to seeing, day
and night, on local TV. And they were together,
sometimes smiling and embracing each other, like old
pals. The kidnappers and the “law enforcement” guys
hand and glove with the prosecutors (those valiant
people who never showed up when a little boy was
being molested in front of the media).
The jurors spent seven months in that room looking
at, and being watched by the same people so familiar
to them who now were on the witness stand, in the
public area or at the news corner, the same people
there frequently going to find in the parking lot,
at the building entrance, in the corridors. Some of
them now and then proudly displaying the attire used
for their last military incursion to Cuba.
The jurors heard them explaining in detail their
criminal exploits and saying time and again that
they were not talking about the past. It was a
strange parade of individuals to appear in a court
of law, acknowledging their violent acts against
Cuba planned, prepared and launched from their own
neighborhood.
There, making speeches, demanding the worst
punishment, slandering and threatening the defense
lawyers.
The judge did what she could to try to preserve calm
and dignity. She certainly ordered the jury, many
times, not to consider certain inappropriate remarks
but, in doing so, could not erase their prejudicial
and fearsome effects from the jurors’ minds.
The consequences were obvious. The Court of Appeal
panel’s decision stated it in clear terms: “The
evidence at trial disclosed the clandestine
activities not only of the defendants, but also of
the various Cuba exile groups and their military
camps that continue to operate in the Miami area.
The perception that these groups could inflict harm
on jurors who rendered a verdict unfavorable to
their views was palpable”. (Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeal, No. 01-17176, 03-11087)
But there was more. After hearing and seeing the
abundant evidence of terrorist acts that the
defendants had tried to avert, the government
succeeded in defending the terrorists by having the
Court inexplicably agree to remove from the jury the
right to exonerate the Five on the basis of legal
necessity, which was the foundation of their
defense.
The heart of the matter, in this case, was the need
for Cuba to protect its people from the criminal
attempts of terrorists who enjoy total impunity in
U.S. territory. The law in the United States is
clear: if persons act to prevent a greater harm,
even if they violate the law in the process, they
will be excused from any criminality because society
recognizes the necessity – even the benefit – of
taking such action.
The United States, the only world superpower, has
interpreted that universal principle to take war to
distant lands in the name of fighting terrorism. But
at the same time it refused to recognize it in the
case of five unarmed, peaceful, non-violent persons
who, on behalf of a small country, without causing
harm to anybody, tried to avert the illegal acts of
criminals who have found shelter and support in the
United States.
The U.S. government, through the Miami prosecutors,
went even further, to the last mile, to help those
terrorists. They did it very openly, in writing and
with passionate speeches that, curiously, were not
considered newsworthy.
That was happening in 2001. While the Southern
Florida prosecutors and the local FBI were so caught
up in harshly punishing the Cuban Five and
protecting “their” terrorists, the criminals
preparing the 9/11 attack had been training,
unmolested, in Miami for quite some time. They must
have had a weighty reason for preferring that
location.
Taken from
Counterpunch |
