|
The Supreme Court and the Cuban Five Case: Was
Justice Blindfolded?
By Itsvan Ojeda Bello
It has been said more than once there
is not much logic in the performance of the
different bodies of the American political and legal
system when it comes to Cuba. We have confirmed it
again in the worst way possible: the US Supreme
Court have dismissed the ‘Cuban Five’ appeal.
Undoubtedly, there is not a coherent
explanation
for
that decision. Legally, the request for a new
trial for Gerardo Hernandez, Fernando Gonzalez,
Ramon Labañino, Antonio Guerrero and Rene Gonzalez
was grounded in solid, convincing arguments. The
appeal certainly would have been accepted if they
were citizens from any other country, or they would
have never been imprisoned in the first place.
Why would the highest legal
authorities of a nation —supposedly created to see
to it that the law is strictly upheld and the
citizens’ rights are respected— refuse to review
such an important case, if a cardinal principle of
law —the right to a just trial— was at stake? An
obvious reason: when it comes to Cuba, the political
considerations outweigh any legal analysis.
Would the Court Admit Cuba was Right?
The ten judges would have had to
bridge the huge gulf existing between
the Cuban affairs and the simplest
logic to hear an appeal by the Five. That would mean
the
dilemma as to whether to recognize the
Cuban Revolution’s legitimate right to defend itself
or not. The magistrates would have possibly had to
admit the unspoken or explicit complicity of the
various American administrations in glaring
terrorist and military actions against a state
legally recognized by the international community,
which enjoys majority support of its people.
Hearing the appeal would have meant
acknowledging
all these facts. It does not matter if they had
subsequently ruled in favor or against the Five. To
be faced with a dilemma which could make them admit
Cuba was right seemed far too much to the judges.
Although in the Elian Gonzalez case,
the court ruled in favor of the child’s return to
Cuba,
that
ruling was also politically motivated. The
domestic public opinion overwhelmingly supported the
boy’s father, then,
it was “politically correct” to present themselves
as protectors of family values.
Fidel Castro later remarked that he
was convinced from the start that Cuba would never
win through legal channels. Only the pressure
exerted by the international community, particularly
by the average American,
tipped the balance in favor of justice.
Peculiar Sense of Logic of the
Supreme Court
If the Supreme Court accepted the
Five’s request, it would have been forced to
question rulings by federal courts of Florida and
other states, and particularly by the court of
appeals in Atlanta. All these courts, especially the
court of first instance, made it quite clear that in
matters involving Cuba, they would never acknowledge
the Island’s rights.
We should bear in mind that the
bodies of the US legal system, particularly in South
Florida, have a long record of laws torn to shreds
to harm the Cuban Revolution.
A clear example is Bacardi Rum, which
sells rum in the United States under a Cuban
trademark ─Havana Club, ─ violating
all
market principles. Illustrative of their conduct is
that people found in possession of enough weapons to
equip a small army are sentenced to a year of house
arrest at the most or are just fined if they simply
allege the arsenal would be used to invade Cuba.
On top of that they have heard the
suit filed by terrorist Jose Basulto against Cuba
for the post-traumatic stress disorder he developed
after Cuba shot down two Brothers to the Rescue’s
airplanes while they were violating the Island’s
airspace.
Did the magistrates of the Supreme
Court fear the anti-Cuban lobby? Probably. They
certainly were terrified to do anything opposing the
traditional policy of doing something that might be
deemed favorable to the Cuban Revolution.
Remember that the Supreme Court also
refused to rule on Posada Carriles case. The fact
that the Bin Laden of the Western hemisphere was
being prosecuted as a liar and not as a terrorist
did not matter. The judges did not want to meddle in
an affair dealing with the anti-Cuban Mafia and its
friends in Washington.
Moreover, the government was quite
explicit about its strategy to present Cuba as a
national security threat to the United States.
Otherwise, they would not have arrested former State
Department official Walter Kendall Myers and his
wife accused of spying for Cuba, just before the
Supreme Court ruled on a case related to this
issue.
There was enough publicity around the
arrest —whether the charges against the Myers are
true or not— to strain the bilateral political
climate and underpin the sham about the Island being
a danger
to
the United States.
In such circumstances, if the Supreme
Court dared review the charges of conspiracy to
commit espionage against The Five —particularly the
charge of conspiracy to commit murder for which
Gerardo Hernandez was sentenced to life
imprisonment,— it would mean
coming
into conflict with the theory of the Cuban
government’s hostility towards the American people.
It
would take
a lot of courage and sense of shame,
beyond any political opinion,
to do that. Obviously, it was too much for John
Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony
Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito. The
prejudices were more important and the magistrates
missed a chance to prove that the law is observed in
the United States.
There should be equal justice under
law, but this time
Justice
was not wearing a blindfold. |
