Odds and ends
- The EU Council reviewed Europe’s policy toward Cuba and decided that “political dialogue with Cuba should be pursued and deepened on a comprehensive, equal and result-oriented basis,” with “high priority to the principles of democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms.” The resolution is here (pdf), AFP coverage here, and Radio Marti covers the story via two dissidents with differing opinions (story here, with audio link).
- What to do with the Guantanamo naval base? Drake Bennett discusses some long-range ideas in the Boston Globe.
- Along the Malecon cites Lonely Planet’s description of Trinidad, “a kind of Varadero in reverse” because there’s so much contact between visitors and locals. About 300 families rent rooms in their homes to visitors.
I hate to drag everyone everyone from the travelogue post but it is interesting to see that Cuba's official response to Supreme Court's refusal to hear the Cinco's appeal was signed by the Presidency of the National Assembly not the President of the National Assembly. Has anyone seen Alarcón lately?
ReplyDeleteAlso the response is very weak. It sounds more like popular pamphleteering than an offical government announcement. Así es Cuba, Chaguito!
Vecino de NF
Vecino de NF
Vecino, Telesur published an interview with Alacron today.
ReplyDeleteIt starts:
Hoy es un día de vergüenza y de rabia, de vergüenza para los que creen que puede existir justicia en sistema de justicia norteamericano y de rabia para muchas personas en todo el mundo que le pidieron al Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos algo muy sencillo, y es que aceptase revisar el caso de los cinco compañeros.
Hay algo que quizás muchos de nuestros oyentes en Cuba, en América Latina y en el mundo no comprende, y es que en Estado Unidos no existe el derecho de apelar ante el Tribunal Supremo de EE.UU., lo que hace es como una especie de lotería y sólo entre uno y un dos por ciento de las peticiones son las que ellos acceden a reconsiderar, por ello es un juego muy arriesgado y extremadamente difícil.
Nunca antes en Estados Unidos un tribunal recibió una petición respaldada por 10 Premios Nobel, nunca recibió una petición respaldada por varios parlamento pleno como el senado de México y la Asamblea Nacional de Panamá, por tres vicepresidentes del Parlamento Europeo, por un ex vicepresidente de parlamento Europeo y por centenares de parlamentos de Europa y el mundo.
Nunca había recibido una petición de que estudiase un caso suscrito por las principales organizaciones de juristas de EE.UU. y del mundo entero, nunca había solicitado que revisase un caso que por primera vez había sido criticado por la comisión de Derechos Humanos de los Estados Unidos.
Con todo esas esas excepciones los jueces prefirieron hacer los que le pidió que hiciera el presidente Barack Obama y lo que el Gobierno de Estados Unidos les pidió, sencillamente que no accediera a revisar este caso, eso fue lo que hicieron.
I would not call that weak...
FROM NEWSPAPERMAN: What I find fascinating is that neither Raúl nor Fidel have checked in with an official reaction, not even with a perfunctory comment. And what's Raúl up to these days, anyway? I think I saw a picture of him greeting some Angolan visitor. And how about Bruno? Vecino's point is well taken. Why should Alarcón always show his face on behalf of The Five? In other words, who's in charge here?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of anomalies, what about the startling decision to (finally) allow Hilda Molina, after 15 years, to join her family in Argentina? If Fidel was still in full control, this decision to release one of his troublemaking serfs would never have been made.
ReplyDeleteCould it be that the Maximum Leader's health has taken a turn for the worse, allowing Raulito more room to make decisions without fear of Fidel contradicting his orders? As Alice in Wonderland said, things are getting "curiouser and curiouser."
Leftside,
ReplyDeletePresidente Alarcón should know the US judicial system better than what he describes. To say that the US Supreme Court selects cases based on a lottery shows either complete ignorance or deliberate mendacity. My assesment that Cuba's response was weak was based on the note published in Granma yesterday (a note that was not signed by Alarcón with his name but by the Presidency of the National Assembly.) The response was weak because it sounded like something that was written by student activists not a government. The statement that you quote extensively although a good piece of agitprop (full of mistatements of fact of course) is not a government response. It is a diatribe.
We must continue to agree to disagree.
Vecino de NF
Alacron has always been the Cuban official out front on the case of the Cuban 5. Obviously it is under his portfolio.
ReplyDeleteAnd Vecino, Alacron did say that the Supreme Court "selects cases based on a lottery." He said that the fact that only 1 or 2% of cases are accepted by the Court means that "it is some kind of lottery." He's not being literal. He's saying no one knows why they make their decisions, as it is certainly not on case merits.
The decision on Molina follows the typical pattern of these high-profile cases. Cuba does not give in due to direct pressure at the time, but waits until things subside and decide things on their own time.
Leftside,
ReplyDeletePresidente Alarcón's words can be read as you claim he uttered them. He should know that there is a legal reasoning behind every Supreme Court decision to take or decline a case for review. That he chooses to make a flip remark shows that Pres.Alarcón is playing for effect rather than substance. He should also know as I pointed before in this blog that the only remedy is to petition Pres.Obama for either a pardon or a commutation of sentence. He is correct in pointing out that if Pres.Obama does not do either, he is not satisfying what appears to be a crucial demand of the Cuban government for normalizing relations with the USA.
You have said in the past that the Cuban government is not interested in changing the US government. These statements and others in the past indicate that that the Cuban government has very clear ideas of what kind of political and social system should be established in the United States.
Vecino de NF
Vecino, there is no "legal reasoning" for determining when the Supreme Court takes on a case and when it doesn't. It acts as it pleases and does not have to make any legal arguments to anyone. So, with respect, perhaps you were confused on that point, not Alacron.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think you are making quite a leap in saying that Cuba's criticisms of the US Judicial System are evidence of something more sinister. It is not Cuba that has a "plan for transition" for the US, but vice versa.
"The decision on Molina follows the typical pattern of these high-profile cases. Cuba does not give in due to direct pressure at the time, but waits until things subside and decide things on their own time."
ReplyDeleteNice, so this innocent woman has to wait well over a decade to meet her grandchildren because the regime likes to "wait until things subside and decide things on their own time?"
Sorry leftside, but you're an a**hole, pure and simple. Do you also enjoy ripping the heads off of infants and sauteing them? Perhaps with a dollop of cream sauce? You and your are sick human beings. Needs to be said.
Hey, how about we round up all those Moussavi supporters and put bullets in their heads? That'd be "right nice" now wouldn't it, leftside?
Freak. You're not a human, you're an animal.
Leftside,
ReplyDeleteThe President of Cuba's National Assembly is Ricardo A-L-A-R-C-O-N not A-L-A-C-R-O-N. The US Supreme Court decides to take up a case when there is either a conflict between lower courts, a conflict between jurisdictions, or an issue of law but never an issue of fact. The appeal to the Supreme Court on behalf of the Cincos was a waste of paper and almost entirely based on non-legal issues.
Cuba now has made the freeing of the Cincos the central issue in its relations with the USA so we are back in the Elian's days. The Cuban govenrment has chosen to make an argument about these five individuals rather than negotiate an improvement of living conditions for the almost 11 million people in the island. We can continue arguing until we are blue in the face but the reality is that the Cuban government has found an issue to stop any efforts to normalize relations with the US. If the situation was reversed, and five CIA officers (not agents) would be caught in Cuba as penetration agents, it is doubtful that Cuba would even entertain freeing them after they have been convicted.
As far as an exchange, I would suggest exchanging the Cincos for all the US fugitives in Cuba, and a DNA confirmation of Vesco's remains. That the Cuban government is interested in changing the current US socio-political system is well documented. BTW this is a goal that you share with them so please don't be coy about your revolutionary desires.
Vecino de NF
There WAS a conflict between lower courts, Vecino. A appeals court ruled that the Fl Lauderdale trial was inherently unfair. A lower court disagreed.
ReplyDeleteCuba made a huge deal about the 5 well before there was any talk of a dialogue with the US or exchange. The issue is totally separate from any internal reforms. Similarly, it is not designed to stop any progress in relations. If 5 US citizens were caught spying in Libya or somewhere on Al-Qaida to defend our homeland, we would surely demand their repatriation. They are heroes to everyday Cubans. They risked their lives to keep them safe. They never cared one iota about gathering offensive information against US security.
They never cared one iota about gathering offensive information against US security.
ReplyDeletehow do you know that leftcrank? were you part of their cell?
"They are heroes to everyday Cubans."
ReplyDeleteActually, most everyone I know - including my family - in Cuba looks at them like traitors, chivatos, etc. They worked to serve Fidel, not Cuba.
Leftside,
ReplyDeleteMuch is said about the Cincos but the reality is that more than five people were found guilty or pleaded guilty in the Wasp Network trial. There was no conflict between lower courts. The full appeals panel in Atlanta let the convictions and most of the sentences specially the life term for Hernandez stand. These five spies chose a flawed legal strategy as described by Kirk Nielsen in an article in a more recent post to this blog. They chose agitprop over legal defense and now they have to suffer the consequences. BTW I suspect that the US taxpayers paid for their defense unless their lawyers work pro-bono. If the Cuban government link the commutation of their sentences to better relations, everyone on both sides of the Strait of Florida can kiss goodbye any hopes for better Cuba/USA relations. It will bring great comfort those that want to keep tensions between both countries.
Vecino de NF
I can assure you US taxpayers did not pay for the defense of the Cinco. The Cuban Government picked up that tab, I beleive.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is not the Cuban government linking prisoners to better relations. That is the US. The Cuban Government merely tried to work a deal.
Show me an example of "agit-prop" in the Cinco's legal documents. There is a difference between a public relations startegy and a legal strategy.
If the Cuban government link the commutation of their sentences to better relations, everyone on both sides of the Strait of Florida can kiss goodbye any hopes for better Cuba/USA relations.
ReplyDeleteAlarcon: "We share the sentiments of many who feel insulted by that decision, but I don't see why one necessarily has to affect the other," Alarcon said when asked if the high court's move could spoil negotiations.
Leftside,
ReplyDeleteEvery single amicus brief filed on behalf of the Cincos was agitprop, every demonstration in Cuba demanding their release was agitprop, every Cuba solidarity group action on behalf of the Cincos was agitprop, and your advocacy for the case of Cincos is agitprop. None of these actions constitute a part or a whole of a legal strategy just a way of making a political point. BTW the ultimate agitprop strategy to a legal case is a lynching. Don't care about the procedure or the law, just the results! That's a good reason not to like agitprop!
Also BTW there was never a conflict between lower courts that needed to be taken up by the Supreme Court in the case of the Cincos. Those conflict tend to arise when one federal court reaches a decision that is contrary to a decision taken by another court on a similar or identical case. This never happened with the Cincos.
Also BTW I remember when it was a badge of honor for revolutionaries to claims they were doing agitprop. What happened?
Vecino de NF