US SMS campaign targets Cuba

Attacking censorship: U.S. text-messaging campaign targets Cuba
Source: CubaMoneyProject, 01 October 2011.

A Maryland company has won a U.S. government contract to set up a system capable of sending tens of thousands of text messages every month to Cuban cell phone users who want to receive news and information from TV and Radio Martí. Washington Software, Inc., will design a text messaging system aimed at countering Cuban government attempts to block politically sensitive messages, according to a Sept. 23 award notice. The Broadcasting Board of Governors, or BBG, solicited bids for the text-messaging service on Aug. 17. The base contract is worth $84,000 during the first year. Four additional one-year options would boost the total value of the contract to $464,160. One prospective contractor wondered if the text-messaging campaign was legal. He wrote:

We are concerned with the legality of sending these types of notifications to people in another country. Does the US government take all legal responsibility for these messages? Are there legal considerations a vendor would have to be aware of on these kinds of broadcasts?

The BBG replied:

The Agency assumes responsibility for the content of the messages. The Contractor assumes all responsibility under this requirement and should consider all aspects of this requirement before submitting an offer.

Translation: If you’re worried about legal trouble, don’t bother to apply.

The International Broadcasting Bureau, which oversees Miami-based Radio and TV Martí, explained the need to get around Cuban censors.

The IBB’s Internet anti-censorship program seeks to ensure Internet users in target countries are able to access USG broadcasters’ web sites to access their news and other programming, using a variety of tools to counter foreign government-sponsored Internet censorship controls. These techniques must include the ability to add unique changes to each message instance sent to each individual subscriber to avoid detection of messages being sent in bulk to many subscribers. Additionally, these techniques may include keyword substitutions, where potentially provocative keywords which are likely to be censored are replaced with other words or characters which leave the meaning intact but foil automated keyword detection.

FedBizOpps.gov lists Washington Software as the winning contractor. The firm’s first-year contract runs from Sept. 15, 2011, through Sept. 14, 2012. The government contract requires that the contractor be able to distribute up to 24,000 total messages per week – and that amount may rise, depending on events in Cuba. Washington Software has been in business since 1998. Its address is 20410 Century Blvd, Ste 220, Germantown, Maryland. Its clients include the U.S. Department of Education, the Department of Health & Human Services and the Department of Labor and other government agencies. Washington Software also serves such businesses as IBM and Lockheed Martin. The company website states:

We are an IT Solution Provider and we pride ourselves in our experience, knowledge, and skill set to provide our clients with positive results. We utilize a secure and agile methodology alongside proven technologies to maximize our efforts in our projects. Our main focus has been to satisfy our commercial and government organizations located in our region.

The full text of the bid is here

Free the Cuban Five! - Defend the socialist revolution in Cuba

Source: Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! (FRFI) no. 222, August/September 2011.

by Ali Erkaslan

12 September 2011 will mark 13 years since the arrest in Miami, Florida of five Cuban intelligence agents who had infiltrated right-wing terrorist organisations in the United States to help foil terrorist attacks against the Cuban people. They remain incarcerated in US prisons. The campaign for their release is an essential part of the struggle to defend Cuban socialism. In September, Rock around the Blockade will join activists from around the world demanding the release of the Cuban Five.

Government-funded propaganda operation in Miami exposed - Part 1

Source: Reporters for Hire

by Gloria La Riva

More than 2,200 pages of documents obtained through FOIA

In 1998, five Cuban men were arrested by the U.S. government and tried in Miami on charges of conspiring to commit espionage on the United States.

The five men’s mission was to stop terrorism, keeping watch on Miami’s ultra-right extremists to prevent their violent attacks against Cuba. “The Cuban Five,” as they are now known, were convicted after repeated denials by the judge to move the trial venue out of Miami. The U.S. government insisted that they be tried in Miami.

What the Cuban Five and their attorneys did not know during trial was that the U.S. government—through its official propaganda agency, the Broadcasting Board of Governors—was covertly paying prominent Miami journalists who, at the same time as the government conducted its prosecution, saturated the Miami media with reports that were highly inflammatory and prejudicial to the Cuban Five.

The presence of Miami journalists on the U.S. government payroll, who purported to report as “independent” press, goes to the heart of the unjust conviction of the Five. The Five were not only victims of a politically-motivated prosecution, but a government-funded propaganda operation as well.

Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff for Colin Powell when he was Secretary State from 2001 to 2005, commented about the inability of the Cuban Five to receive a fair trial in Miami:

When the case came to trial, a change of venue was warranted and asked for because no Miami court was going to give the Cuban Five a fair trial, since the city is largely in the hands of some of the very Cuban-Americans and their supporters who've allegedly perpetrated these atrocities on the Cuban people and are prepared to invade the island. But the change of venue motion was denied. And of course the five were convicted.

Wilkerson has called for the release of the Cuban Five.

So, too, has former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, who stated:

I believe that there is no reason to keep the Cuban Five imprisoned, there were doubts in the U.S. courts and also among human rights organizations in the world. Now, they have been in prison 12 years and I hope that in the near future they will be released to return home.

WikiLeaks reveal: US and UN officials oversaw integration of ex-army paramilitaries into Haiti’s police force

by Jeb Sprague, 10 August 2011.

Throughout 2004 and 2005, Haiti’s unelected de facto authorities, working alongside foreign officials, integrated at least 400 ex-army paramilitaries into the country’s police force, secret U.S. Embassy cables reveal.

For a year and a half following the ouster of Haiti’s elected government on Feb. 29, 2004, UN, OAS, and U.S. officials, in conjunction with post-coup Haitian authorities, vetted the country’s police force – officer by officer – integrating paramilitaries with the goal of both strengthening the force and providing an alternative “career path” for paramilitaries.

Hundreds of police considered loyal to President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's deposed government were purged. Some were jailed and a few killed, according to numerous sources interviewed. At the same time, former soldiers from the disbanded Haitian Armed Forces (FAdH), who were assembled in a paramilitary “rebel” force which worked with the country’s elite opposition to bring down Aristide, were stationed – officially and unofficially – in many towns across the country. As part of this, an extrajudicial strike brigade was assembled in Pétion-Ville. It carried out brutal raids (sometimes alongside police), often several times a week, in the capital’s coup-resisting neighborhoods, as documented in a November 2004 University of Miami human rights study. The secret U.S. dispatches detailing the police force’s overhaul were part of 1,918 Haiti-related cables obtained by the media organization WikiLeaks and provided to Haïti Liberté.

US gives asylum to dozens of terrorists and fugitives

by Jean-Guy Allard
Source: Granma, 23 August 2011.

The United States, promoter of the "list of state sponsors of terrorism," whose real purpose is to denigrate nations that reject their policies of domination, has granted asylum to dozens of terrorists, fugitives and swindlers of all types sought by various governments in Latin America.


The website Contrainjerencia.com has established, since the beginning of the year, a list of the better known fugitives. Sixty offenders are identified as Latin American fugitives living in U.S. t, most of them with terrorist pasts.


With the Cuban community in Miami, the "File" had to be limited to the most "infamous" terrorists and killers. The overthrow of Fulgencio Batista, supported by Washington, marked the arrival in South Florida of thousands of accomplices of the dictatorship who the CIA then recruited for terrorist operations which were executed and covered up against the Cuban Revolution.


Several authors of terrorist acts that occurred in Venezuela in recent years have also found asylum in the U.S., as well as participants in the murderous conspiracy of Santa Cruz, Bolivia.


Among others who promoted the use of terror in different countries of the continent and now reside in the United States with the knowledge and approval of the State Department contrainjerencia.com identifies the following characters:


- Alejandro Melgar, leader of the Santa Cruz conspiracy, Bolivian businessman.


- Angel de Fana Serrano, participated in 1997, in the Isla Margarita, in a plot to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro during the Ibero-American Summit. An associate of Luis Posada Carriles, De Fana also conspired to assassinate President Chavez.


- Armando Valladares, an accomplice in the assassination attempt of Santa Cruz, Bolivia, and several terrorist acts, was imprisoned in Cuba for planting bombs in shops and resumed his work with the CIA since his departure from the island.


- Carlos Alberto Montaner, lived for several decades on his performances against Cuba. A fugitive from Cuban justice for planting bombs in shops and cinemas in 1960. He was a member of the terrorist network of Orlando Bosch. He owns homes in the U.S. and Spain.

- Gaspar Jiménez, murderer of Cuban diplomat Dartagnan Díaz Díaz, an accomplice of Luis Posada Carriles and sentenced in Panama for terrorism. Based in Miami with FBI protection.


- Guillermo Novo Sampol, a terrorist, an accomplice in the assassination of former Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier, a torturer under Operation Condor, the murderer of two Cuban diplomats in Argentina, an accomplice of Luis Posada Carriles for terrorism and sentenced in Panama. Based in Miami.


- Huber Matos, known for directing terrorist activities. His ties to the Central American drug trafficking world are so well known like of his son, who fled to Costa Rica. Based in Miami.


- Hugo Acha Melgar, financier of the terrorist gang made up of Hungarian and Croatian neo-Nazis who tried to assassinate Bolivian President Evo Morales in 2009 in the Santa Cruz plot.


- Joaquim Chaffardet, ex-director of the Venezuelan secret police, linked to international terrorist Luis Posada Carriles. He was trained by U.S. intelligence services School of the Americas (SOA).


- José Antonio Colina Pulido, responsible for bombings of diplomatic offices in Spain, Colombia and in Caracas in 2003. Based in Miami.


- Nelson Mezerhane, financial conman, shareholder in Globovisión, among the main suspects in the murder of prosecutor Danilo Anderson. Disappeared from Caracas stealing seven million dollars.


- Patricia Poleo, an accomplice in the assassination of Venezuelan prosecutor Danilo Anderson. She is located behind a variety of CIA operations conducted with the U.S. embassy in Caracas against the Bolivarian Revolution. Based in Miami.


- Pedro Remon, a CIA assassin, murderer of Felix Garcia Rodriguez and Eulalio Negrin, in New York; accomplice of Luis Posada Carriles, convicted of terrorism in Panama. Based in Miami with FBI protection.


- Luis Posada Carriles, a CIA agent and international terrorist. He has an endless history of crimes. Sought by Venezuela for the 73 murders on a Cuban airliner blown up in 1976. Based in Miami.


- Reinol Rodriguez, associated with Luis Posada Carriles: an accomplice in the murder in Puerto Rico by Carlos Muñiz Varela. Currently military chief of the Alpha 66 terrorist group, tolerated by the FBI. Based in Miami.


- Roberto Martin Perez, son of one of the most infamous henchmen of the Batista dictatorship, former head of the paramilitary committee of the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF).

- Raul Diaz, convicted of attacks with C4 explosive on two embassies in Caracas which occurred in 2003. Based in Miami.


- Carlos Yacaman, Honduran, murderer of the former minister of housing the administration of Manuel Zelaya, Roland Valenzuela. Located in Miami.


- Branko Marinkovic, Bolivian opposition leader in Santa Cruz, the main financier and accomplice of the terrorist group disbanded in 2009. He gave $ 200,000 to the terrorists to buy weapons. He lives in Miami.


- Jose Guillermo Garcia, Salvadoran general, former minister of defense, responsible for the torture and murder of four American nuns.


- Carlos Vides Casanova, former head of the National Guard of El Salvador, torturer and responsible for the murder of four American nuns.


- Michael Townley, an officer of Pinochet's secret police, accomplice in the murder of former Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier. Based in Miami.


- Santiago Álvarez Fernández Magriñá terrorist and Cuban-American arms dealer, an accomplice of Posada Carriles. Based in Miami.


- Osvaldo Mitat, terrorist and Cuban arms dealer, accomplice of Posada Carriles. Based in Miami.


- Hector Alfonso Ruiz alias Héctor Fabián, Cuban terrorist, planted bombs in embassies, associated with Posada Carriles. Based in Miami.


- Ramon Saul Sanchez, hitman Omega 7, an accomplice of Eduardo Arocena and Pedro Remon. Based in Miami.


- Rodolfo Frómeta, Cuban terrorist, leader of F4 commandos, the confessed authorof terrorist actions against Cuba. Based in Miami.


- Roberto Guillermo Bravo, Argentine military responsible for the slaughter in Trelew that killed 16 young revolutionaries. He lives in Miami.


- Virgilio Paz Romero, an accomplice in the assassination of Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier and his assistant Ronni Moffitt, was pardoned by George W. Bush. Based in Miami.


- Jose Dionisio Suarez Esquivel, alias Charco de Sangre, an accomplice in the assassination of Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt his collaborator, released by George W. Bush. Based in Miami.


- Felix Rodriguez Mendigutía, alias El Gato, a CIA agent, ordered the murder of Ernesto Che Guevara, an accomplice of Posada Carriles in El Salvador's Ilopango base in arms for cocaine. Based in Miami. trafficking


- Salvador Romani, president of the terrorist Cuban Patriotic Junta in Venezuela, attacker of the Cuban embassy in Caracas, accomplice to the murder of lawyer Anderson. Based in Miami.


- Johan Peña, ex-commissioner of DISIP, planted the bomb that killed lawyer Anderson. He lives in Miami.


- Jaime Garcia Covarrubias, former chief repressor of Pinochet accused of torture and murder, now a professor at an academy of the Pentagon, Washington, USA


- José Basulto, a Cuban-American terrorist, CIA agent, head of Brothers to the Rescue, and author of murderous provocations. He lives in Miami.


- Inocente Orlando Montano, Salvadoran colonel sought by the Spanish courts for murder of the Jesuits.


- José Guevara, ex agent of DISIP. Participated from Miami in the conspiracy to assassinate the Venezuelan prosecutor Danilo Anderson.

In Miami, dozens of Cuban-American organizations linked to terrorism are still active even though the FBI knows their connection with violent activities. The terrorist group Alpha 66 and Commandos F4 openly preach the use of terror against Cuba.


Meanwhile the activities of support of terrorist actions by leaders of the CANF and the Cuban Liberty Council have been publicly denounced on several occasions.


Nothing surprises anyone in this area in the country of Representative Connie Mack, who suggested the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and his colleague Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who suggested, in an interview on British television, the physical elimination of Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Gross: What happened between March and August?

by Arnold August

On August fifth it was announced that the fifteen-year sentence arising out of the March fourth Provincial Court trial against Alan Gross, a US AID contractor, was upheld by the Cuban Supreme Court. The American citizen appealed the decision of the Provincial Court in Cuba's highest level of the judiciary on June 22, the result of which was made public on August fifth.

Regarding this issue, since March fourth to date the international media, especially based in Miami, Washington and Madrid, are concentrating on Havana, the Gross trials and legal challenges.

For those who may be puzzled by the Supreme Court decision, it would be useful to examine briefly what has happened in the United States — not Cuba — between March fourth to date in order to perhaps shed some light onto the Supreme Court's confirmation of the lower court's resolution. In this five-month period, the Obama Administration has on many occasions repeated its policy of interfering in the internal affairs of Cuba under the guise of "democracy promotion". For example, the Congress has recently ratified once again the decision to spend 20$ million in the next year explicitly dedicated to subversion in Cuba, including the type of activities that Gross had carried out and for which he has been arrested, tried, found guilty and sentenced. On many occasions the Obama Administration in collaboration with their mercenaries on and off the island did not reduce, but rather reinforced, their provocative activities against the sovereignty of Cuba, one of the legal principles violated by Gross as a US agent contractor.

While Obama visited Chile on March 21, 2011, not long after the original trial and sentencing of Gross, the US President spoke about the need to defend "democracy and human rights within our borders [USA and Chile], let us recommit to defending them across our hemisphere.... And yes, that includes the people of Cuba."

How do readers think that the Cuban government and judiciary had taken this? By adding insult to injury, Obama stated in an interview to a Chilean newspaper as a prelude to his visit to Santiago de Chile that "The Chilean experience, and more particularly its successful transition to democracy and its sustained, growing economy, is a model for the region and the world."

When the news was released on August fifth regarding the Cuban Supreme Court decision, it was the same day that those of us who follow the news through Telesúr and other alternative media were able to bear witness to how the Chilean police violently attacked the students and professors demanding education, economic and political rights. There were according to official sources 874 arrests and hundreds wounded. Is this the example that Obama meant of Chile being a model of democracy and economic development for Cuba? The scenes of Chilean state brutality resembled more the emblematic steps (Escalanita) of the University of Havana before the January 1, 1959 Triumph of the Revolution, when the US-backed Batista dictatorship unleashed their forces so many times against the youth, professors and workers. Many students were killed in these assaults in Havana, but so far at the time of writing in any case, there has been no deaths in Chile during the course of the current confrontations.

Despite the demands to Obama from around the world declared by Nobel Prize winners, individual parliamentarians, parliaments and personalities for the release of the Cuban Five, what has Obama done between March fourth and today? He has done nothing, and we are heading into a most crucial period for the soon-to-be concluded Habeus Corpus process for Gerardo Hernández Nodelo, with nothing yet positive in sight at this time. The Cuban Five are imprisoned since 1998 because they attempted to curb US-backed terrorist interference in the internal affairs of Cuba.

Given all these provocations and repeated confirmations from the White House and the US Congress that they have every intention to continue their program of attempting to subvert Cuba's constitutional order, how else can the Cuban government and judicial authorities react? They have no choice but to make it clear that they will continue to defend their sovereignty as it is the right of every country to do so, big or small.

Alan Gross and his family should blame their own government for their predicament. The White House got him into it in the first place. By carrying out the same policies against Cuba since March fourth to date, it has given no reason for the Cuban judiciary to decide otherwise.

Dance of millions against Cuba

Source: The Prisma.co.uk

A study by the Center for Responsive Politics suggests the millions of dollars given by Political Action Committees (PACs) motivate members of Congress to influence U.S. policy against this island.

by Randy Saborit, 31 July 2011.

The study reveals that the anti-Cuba PACs have awarded upwards of three million dollars between 2009 and 2010 to finance the election campaigns of congressional Republicans or Democrats alike.

The biggest beneficiary was the Cuban-American democratic Senator Robert Menendez, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, who received $112,500, according to the report of the nonpartisan independent organization based in the capital.

Menendez is the leading advocate on Capitol Hill for the allocation of an additional $20 million on top of the already approved 21 million to encourage subversion in Cuba under the cloak of USAID, a modality that some like Senator Jonh Kerry question because there is suspicion of corruption in the disbursement of those public funds.

According to the analysis, more than $100,000 from the PACs was also received by Representative Howard Berman of California, who presided over the House of Representative’s Committee of Foreign Affairs, and former Representative Isaac Skelton, of Missouri, who leads the Army Committee.

Meanwhile, Senator Chuck Grassley became the most favoured Republican, with 100 thousand dollars for his campaign in the 2010 legislative elections, the study asserted.

According to the Centre for Responsive Politics, the United States-Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee alone had contributed 483 thousand dollars to candidates in the 2009-2010 legislative electoral campaign.

Democrat candidates received 284 thousand 500 dollars and Republicans 106 thousand, including the current chairman of the House of Representatives John Boehner, his old ally Dan Burton, Latin Texan Henry Cuéllar and Elio Engel, who until 2010 presided over the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs. In the Senate, the aforementioned PAC granted funds to its president, democrat Harry Reid, to Joseph Lieberman and to Cuban-American Marco Rubio, of Florida, among others.

Concerning pressure groups, attorney Ariadna Cornelio, states that these groups intervene in the formation of U.S. foreign policy, and sometimes ensure that their specific interests are taken into account, which reveals the falsehood of Washington’s democracy, pointed out Cornelio in an exclusive interview with Prensa Latina.

The author focused her study on the influence of four groups that exert pressure on Washington’s policies toward Havana: the Cuban American National Foundation, the Council for the Freedom of Cuba, the US-Cuba Democracy PAC and the Cuba Study Group.

To achieve their objectives, she specified, those organizations use methods aimed at influencing policy makers in committees and subcommittees of Congress and in Federal departments and specialized agencies of the Executive.

The researcher also referred to indirect methods such as media campaigns, conducting opinion polls, support for think tanks, building coalitions, boycotts and protests.

A PAC is an entity registered with the Federal Election Commission organized to raise and distribute funds to elect or defeat political candidates and mostly represent interests of business, union or ideological sectors.

Venezuelan forces respond to prison violence

Venezuelan Forces respond to gang violence, disarm prison
Source: Correo del Orinoco International, no 69, 24 June 2011.

State response to the current prison crisis in Venezuela has been based on a premise of respecting human rights and not engaging lethal violence, despite deadly force employed by some prisoners

In response to a confrontation last week between rival gangs in Venezuelan prison El Rodeo I, the Venezuelan government has sent state security forces to disarm gang members and “preserve the lives of other prisoners” in both El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II penitentiaries. The altercation – which left 22 prisoners dead and over 50 injured – has prompted the government to initiate a series of measures in order to take the Revolution into the nation’s jails and regain control of the country’s prison system. Vice-President Elias Jaua described the intervention by state forces as a ‘necessary’ measure and emphasized the government’s commitment to safeguardingthe prisoner’s human rights. “This undertaking isn’t to massacre prisoners, it is to protect their lives from a small group that have wrested control of the internal management of the prison and have committed a massacre in the past few days - resulting in 21 deaths (now confirmed at 22)”, said Jaua. Combining both direct and ‘humanizing’ measures in order to address the problem, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez last week also approved 413 million bolivars ($96 million) in order to completely reform the penitentiary system.

The Vice-President also highlighted that the government isaddressing the problem from a systematic point of view - “we are working so that our people have the best material conditions so that their children can move forwards and don’t end up in prison. In that exclusionary system, only the poor are sentenced”, he explained.

PRISONS EVACUATED, WEAPONS SEIZED
Thousands of inmates were evacuated to other detention centers throughout the country when gangs put up violent resistance to the operation and a fire broke out in El Rodeo I. So far the total number of inmate casualties is unknown - two officers have lost their lives as a result of the violence. Vice-Minister of Prevention and Citizen Security for the Ministry of Interior Relations and Justice, Nestor Reverol, confirmed that the fire broke out in an ‘empty area’ of the prison and that no inmates were burned – as some sectors of the Venezuelan opposition have claimed.

There are currently around 1000 prisoners remaining in each of the two prisons – with gang leaders in El Rodeo II refusing to cooperate with the Venezuelan authorities despite days of sustained dialogue. Friday los “Pranes” and el “Carro” – the two principal gangs in the prison - have attacked officers and held other inmates hostage as they fight to keep control of the penitentiary. Venezuelan Human Rights Official Gabriela Ramirez confirmed that 90% of the prisoners that remain in El Rodeo II are under intense pressure from gang leaders and reported that rescued inmates stated they “wanted peace”. Calling on the leaders to abandon their violent attitudes and to turn themselves over to authorities, Ramirez reassured them that their human rights would be respected. “Please boys, we are waiting for you here, with hand on heart, for the lives of each one of you. We don’t even want you to scratch yourselves! We want you to come out in a decent condition and without any trauma”, she said to the prisoners.

Following 6 hours of dialogue with inmates, Commander General of the Bolivarian National Guard, Motta Dominguez, confirmed that his forces had confiscated a total of; 7 semi-automatic guns, 5 shotguns, 20 pistols, 8 hand grenades, 45 kilos of cocaine, 5000 ammunition cartridges, 100 mobile phones and 12 kilos of marijuana the operation began on Friday. Venezuelan Defense Minister General Carlos Mata specified that Venezuelan forces had acted within the “framework of the law” to “guarantee the human rights of the inmates” and uphold the fundamental right to life. Reports suggest that the situation is calm in both detention centers, but that a hostile atmosphere prevails in El Rodeo II. The Bolivarian National Guard now has complete control over El Rodeo I.

OPPOSITION AND PRIVATE MEDIA EXPLOIT SITUATION
The National Assembly has confirmed this Monday that it will launch an investigation in response to allegations made by prisoners in El Rodeo against human rights organizations. Following their evacuation, some prisoners have asserted that certain NGOs - in collaboration with private media outlets - deliberately and strategically fomented the violence within the prison. In a televised interview with state channel VTV, one of the prisoners – who wished to remain anonymous – stated that many opposition NGOs are communicating with ‘El Carro’ and informing them what steps to take in order to create a “crisis”. “The directions that they receive in the prisons come from a lot of opposition human rights groups, what they want is to create chaos in order to provoke a penitentiary emergency at a national level”, revealed the prisoner. Maria Mercedes Berthe, Director of Fundamental Rights for the Public Ministry, communicated that at this stage the government couldn’t categorically state whether these allegations held truth or not. “They are making these declarations in their capacity as witnesses. On the basis of this, we will keep investigating in order to find out the truth of these events”, announced Berthe.

The Venezuelan opposition and their private media channels have received strong criticism for exploiting the situation for political gain and releasing inaccurate information surrounding the operation in an attempt to destabilize and discredit the government. Vice-President Elias Jaua condemned the inappropriate behaviour of some members of the opposition outside the penitentiary as an insult to the Venezuelan people. “There they are, taking photos and giving false hugs to the poor women agonizing over their sons inside El Rodeo...Wretches! Don’t play with the Venezuelan people’s pain”, implored Jaua. Venezuelans gathered at 10 am last Saturday morning in Plaza Madariaga, Caracas, in order to manifest their support for the Bolivarian National Guard and their actions in El Rodeo.

As of today, the tense situation persists in El Rodeo.

Behind the Venezuelan prison riots: the state of Venezuela’s prisons today

Source: Venezuelanalysis.com
by Juan Reardon, 21 June 2011

One week into a deadly prison riot at one of Venezuela’s most notorious urban prisons, government officials are continuing their efforts to bring the riot and kidnapping to a close through dialogue. Having already transferred the majority (2,500) of El Rodeo Prison’s inmates to nearby prisons, authorities said they are negotiating directly with the Pranes prison gang in an attempt to secure the release of the remaining 1,000 prisoners. Since clashes began late last Thursday night, the official death count includes one prisoner and two members of the National Guard. In addition, 38 people have been wounded- 18 prisoners and 22 members of the security forces. According to a National Guard spokesman, 36 inmates were “rescued” from “violent prisoners” on Monday afternoon, though gunshots were reported late Monday night. Another 39 were rescued on Tuesday. At midday Tuesday, the names of the 2,500 transferred prisoners were made public so as to calm uncertainty among prisoner’s families.

PRISON VIOLENCE
According to the International Center for Prison Studies (ICPS), the 43,461 people currently held in Venezuelan prisons place the country’s prison population rate at 149 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. Countries in the region with higher prison population rates (based on the same per 100,000 figure) include the United States (743), Chile (305), Guyana (284), Brazil (253), Mexico (200), and Colombia (181). While Venezuela’s per capital prison rate is lower than some in the region, violent clashes are commonplace; with figures from an Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) hearing that refer to 476 dead and 967 wounded in 2010 alone. A year earlier, the Venezuelan Prison Observatory (OVP), which receives funding from the US government, published their 2009 report placing the total number of prisoners killed and wounded that year at 366 and 635, respectively. While these figures are troubling, they can be considered an improvement if compared to prison violence in 2008 (422 dead, 854 wounded) and 2007 (498 dead, 1,023 wounded). Overcrowding appears to be a major factor triggering Venezuela’s levels of prison violence. According to InsightCrime.com, Venezuela has the capacity to house 14,500 inmates in a total of 34 prisons nationwide, but with almost 44,000 prisoners the country is nearing three times as many prisoners as capacity to house them.

El Rodeo I and II, for example, were originally designed to house 750 prisoners, one fifth of the actual 3,500 they were holding at the time riots began on Thursday. In late April of this year, prisoners at El Rodeo also took 22 officials hostage in what they claimed was a protest against a tuberculosis outbreak in the prison. Earlier this month, clashes between gangs at El Rodeo left 22 prisoners dead, and the recent spat of violence is said to have begun after government forces began a search and seizure operation to unarm El Rodeo’s prison population.

The high prison populations reflect government attempts to satisfy the general population’s frustrations with elevated crime rates across the country, especially in urban centers. The current government is making more of an effort than previous governments to combat corruption in the security forces and state institutions, as well as violence against women, and street violence. Meanwhile, it is also implementing a “prison humanization” program which includes a prison orchestra, cultural classes, job training, and allowing non-risk prisoners to leave prisons during the day.

It is also encouraging community policing, with an emphasis on crime prevention. Unfortunately though, changes have been slow in coming.

CONTEXTUALIZING PRISON VIOLENCE
In April this year, Venezuela’s National Assembly unanimously passed a new Penitentiary Code bill aimed at reducing violent crime in the country’s prisons. According to Correo del Orinoco, the newly enacted legislation has four core principles: respect for human rights, the classification of inmates, the establishment of sanctions for those who violate accepted norms in the treatment of those serving time, and the development of alternative sentences related to conditional freedom, study and work. Blanca Eekhout, vice president of the National Assembly, called for an end to gang-related prison violence, affirming that the current Venezuelan government’s efforts to “humanize prisons” are only possible if authorities are able to dismantle the “prison gangs that have become an institution within prison walls, a drama throughout the continent and throughout our history”.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, Venezuelan National Assembly president Fernando Soto Rojas put the current prison violence into context. Referring specifically to El Rodeo, Rojas said, “What is happening in our prisons is not separate from a concrete, historical reality, above and beyond the responsibilities the revolution has” in bringing the current prison violence to a halt. “We want to know how these weapons, including weapons of war, entered the prisons, and this question must be investigated in depth, no matter who might fall (politically) as a result”, he said.

OPPOSITION OPPORTUNISM
Eekhout also accused the Venezuelan opposition of “opportunism” surrounding the El Rodeo prison violence, saying that opposition statements to the press have served only to heighten tension among prisoners’ families and are part of an “irresponsible, permanent attempt to destabilize” the country. Members of the Venezuelan opposition have jumped at the opportunity to highlight the suffering of poor and working families – the Chavez government’s base of support – people who have relatives confined in overcrowded prisons.

These “opportunists,” she said, “are the vultures of Venezuelan politics. They have never respected the country, never believed in the capabilities of our people, and would love nothing more than to see another massacre against prisoners…like what we all saw in Catia (1992)”. On 27 November 1992, under the government of then president Carlos Andres Perez, Venezuelan authorities stormed El Reten de Catia – a Caracas prison built to temporarily house 700 prisoners but held 4,000 at the time – killing somewhere between 63 and 200 prisoners.

According to Amnesty International, “the National Guard is alleged to have entered the prison [El Reten de Catia] firing indiscriminately”. Venezuelan Vice-President Elias Jaua went even further, calling opposition spokespeople who have in recent days visited the perimeters of El Rodeo “a miserable lot”. “There they are…taking their photos, giving fake embraces to the impoverished women who are living a great deal of anxiety, waiting to get information about their sons locked up in El Rodeo Prison”, he said. Jaua speculated that if a prison riot of this nature had occurred during “the 4th Republic” (1958-1998), “hundreds of prisoners would have already been killed, since the security forces would have been sent in at once to massacre prisoners”.

Cuba and the Number of "Political Prisoners"

Source: HuffingtonPost
by Salim Lamrani, August 24, 2010.
Translated by David Brookbank.

The question of the number of "political prisoners" in Cuba is subject to controversy. According to the Cuban government, there are no political prisoners in Cuba, rather they are people convicted of crimes listed in the penal code, particularly the act of receiving funding from a foreign power. In its 2010 report, Amnesty International (AI) describes "55 prisoners of conscience,"(1) of whom 20 were released in July 2010, followed by another six on August 15, 2010 after mediation by the Catholic Church and Spain, and later another two.(2) Thus, according to AI, there are currently 27 "political prisoners" in Cuba. Finally, the Cuban opposition and, more precisely, Elizardo Sánchez of the Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation (CDHRN) put the number at 147 political prisoners, minus the 6 recently freed, in other words, 141.(3) The Western media favor this latter list.

First, before raising the question of the exact number of "political prisoners" in Cuba, it is worth clarifying one aspect of this issue, i.e., the existence or non-existence of financing of the Cuban opposition by the United States.

This policy, carried out clandestinely from 1959 to 1991, is now public and confirmed by many sources. Indeed, Washington has acknowledged this fact in various documents and official statements. The 1992 Torricelli law, in particular section 1705, states that "the United States Government may provide assistance, through appropriate nongovernmental organizations, for the support of individuals and organizations to promote nonviolent democratic change in Cuba."(4) The Helms-Burton Act of 1996 provides in Section 109 that "the President [of the United States] is authorized to furnish assistance and provide other support for individuals and independent nongovernmental organizations to support democracy-building efforts for Cuba."(5) The first report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba proposed the development of a "solid support program that promotes Cuban civil society."(6) Among the measures envisaged was funding, totaling $36 million dollars, destined to "supporting the democratic opposition and strengthening an emerging civil society." The second report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba proposed a budget of $31 million to further finance the internal opposition.(7) The plan also provided for "the training and equipping of independent print, radio, and TV journalists in Cuba." (8)

The U.S. diplomatic mission in Havana -- the U.S. Interests Section (USINT) -- has confirmed this in a statement: "The U.S. policy has long been to provide humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people, specifically to families of political prisoners. We also allow private organizations to do the same." (9)

Laura Pollán, of the dissident group "Ladies in White", admits receiving money from the U.S.(10): "We accept help, support, from the extreme right to the left, without conditions."(11) The opposition leader Vladimiro Roca admits that Cuban dissidents are subsidized by Washington, claiming that the financial assistance received is "totally and completely legal." For the dissident René Gómez, financial support from the United States "is not something that has to be hidden nor that we have to be ashamed of."(12) Similarly, government opponent Elizardo Sánchez confirmed the existence of U.S. financing: "The key point is not who sent the aid, but what is done with the aid." (13)

The Western press admits this reality. Agence France-Presse reported that "the dissidents, for their part, appeal for and accept such financial assistance.(14) The Spanish news agency EFE refers to "opponents paid by the United States."(15) According to the British press agency Reuters, "the US government openly provides federally-funded support for dissident activities, which Cuba considers an illegal act."(16) The U.S. newsgathering agency Associated Press says that the policy of manufacturing and financing internal opposition is not new: "Over the years, the U.S. government has spent many millions of dollars to support Cuba's opposition".(17) It states, "Part of the funding comes directly from the U.S. government, whose laws promote the overthrow of the Cuban government." (18)

Wayne S. Smith is a former diplomat who was head of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana from 1979 to 1982. According to him, it is completely "illegal and unwise to send money to the Cuban dissidents".(19) He added that, "No one should give money to the dissidents, much less for the purpose of overthrowing the Cuban government" since "when the US declares its objective is to overthrow the government of Cuba and later admits that one of the means of achieving that goal is to provide funds to the Cuban dissidents, these dissidents finds themselves de facto in the position of agents paid by a foreign power to overthrow their own government." (20)

Let's recall now the position of Amnesty International. The organization speaks of 27 "political prisoners" in Cuba as of August 15, 2010. Nevertheless, at the same time AI recognizes that these individuals were charged for having "received funds and/or materials from the United States government in order to engage in activities the authorities perceived as subversive and damaging to Cuba".(21) Thus, the organization found itself in a contradiction, in that international law considers the financing of the internal opposition in another sovereign nation to be illegal. Every country in the world has a judicial arsenal establishing the illegality of such conduct. U.S. and European laws, among others, strongly sanction the act of receiving funds from a foreign power.

The list put together by Elizardo Sánchez is longer and includes all sorts of individuals. Among the 141 names, ten were freed due to health, leaving a total of 131 people. With regard to these 10 individuals, Sánchez explained that he keeps them on the list because they could be jailed again in the future. Another four individuals served their sentences and left prison. Thus 127 people remain. Another 27 people are to be released prior to October, according to the agreement signed between Havana, Spain, and the Catholic Church.

Of the 100 remaining individuals, about half were imprisoned for violent crimes. Some carried out armed incursions into Cuba and at least two of them, Humberto Eladio Real Suárez and Ernesto Cruz León, are responsible for the deaths of various civilians in 1994 and 1997 respectively.(22)

Ricardo Alarcón, the president of the Cuban Parliament, emphasized these contradictions, "Curiously, our critics talk about a list... Why don't they explain that they are asking for freedom for the person who murdered Fabio di Celmo?" (23)

The Associated Press (AP) also emphasized the dubious nature of Sánchez's list and indicates that "some of those would not normally be seen as political prisoners." "But a closer look will find bombers, hijackers and intelligence agents." The AP points out that among the 100 people, "about half were convicted of terrorism, hijacking or other violent crimes, and four are former military or intelligence agents convicted of espionage or revealing state secrets." (24)

For its part, Amnesty International confirms that it can not consider the people on Sanchez's list to be "prisoners of conscience" because it includes "people brought to trial for terrorism, espionage and those who tried, or actually succeeded, in blowing up hotels", according to the organization. "We certainly would not call for their release or describe them as prisoners of conscience." (25)

Miguel Moratinos, the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, who played a pivotal role in the agreement for the liberation of the 52 prisoners, also has called into question the validity of Sánchez's list and has underscored its imprecise character: "They don't say that 300 must be freed, because there are not 300. The Cuban Human Rights Commission's own list, a week before I arrived there, spoke of there being 202. The day before I arrived in Cuba, the Commission said there were 167." (26)

After the freeing of the other 27 persons included in the June 2010 agreement, there remained only one "political prisoner" in Cuba, Rolando Jiménez Pozada, according to Amnesty International. The Associated Press for its part points out that in fact this individual is "jailed on charges of disobedience and revealing state secrets." (27)

Curiously, the list developed by Sánchez, which is the least reliable of the lists and which has been criticized from all sides due to the inclusion of individuals convicted of grave acts of terrorism, is favored by the western press.

The Cuban government has made a notable gesture by proceeding to free prisoners considered to be "political prisoners" by the U.S. and some organizations, such as Amnesty International. The primary obstacle to the normalization of relations between Washington and Havana -- from the point of view of the Obama government -- no longer exists. That being the case, it is up to the White House to make a reciprocal gesture and put an end to the anachronistic and ineffective economic sanctions against the Cuban people.



Notes
1 Amnesty International, «Rapport 2010. La situation des droits humains dans le monde», May 2010. http://thereport.amnesty.org/sites/default/files/AIR2010_AZ_FR.pdf (website consulted June 7, 2010), pp. 87-88.

2 EFE, «Damas piden a España acoger a más presos políticos», 25 de julio de 2010; Carlos Batista, «Disidencia deplora 'destierro' de ex presos», El Nuevo Herald, August 15, 2010.

3 EFE, «Damas piden a España acoger a más presos políticos», July 25, 2010.

4 Cuban Democracy Act, Title XVII, Section 1705, 1992.

5 Helms-Burton Act, Title I, Section 109, 1996.

6 Colin L. Powell, Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, (Washington: United States Department of State, May 2004). www.state.gov/documents/organization/32334.pdf (website consulted May 7, 2004), pp. 16, 22.

7 Condolezza Rice & Carlos Gutierrez, Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, (Washington: United States Department of State, July 2006). www.cafc.gov/documents/organization/68166.pdf (website consulted July 12, 2006), p. 20.

8 Ibid., p. 22.

9 Associated Press/El Nuevo Herald, «Cuba: EEUU debe tomar 'medidas' contra diplomáticos», May 19, 2008.

10 Associated Press, "Cuban Dissident Confirms She Received Cash from Private US Anti-Castro Group", May 20, 2008.

11 El Nuevo Herald, «Disidente cubana teme que pueda ser encarcelada», May 21, 2008.

12 Patrick Bèle, «Cuba accuse Washington de payer les dissidents», Le Figaro, May 21, 2008.

13 Agence France-Presse, «Prensa estatal cubana hace inusual entrevista callejera a disidentes», May 22, 2008.

14 Agence France-Presse, «Financement de la dissidence: Cuba 'somme' Washington de s'expliquer», May 22, 2008.

15 EFE, «Un diputado cubano propone nuevos castigos a opositores pagados por EE UU», May 28, 2008.

16 Jeff Franks, "Top U.S. Diplomat Ferried Cash to Dissident: Cuba", Reuters, May 19, 2008.

17 Ben Feller, "Bush Touts Cuban Life after Castro", Associated Press, October 24, 2007.

18 Will Weissert, «Activistas cubanos dependen del financiamiento extranjero», Associated Press, August 15, 2008.

19 Radio Habana Cuba, "Former Chief of US Interests Section in Havana Wayne Smith Says Sending Money to Mercenaries in Cuba is Illegal", May 21, 2008.

20 Wayne S. Smith, "New Cuba Commission Report: Formula for Continued Failure", Center for International Policy, July 10, 2006.

21 Amnesty International, Cuba: Five years too many, new government must release jailed dissidents, March 18, 2008. http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/cuba-five-years-too-many-new-government-must-release-jailed-dissidents-2 (website consulted April 23, 2008).

22 Juan O. Tamayo, «¿Cuántos presos políticos hay en la isla?», El Nuevo Herald, July 22, 2010.

23 José Luis Fraga, «Alarcón: presos liberados pueden quedarse en Cuba y podrían ser más de 52», Agence France-Presse, July 20, 2010.

24 Paul Haven, "Number of Political Prisoners in Cuba Still Murky", Associated Press, July 23, 2010.

25 Ibid.

26 EFE, "España pide a UE renovar relación con Cuba", July 27, 2010.

27 Paul Haven, "Number of Political Prisoners in Cuba Still Murky", op. cit.


Salim Lamrani is a university lecturer at the University Paris-Sorbonne-Paris IV and the University Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée and a French journalist, specialist on the relationship between Cuba and the United States. Lamrani has just published Cuba. Ce que les médias ne vous diront jamais (Paris: éditions Estrella, 2009). It is available in bookstores and on Amazon: For specific requests, contact him directly at: lamranisalim@yahoo.fr , Salim.Lamrani@univ-mlv.fr

Cuba and China sign oil agreements

Chinese oil company signs offshore agreement
Source: CubaStandard.com, 09 June 2011.

After at least two years of ‘false alarms’ from U.S. politicians about Chinese oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, Chinese state oil company CNPC on June 5 agreed to contract five blocks in Cuban waters. Chinese involvement in offshore drilling in Cuba near U.S. waters is a politically sensitive issue in Washington.

CNPC will expand cooperation with CubaPetróleo (Cupet) in “exploring and developing new onshore and offshore oil blocks in Cuba,” CNPC said in a terse press release, without providing any details.

According to observers close to the negotiations, a framework agreement between CNPC and Cuban state oil company CubaPetróleo (Cupet) signed by the CEOs of both oil companies June 5 in Havana, in the presence of Vice President Xi Jinping and Raúl Castro, includes the contracting of blocks N19, N20, N21, N22 and N30 at the western edge of Cuba’s economic exclusive zone, adjacent to the maritime border with Mexico. China’s blocks are next to four blocks leased by Petrovietnam, and four blocks Angolan state company Sonangol is negotiating.

In addition to new exploration CNPC, under the “expanded cooperative framework agreement,” will provide help in reducing operating costs and raising output and recovery rates at existing on-shore oil fields.

The agreements also include a memorandum of understanding on “cooperation in engineering construction,” according to the press release. CNPC subsidiary China Huanqiu Contracting & Engineering Corp. agreed to be the contractor for the $6 billion expansion of a refinery in Cienfuegos, Reuters reported on Sunday. CNPC’s engineering construction may “help facilitate Cuba’s economic development and social progress,” the CNPC press release said, without providing any details.

The CNPC agreement is part of billions of dollars worth of economic support China agreed to provide during a visit of Vice President Xi Jinping to Havana. Xi is expected to be the next president of China.


China to play major role in Cuban oil development
Source: Reuters, 08 June 2011.

by Jeff Franks (Havana)

China looks ready to play a major role in the development of Cuban oil, including the island's soon-to-be explored fields in the Gulf of Mexico, after the signing of energy-related accords during a visit this week by Vice President Xi Jinping. The text of the agreements has not been disclosed, but they appear aimed at making China a significant oil partner with its fellow communist-run country, which is likely to raise eyebrows in the nearby United States.

State-owned China National Petroleum Corp said on Wednesday the accords committed the company to make "full use" of its oil expertise to help Cuba raise its oil output and "to expand cooperation with (state-owned) Cubapetroleo in exploring and developing new onshore and offshore oil blocks in Cuba."

Whether the agreement means CNPC has leased Gulf of Mexico blocks for exploration was not immediately clear.

But Jorge Pinon, a visiting fellow at Florida International University and expert on Cuban oil, said the Cubans have previously said they were discussing the leasing of five of their 59 offshore blocks to the Chinese. "All the pieces of the puzzle are finally falling into place," he told Reuters.

Those pieces include two other accords that commit the two countries to negotiate contracts for a major expansion of a Cuban oil refinery in the city of Cienfuegos, and the construction of a liquefied natural gas project, including a regasification plant, at the refinery.

Sources have said the projects would cost $6 billion, most of which would be provided by China and backed by oil from Venezuela. Socialist ally Venezuela and China are, respectively, Cuba's number one and two top trading partners.

NOT IDLE PROMISES
Signatories to the three accords included Jiang Jiemen, the president of CNPC, indicating they were not idle promises. Xi and Cuban President Raul Castro attended the ceremony on Sunday in Havana. Xi is widely expected to succeed Chinese President Hu Jintao in 2013.

The agreements with China, which also is a major creditor to Cuba, come as Cuba awaits the arrival of a Chinese-built rig contracted by Spanish oil giant Repsol YPF to conduct the first full-scale exploration in Cuba's part of the Gulf of Mexico.

The high-tech Scarabeo 9 rig is expected to arrive in Cuban waters in late September or early October and start drilling the first of a series of wells planned by companies including Repsol, Malaysia's Petronas PETR.UL and a unit of India's ONGC.

Repsol's first well will be about 60 miles (100 km) from Florida, which is twice as close as drillers can get to the state's west coast in U.S. waters, due to a federal ban. Cuba says it may have 20 billion barrels of reserves, but the U.S. Geological Survey has estimated only 5 billion.

The prospect of Cuban drilling has touched off opposition from Florida lawmakers who say it threatens the state's environment and helps the Cuban government so hated by many in Miami, the center of the Cuban exile community.

They have filed bills in Washington attempting to thwart the drilling by punishing foreign companies and individuals who take part in Cuba's exploration. U.S. oil companies cannot work in Cuba due to the longstanding U.S. trade embargo against the island.

Repsol representatives met with U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last week to assure him they have solid safety plans in place should there be a blowout like that at the BP well last year off the Louisiana coast.

"It sounds as if the (U.S.) administration is trying to figure out how to work cooperatively with Repsol, and that is definitely in the U.S. national interest," said Cuba expert Phil Peters at the Lexington Institute think tank in Arlington, Virginia.

"Florida wants high standards of environmental protection in the gulf and Florida also doesn't want the U.S. to talk to Cuba. You can't have it both ways," he said.

Chinese involvement in Cuban waters would add a new element to the U.S. debate over relations with Cuba. Former Vice President Dick Cheney mistakenly said in 2008 that China was drilling in Cuban waters 60 miles (96 km) from Florida, and used it to argue the U.S. should step up its own drilling.

But China's presence also might be used by lawmakers who want to justify a hard line against Cuba's exploration plans. In 2005, the Chinese National Offshore Corp. tried to buy California-based oil company Unocal, but there was strong opposition in the U.S. Congress on grounds of national security. CNOOC withdrew its bid and China learned a lesson, Pinon said. "China learned how sensitive this country is to China's activities," he said. "China is a good political whipping boy."

Chavez returns: The battle continues

Source: RevolutionaryCommunist.org
by Sam McGill, 12 July 2011.

“ I swear to you that we will win this battle...we'll win it together. The battle for life, the homeland and the revolution!”

With these words, Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, addressed 100,000 Venezuelans from Miraflores presidential palace, Caracas as part of a civic-military parade to mark 200 years of Independence from Spanish rule. His return to Venezuela muffled frenzied media speculation surrounding his health and ability to lead the Bolivarian Revolution, for now.


Chavez had been visiting Latin American and Caribbean countries in advance of the founding meeting of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean Nations (CELAC). Whilst in Cuba, Chavez was unwell and underwent emergency treatment in early June to remove a pelvic abscess. Thanks to the high standard of Cuban healthcare and medical attention, repeated checks on Chavez's health by Cuban doctors uncovered a small cancerous tumour which was then removed. Adding to Cuba's reputation as a leading healthcare provider, Chavez was able to return to Caracas just in time for the bicentennial independence celebrations on 5 July.


Media speculation:
True to form, Venezuela's opposition media and its international lackeys in the New York Times, CNN and the BBC, seized on the opportunity to attack Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution. Their aim was to create a climate of uncertainty about Venezuela's future, claiming that Chavez's absence was unconstitutional, and even spreading rumours that Chavez was in a coma or dead!

On Saturday 25 June, the Miami-based Spanish-language newspaper, El Nuevo Herald, published an article stating that Chavez was in a ‘critical’ and ‘serious’ state, according to comments supposedly made on Friday to the newspaper by ‘United States intelligence sources’. The paper quoted no other sources, nor did it explain how the US sources got this information.

Furthermore, on 26 June, a group called Wikileaks Argentina, not associated with the document-leaking organisation Wikileaks, put out a tweet saying that an Argentinian embassy cable had confirmed that Chavez had died of a heart attack in Cuba. The tweet prompted a range of articles, blog entries, and speculation, but was later revealed as a hoax and the twitter account was deleted.

This led the New Statesmen paper to headline with ‘Hugo Chavez: not dead’ and the BBC with ‘Absence of Ill Hugo Chavez sparks speculation’. During his time in Cuba, Chavez addressed Venezuela regularly by telephone, most notably on 10 June, then again on 30 June. Chavez participated in several working meetings with Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela’s Vice-president Elias Jaua and the Head of Venezuela’s National assembly, Fernando Soto Rojas. Despite this the opposition and international media attempted to create confusion and panic.

Adding to international media attacks, on 3 July in the Observer, Rory Carroll paraded quotes from an interview with Noam Chomsky, claiming that Chomsky had turned on his ‘old friend’ Chavez. As usual Carroll selected his quotes carefully to portray Chomsky as accusing the socialist leader of ‘amassing too much power’ and of making an 'assault' on Venezuela's democracy. The tactic backfired as Chomsky publicly complained about the article, stating Carroll had been ‘quite deceptive’ and ‘dishonest’ in his portrayal of the interview. Chomsky demanded the news outlet print the interview in full and the Guardian was forced to highlight his complaints and publish the whole transcript. Although on this occasion Rory Carroll was exposed for his manipulative and biased journalism, the media affair adds to the barrage of attacks on Venezuela and Chavez.

To read the full story see ‘Chomsky Says UK Guardian article ‘Quite deceptive’ about his Chavez Criticism’.

Moreover, when Chavez signed accords and enacted a law from Cuba, the opposition crowed that this was unconstitutional and Chavez's absence and health required he step down from the presidency. One opposition legislator, Julio Borges, went so far as to say the President is prohibited from governing outside of the Venezuelan capital, Caracas. This would imply that a Venezuelan president lost his powers once stepping outside the boundaries of the capital district, a ridiculous concept.

Article 234 of Venezuela's constitution stipulates that the country’s President can be temporarily absent for a total 180 days without having to delegate presidential powers to the Executive Vice-President. After an initial absence of 90 days, a second period of 90 days can be granted if approved by the majority of the National Assembly. Chavez has rarely had time off in the 12 years he has been President of Venezuela. This is in stark contrast to US president George Bush who in 2005 took a five week holiday. Bush is also known for having taken a month holiday just before the 11 September 2001 attacks, in the first year of his administration. By August 2006, he’d spent over a year of his presidency at his ranch, for an average of 9 weeks per year. In the US, the President frequently makes executive decisions while travelling abroad or away from the White House. President Obama even authorized the military attacks against Libya while on a visit to Brazil in March 2011 and just last month signed the extension of the controversial Patriot Act from France using a method called the “auto-pen”. The “auto-pen” is an automated signature issued without the presence of the President.

The media uproar is symptomatic of the opposition's obsession with demonizing Chavez and any progressive changes in Venezuela. As Eva Golinger, Venezuelan lawyer and author of ‘Postcards from the Revolution’ blog, rightly points out:

‘When he’s here, the opposition wants him gone, and has attempted everything from coup d’etats, economic sabotages, assassination attempts and even calling for foreign intervention, to get him out. When he’s temporarily absent, they want him back. When photographs and video images were shown of him from his recovery location in Havana, opposition spokespeople and media demanded he make a speech. When he’s in Venezuela making speeches and talking on television, they want him silenced.’

Venezuela: with or without Chavez:
During the bicentennial independence celebrations, Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution showed itself to be evermore determined to continue its path towards socialism and independence, with or without Chavez.

Elias Sanchez, communal council spokesperson in Merida affirmed, ‘Right now we're called on to reflect deeply and to double all our efforts for the transformation of society, that's how I feel right now. Rather than this fight for a just and sovereign country being over, now is when there is a people that is conscious of its responsibilities. We mustn't lose sight of our final objective, nothing should distract us. I want to say to Chavez, thank you for kindling the revolutionary flame, thank you for giving us the tools to make a revolution, thank you for broadening our collective memory and making us aware of our rebellious past…’

Elba de Alastra, of the San Antonio communal council in Coro, Falcon, added, ‘Although one day, there will have to be someone else, because he’s not immortal...No, no sir, this won’t stop our revolution...it will drive it forward. Look at me, I’m retired, but am I at home? No. I’m out working for my community, the community that Chávez gave to us – we didn’t have this before - now the communities have the power, the communities make decisions. Last night it made us stronger, to see him there [following Chavez’s TV appearance from Havana on 30 June] and know that he is going to come out of this. We are more united than ever.’

Although it is clear that Chavez is key in driving the Bolivarian revolution forward, 12 years of struggle and progression has awakened a Venezuelan people who are determined to preserve the gains they have made. The millions of people who have benefited from free healthcare and education for the first time, the communal councils able to organise to meet the needs of their communities for the first time, Venezuela's indigenous populations whose rights, land and languages are enshrined in the constitution for the first time - this is a population who will fight to the bitter end against any return to the misery and poverty inflicted by decades of US domination.

Viva Venezuela! Viva Chavez!
Socialismo o Muerte!

A few facts about the case of judge Afiuni

Source: Correo del Orinoco International, no. 71.
by Fernando Vegas Torrealba, 08 July 2011.

Some of my friends in the US and internationally have had some concerns about recent events in Venezuela. From here in Venezuela, however, it seems there may be some misinformation, something common, of course, in mass media. One of these issues is the case of Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni, who was indicted for corruption and placed in detention for her illegal actions and abuse of her judicial power. Despite the fact that the US government and other international “human rights defenders” claim Venezuela has a terrible problem with judicial corruption, when authorities act against such malaise, then the government is accused of “cracking down on dissent” or being “authoritarian”.

Ironically, Judge Afiuni has claimed to be innocent and a political prisoner of President Chavez. Afiuni was judging a financier named Eligio Cedeño who was involved in several corruption cases. He was initially charged with embezzlement of millions of dollars from banking institutions, essentially stealing the money from customers.

Another charge against him was that he and an accomplice deceived CADIVI, our office of currency control, by ostensibly buying computers for almost US $30 million but bringing only empty containers to the country. The financier’s accomplice was arrested in Panama more than a year and half ago, and after being turned over to the authorities of Venezuela confessed the whole scheme. His lawyers delayed the trial with legal maneuvers, until about six months ago, when Judge Afiuni herself walked Mr. Cedeño out of the courtroom and escorted him with two other employees of her court to the internal parking lot for judges, where Cedeño boarded a motorcycle that was let into the lot by Afiuni’s instruction.

Then Afiuni returned to the courtroom to write the ruling with the decision to liberate Cedeño and afterwards she sat down and said loud and clear that she would sit where she was to wait for the suspension letter to arrive from her superiors. The usual legal practice is that whenever an inmate is freed by ruling of a judge, he is taken back to prison where he waits for the arrival of the release order signed by the judge, something that usually happens in a matter of one or two hours. This was violated by Afiuni to be sure Cedeño would get away. The judge, suspected of a felony, was suspended pending further investigation, and usually, in the corrupt system, nobody ever got sanctioned because in cases of bribery people released simply flee to another country to enjoy the money they’ve stolen stashed in some bank account of a family member, like to Miami, USA, for example, where Cedeño went. This explains the approach of Afiuni, but this time things worked out differently because she was arrested and held to trial for bribery.

MY REFLECTION:
I have to say that I find it strange for people abroad concerned with justice and Venezuelan progress, to defend people like Judge Afiuni. I think she deserves to have the same treatment as any other citizen who is judged for similar reasons and is under custody because a serious and probable flight risk exists. Afiuni already has privileges, including originally being in a fairly comfortable cell with TV and a laptop (and Twitter), and enjoying visits at times no other inmate is allowed. Now she is in house arrest, where she enjoys all the comforts of home.

Since Afiuni knows the judicial position she is in, she keeps on playing the card of being a political prisoner, which of course she is not. We have no news of Afiuni being a political partisan of any group or defender of any ideology. Simply, Afiuni was a judge who received a payoff for the release of Cedeño and now is eager to part the country and enjoy the money. If we had had a violent Revolution we could fight corruption with violent means, but since our Revolution follows a democratic and peaceful path, we can only put the felons in jail. To forego that option would be to forego law, on the one hand, and open the door to further violations on the other.


Fernando Vegas Torrealba is a Venezuelan Supreme Court Justice.

Rory Rory Jackanory: The Guardian's Latest Chomsky Smear

Source: Alborada.net
by Samuel Grove, 05 July 2011.

In the current world of instant news, cable television and internet memes, maintaining good PR is an increasingly hazardous affair. Ryan Giggs provides a recent example of a spectacular failure to contain or salvage an embarrassing situation. My favourite example however is still the late Michael Jackson. In an attempt to prove to the world that he was a normal well balanced individual he laid himself bare to the cameras and Martin Bashir. The result? Confirmation that Jackson was decidedly unbalanced and a new round of charges of child molestation. Jackson is far from the only one to have put himself in this situation (a kind of inversion of the 'Streisand Effect'); celebrities quite often inflict what we could call the 'Jackson effect' on themselves. It is less associated with media organisations. Recently however the Guardian has found itself in precisely this situation.

The Guardian's shame arguably begins when they decided to hire its South American correspondent. Rory Carroll's spectacularly inane and trivial journalism has attracted widespread criticism for its selectivity and double standards, brazen anti-left bias, and above all slavish loyalty to Western interests. Quite why the Guardian has decided to persist with Carroll for so long is more baffling than his recruitment (although they made a half-hearted attempt to justify it here). If it's any consolation to the Guardian, Carroll's relationship with his readers has evolved from genuine source of animus and indignation to pantomime villain. Carroll reminds one of Jeffrey Archer. On their own, unremittingly crap writing and relentless dishonesty are loathsome. There is something more disarming about the combination of both however. Maybe one becomes accustomed to the predictability, perhaps they are just too oblivious to hate, or maybe they wind up becoming such preposterous self parodies it becomes virtually impossible to criticise them beyond simply reporting what they have written and done. At any rate this author is willing to give Carroll the benefit of the doubt. Raving capitalist ideologue or CIA plant he is not. On close inspection the overriding factor in Carroll's writing is sheer laziness. Remarkably Carroll agrees with me. Reflecting upon his time as a correspondent in South Africa Carroll admitted that he got 'by perfectly fine speaking only English and that [he found it] natural to socialise mainly with people of a similar income and education level.' In Venezuela Carroll has gone one step further. He has found a formula for writing articles that means he doesn't even have to leave his house. He reports upon a crime committed by Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez alleged by the opposition. He then gives the official government response to the allegation. He then resolves the tension between the two sides by getting a quote from an outside and independent "democracy expert" or 'political analyst' (almost always a business consultant, more often than not from a well known Wall St consultancy firm).

If Carroll was to take the trouble to step outside the wealthy district of Caracas where I imagine he lives, he might discover why people on the left are so keen to find out more about what is happening in Venezuela and Latin America generally. One person who has taken a keen interest in the region is the leftist intellectual Noam Chomsky. In his recent book, Hopes and Prospects, Chomsky surveys the 'hopes' and 'prospects' for democracy around the world in the 21st Century. In general the prospects part was understandably bleak (Chomsky was writing before the 'Arab Spring'). However Chomsky finds an exception in Latin America where there "really have been significant, dramatic changes in the past decade". There are two dimensions to these changes. Firstly many countries in Latin America are at last addressing the problems of poverty and inequality which have long afflicted them. Secondly the continent as a whole is moving towards integration--a "prerequisite for independence" from imperial meddling by the United States which itself carries a fair amount of historic responsibility for the 'rentier' character of Latin America's economy. Among those countries leading the march on both fronts is Venezuela. In 1998 Hugo Chavez was elected on a wave of popular support. Once in power he initiated radical constitutional reform which among other things gave the population an institutional foothold in the governing process. Economically Venezuela can boast some significant successes. Since 1998 poverty has been reduced by half and Venezula now has the lowest inequality in the region aside from Cuba. Internationally Venezuela has been at the forefront of the establishment of organisations like UNASUR, ALBA and the Bank of the South. Chavez has also become famous for his outspoken denunciations of Western aggression and in 2006, in speech at the UN, reserved special praise for Chomsky's book Hegemony and Survival for drawing attention to "the hegemonic pretensions of the American empire". The feelings of respect, it appeared, were mutual. Chomsky has regularly expressed his support for the democratic developments taking place in Venezuela as well as the broader developments in Latin America which Venezuela has spearheaded.

Carroll and Chomsky then appear to live in different worlds. On Sunday however their worlds collided as Carroll took a break from interviewing business consultants and called Chomsky at his home. Finally the moment the British left had been waiting for. An opportunity to get some much needed balance. Not quite. Supporters of the Bolivarian process and fans of Chomsky were in for a shock. Chomsky had apparently 'turned his guns' on Chavez, accusing him of 'amassing too much power' and making an 'assault on democracy'. Many were incredulous. Either Chomsky was being misquoted in some way or else he had transmogrified into a clone of Carroll himself--capable only of delivering vacuous soundbites divorced of any context. For anyone well acquainted with Chomsky it was clear he had been the victim of sting journalism. Carroll, however he had done it, had managed to get a quote, or a series of quotes from the famous US dissident that could be added to the chorus of jeers emanating from the bowels of US imperialism. Uproar understandably ensued: the media lens board bombarded, Joe Emsberger quickly contacted Chomsky for confirmation and clarification on the issues raised. Later in the day Chomsky responded specifically to the Guardian article:
"Let’s begin with the headline: complete deception. That continues throughout. You can tell by simply comparing the actual quotes with their comments. As I mentioned, and expected, the NY Times report of a similar interview is much more honest, again revealing the extreme dishonesty of the Guardian."

It was at this point that Carroll, or the Guardian, or both had their 'Michael Jackson moment'. What they should have done was withdraw declaring either a score draw or a marginal victory. This was more or less what they did the last time they set Chomsky up in an interview. Having attributed to him certain remarks that were decidedly unrepresentative of his opinion they claimed that the tape containing the interview had unfortunately been partially recorded over. However in their rush to prove that Chomsky this time had indeed said the words that had been attributed to him they published the transcript of the interview online. What have we learned? That Chomsky is concerned about the case of a judge awaiting trial on charges of corruption, that he is generally suspicious of concentrated power, and that Rory Carroll is indeed a hack journalist.

Surely, for the sake of the Guardian's credibility, now is the time to relieve Carroll of his duties and let him do what he does best; composing 'advertisement features' for the tourist board of the country with the worst human rights record in the hemisphere.

Samuel Grove is an editor of www.alborada.net and an associate producer of ‘Inside the Revolution: A Journey Into the Heart of Venezuela' (Alborada Films, 2009). http://www.alborada.net/samuelgrove

See also: Guardian hides Cuba's mission in Haiti, Nov 2010.

Chávez alive and well, despite myths

Not bad for a man in a 'critical condition'

CHAVEZ OVERCOMES HEALTH ISSUE: Alive and Well, Despite Myths
Source: Postcards from the Revolution
BY EVA GOLINGER, 30 June 2011.


Pictures, video and audio of an encounter between Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuban leader Fidel Castro evidence the South American President is recovering satisfactorily after surgery to remove a pelvic abscess and minor tumor


UPDATE JUNE 30, 9:30PM CARACAS: PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ JUST SPOKE BEFORE THE NATION AND INFORMED THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE SURGERY TO REMOVE HIS PELVIC ABSCESS, WHICH WENT WELL, HE SHOWED SOME SIGNS OF FURTHER PROBLEMS DURING THE RECOVERY PERIOD AND THEN HAD FURTHER TESTS WHICH DISCOVERED A SMALL CANCEROUS TUMOR WHICH WAS REMOVED IMMEDIATELY AND SUCCESSFULLY IN ITS ENTIRETY. HE INFORMED THAT HE IS RECOVERING VERY WELL, AS EXPECTED AND SHOULD BE IN FULL FORM QUITE SOON. DURING HIS SPEECH, HE APPEARED STRONG, ENERGETIC, CHARISMATIC AND DETERMINED, AS ALWAYS, TO CONTINUE THE REVOLUTION AND THE FIGHT FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE IN VENEZUELA AND LATIN AMERICA. LONG LIVE CHAVEZ! VIVA CHÁVEZ!!

Much hype has been made about the state of President Hugo Chavez’s health. International media have perpetuated numerous unfounded rumors claiming the Venezuelan head of state is in critical condition, has cancer, is in a coma or even passed away. These media outlets, which range from notoriously reactionary anti-Chavez press such as El Pais (Spain), Fox News and the Miami Herald (and its Spanish version, El Nuevo Herald) to the somewhat more respectable BBC, NPR, CNN, New York Times and Washington Post, have all circulated these wild myths and stories about President Chavez’s condition, without presenting any evidence to substantiate their allegations.

Apparently, making things up about a sitting president, who happens to have a very public, controversial image, is good for ratings. Social networks online have exacerbated the issue even more, engaging in what could only be considered a frenzied orgy of ficticious stories about the Venezuelan President’s health. Some tweeters have “killed” Chavez several times already, while others have invented every possible ailment known to humanity and claimed he has it.

Private Venezuelan media have been equally as disgraceful, circulating the same rumors promoted in international press and online, and creating others. Some have gone so far as to claim President Chavez is “inventing his ailment” to “gain political points and sympathies” from his followers. One columnist who writes for a major national daily, El Universal, has dedicated his notoriously rumor-based articles to Chavez’s health since the Venezuelan chief underwent surgery for a pelvic abscess on June 10. This alleged “journalist”, Nelson Bocaranda, has defamed and slandered President Chavez, and gravely misinformed the public by writing that Chavez has prostate cancer and has been undergoing radioactive treatment in a specialized clinic in Havana.

TWISTING THE FACTS
Much of the false information about President Chavez circulating in public opinion originated from an article published in El Nuevo Herald, claiming “US intelligence officials” informed the Miami publication the Venezuelan President was suffering from a “terminal illness”. Even State Department officials, during a Congressional hearing on Venezuela last week in the House Committee on Foreign Relations, alleged they had information about President Chavez they couldn’t “make public”.

CNN in Spanish has been doing sensational nightly programs on the Venezuelan leader’s health situation, bringing in “experts” on every possible ailment Chavez is claimed to be suffering from, and morbidly analyzing the “consequences” of his “tragic downfall”. CNN in English has also done segments ridiculously inquiring “Where in the world is Hugo Chavez?” when from the beginning of his surgery it was of public knowledge that the Venezuelan President was recovering in Cuba.

Most of these media, and those who own them, would be overjoyed to have the polemic leftist President out of the picture for good. These same media have “killed” Fidel Castro dozens of times over the years, only to bite their tongues every time the Cuban leader makes public appearances, energized and astute for an 84-year old revolutionary.

The overly-exaggerated reaction to Chavez’s health has in large part resulted from the habitual public appearances he’s made during the past 12 years, which everyone – literally everywhere – has grown accustomed to. His absence from the limelight has left a massive hole in media that report on Venezuela. Even those from opposition groups and political parties in Venezuela have been left at a loss without President Chavez.

When he’s here, the opposition wants him gone, and has attempted everything from coup d’etats, economic sabotages, assassination attempts and even calling for foreign intervention, to get him out. When he’s temporarily absent, they want him back. When photographs and video images were shown of him from his recovery location in Havana, opposition spokespeople and media demanded he make a speech. When he’s in Venezuela making speeches and talking on television, they want him silenced. As they say in Venezuela, “Chavez has them all crazy” (Chavez los tiene locos).

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
The truth is, within hours of his surgery for a pelvic abscess on the verge of bursting – which could be very dangerous and requires immediate drainage – the Venezuelan government informed the public of his status. Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro read a statement that Friday, June 10 on live television from Cuba, where the President had made a final stop on a Latin American tour. The surgery was successful and the Venezuelan head of state just needed to recover. Two days later, Chavez himself called into a live television show on Telesur and spoke for about 20 minutes about the operation and his current status, as well as his road to recovery and full capacity to continue leading the government from his hospital bed. After all, he was not mentally incapacitated, just temporarily physically debilitated from the intervention.

Chavez also explained that the incision to drain the abscess had been “deep”, and as a precaution, biopsies were taken to ensure he had no signs of anything malignant. “The tests all came back negative, nothing malignant”, the Venezuelan President assured the public on live television.

But during the days post-op, media coverage of Chavez’s health rapidly deteriorated into a vampiric binge of false information attempting to portray the Venezuelan leader as “critically ill”. Many claimed the myths they were spreading were due to a level of “secrecy” about the President’s condition. But everyday, high level officials from the government publicly informed about his progress and revealed they were in constant communication with him. Where was the secrecy?

Apparently, when media, yellow-journalists and politicians don’t hear what they want to hear, they make things up and blame the government for lack of information. He had surgery on a very sensitive part of his body and is in recovery and rehab. Everything he had has been removed and he's healing well. For someone who is generally extremely energetic and hasn’t rested or taken vacation in 12 years, one month of post-op recovery is a miminum of what he needs and deserves to get back to his usual self. [NOTE: IN FACT, CHAVEZ EXPLAINED THAT THE PELVIC ABSCESS WAS DETECTED JUST IN TIME BEFORE THE INFECTION SPREAD TO THE REST OF HIS BODY, WHICH COULD HAVE HAD SEVERE CONSEQUENCES. THE SUBSEQUENT TUMOR WAS LUCKILY DETECTED DURING HIS RECOVERY PERIOD AND REMOVED. HE HIMSELF SAID THE TUMOR CELLS HAD NOT BEEN DETECTED OR DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE THE SECOND EXAMINATION DURING RECOVERY. THANKS TO THE CUBAN DOCTORS AND ADVANCED MEDICAL TREATMENT, THEY FOUND AND REMOVED IT ALL].

Despite his absence from the public eye, with the exception of the video footage shown this week on Cuban and Venezuelan television – which showed a thinner, but solid Chavez, talking with the same passion and fire as always – the President has been running the government at a normal pace, signing bills into laws, approving budgets and overseeing his cabinet member’s activities. Everything has been moving forward as usual. There is no lack of governance in Venezuela.

And soon, Chavez will be back in the limelight running the show and the usual suspects will be complaining, once again, about his mighty presence.

'I think it finished one - nil, comrade'.

US media blockade of the Cuban 5

The Latest Example of the Media Blockade of the Cuban 5
Source: International Committee for the Freedom of the Cuban 5, 23 June 2011.

We were more than a little surprised when a CNN journalist based in Los Angeles contacted SPARC Gallery interested in covering Gerardo Hernandez’s exhibit “Humor from my Pen” before its opening on June 4. We remained skeptical but after several phone calls back and forth an interview was set up.

On June 3 the CNN journalist arrived early to set up her camera and to go over what she would be covering about the background of Gerardo’s work and the case of the Cuban 5 in general.

She seemed genuinely interested and did a long interview with the organizers from the International Committee for the Freedom of the Cuban 5 in both Spanish and English. She also interviewed the Executive Director of SPARC, Debra Padilla.

We did not know going into the interview just how much the journalist knew about the case of the Cuban 5 but after more than 3 hours she learned not only about the artistic talents displayed in Gerardo’s cartoons but also about the deep injustice that he and his four brothers have been enduring for 13 years for defending their country, Cuba, against terrorism.

We asked the journalist how long it would take before we would know if the interview was going to be aired and she told us she did not know but mentioned that her editor wanted to find someone with a different “point of view” to “balance” the story.

This other “point of view” is really the only view that the people of the US are fed on a daily basis when it comes to any topic related to Cuba. That view is a steady stream of vilification, distortion and dishonest reporting of the realities of Cuba living under a 50 year blockade. Despite this we were reminded of what one of the Cuban 5 has said to us on many occasions, “It is better to have bad coverage than no coverage at all”

Our surprise about the interview was even greater when we were told that the “balanced” segment was complete and going to be aired on a program of CNN called “Encuentro” on Wednesday June 15 at 2pm PST.

We immediately passed this new information along to many of our friends so they could see with their own eyes that after 13 years of silence we were going to get a little break on coverage of the Cuban 5.

Unfortunately it did not happen.

The best answer we were able to get from the journalist who did the interview was that it was an “executive decision” not to air the segment.

So many times we hear about freedom in the United States with a free media that covers all points of views; but in the end it is those at the top of the media chain of command who will determine what is news and what isn’t.

Perhaps CNN was having trouble glossing over the courage of the Cuban 5 in the war against terrorism, or to show them in a human light. Perhaps they could not find a way to deny that these sons of Cuba were extraordinary men sent to Miami to defend the sovereignty of their country. Or maybe they were nervous about the absolute double standard in the US where an admitted terrorist like Luis Posada Carriles can show his paintings in Miami while the Cuban 5, who were here to prevent terrorism, produce art behind bars.