|
Ricardo
Alarcón talks of the U.S. latest legal decisions on
the Five
They are trying to do the same in Atlanta as they
did in Miami
•
Ricardo Alarcón’s evaluates the U.S.‘ latest
legal decisions on the Five Cubans imprisoned in the
empire • U.S. government is doing all it can to
bury the case
BY
MARÍA JULIA MAYORAL —Granma daily staff
writer—
THE
recent decisions by South Florida district judge
Joan Lenard have closed two legal channels in the
attempt to secure justice for the five Cubans
imprisoned in the United States for anti-terrorist
activities. Now the appeal remains; it is due to
take place on April 7 at the 11th Circuit Court in
Atlanta, where the lawyers will present their
briefs.
Ricardo
Alarcón, president of the National Assembly of
People’s Power, believes that "they are
hoping to repeat the same farce in Atlanta that took
place in Miami, and as the mainstream media are
remaining silent about the case, they are confident
that no one will find out about the shameless
occurrences. The U.S. government is betting on
nobody knowing anything so it can maintain its
arbitrariness.
Alarcón
reiterated that for the five Cuban compatriots to
receive justice, the U.S. public must first be aware
of the case. Millions of U.S citizens know nothing
about the fact that the Five are in jail there for
fighting terrorism.
In the
first place, some days ago Lenard rejected a defense
request to obtain access to documents, classified as
secret, that were used in the trial and that contain
the vast majority of the alleged evidence that led
to the accusations against and sentencing of Gerardo
Hernández, René González, Ramón Labañino,
Antonio Guerrero and Fernando González. These
documents are equally vital for the appeal in
Atlanta. Then, on February 10, the judge rejected
another defense motion calling for a new trial to be
held in a different location to the first.
"However,
mainstream dailies, large television networks and
the huge corporations that control and manipulate
information in world have said nothing. Not because
they’re stupid or because they don’t know
anything, but because the U.S government is doing
everything within its means to bury this case, to
cover it up, because it refers to fighting terrorism
in a real sense. By detaining, charging and handing
out long sentences to the five Cubans, the U.S.
government is protecting terrorists.
"Next
weekend in New York, San Francisco and many other
places in the United States, and in over 300 cities
in other parts of the world, anti-war demonstrations
are set to take place. Many demonstrators intend to
denounce the case of the Five Cuban political
prisoners of the empire, plus the protection that
the U.S. government offers to some of the worst
terrorists in the hemisphere."
Alarcón,
president of the Cuban National Assembly of People’s
Power, explained that the motion requesting a new
trial outside of Miami was presented on November 12,
2002. During the three months since that date,
not
one single word on the subject has appeared in the
U.S. mainstream media or those controlled by the
United States. Nor have they mentioned anything
about the judge’s decision on Monday, February 10
to deny the motion without giving the defense the
slightest possibility of a meeting, a hearing, where
both sides could have presented their arguments.
Essentially, what she did was to completely ignore
defense arguments and repeat the government’s
position.
That
defense document contains a large number of sworn
statements proving how the government and the judge
committed serious violations of U.S. laws from the
very beginning of the trial, when they refused to
change the venue where it was scheduled to take
place, added Alarcón.
"It’s
a question of changing the venue of a trial when
there are reasons to believe that prejudicial
attitudes exist in the place where it is to be
carried out. This is a constitutional right
respected throughout U.S. tradition, with very few
exceptions. Recently, the man who killed over a
hundred children in Oklahoma was tried far away in
Colorado because it was considered that he had the
right not to stand trial in a territory where there
was little sympathy for him.
"Therefore,
who could think that hostile attitudes and great
prejudice does not exist in Miami towards someone
who might be identified as an agent of the Cuban
Revolution, responsible for confronting terrorist
groups based there. But the government said that
such situation exists in Miami, that representatives
of the Revolution could be tried with impartiality.
"One
year later in 2002, a person from Miami linked to
those who kidnapped the child Elián González sued
the U.S. government — specifically the Immigration
Service — for discrimination and bad treatment by
the local Immigration authorities during the process
carried out to rescue the minor. In that case, the
best that could have occurred would have been for
the court to oblige the government to pay some
compensation for alleged damages to this employee,
and this is what finally happened.
"In
that case — Ramírez vs. Ashcroft — the District
Attorney’s Office was the accused, and when it had
to face justice, the government alleged that
judgment
could not be made with equanimity and impartiality
in Miami because the case concerned Cuba. How should
we interpret this double standard? This refers to
the crime of prevarication with premeditated use of
fraudulent abuse of power pertaining to an
authority."
When
dealing with the Five compatriots, observed
Alarcón, Miami was a cosmopolitan, extremely
heterogeneous and greatly diverse city. Some months
later, the government declared the complete opposite
in the case of Ramírez. And we’re talking about
the same DA’s office, the same judges who used the
matter of prejudice in Miami for their own
convenience.
"Taking
into account the U.S. legal tradition of basing
itself on precedence, the Five’s defense lawyers
cited the famous 1970’s case in this southeastern
U.S. district when a black pastor called Pamplin was
tried and sentenced in Mason, Texas for protesting
against racial segregation.
The
pastor’s defense stated that it was impossible to
stage the trial in a city with an enormously
racially prejudiced community. The judge denied the
request but when it was appealed at the district
court, a change of venue was approved, thus finding
in Pamplin’s favor.
"This
is the doctrine that the defense used to request a
change of venue for the trial of René, Ramón,
Gerardo, Antonio and Fernando. But as is well known,
the government decided that this was not to be.
Later, after the five men had been sentenced, with
the case of Ramírez vs. Ashcroft the defense had in
its hands new evidence clearly proving the
fraudulent attitude and bad intentions of a
government. To this we can add that during their
investigations, the lawyers discovered and proved
other violations of U.S. legal norms committed by
the judge."
Added
together, there are sufficient reasons to annul the
trial of the five compatriots in order to hold a new
one and to reconsider the initial disastrous
decision that the trial take place in Miami.
|
