Blog de Agersomnia - Agersomnia's Blog: julio 2009

domingo, julio 19, 2009

Any abortion = Automatic excommunication

I have thought for quite a while that the present Pope at the Catholic Church sucks a lot.

Now I have a firmer ground why to believe that: Everyone helping in an abortion gets an automatic excommunion from the Church. Niiice...

I should ask, for starters: Does that includes religious personnel in clandestine abortions? Because I know of a certain number of crypts with dead bodies of childen at monasteries and other religious houses.

And then: Does that mean only 18 years and older, 7 years and on (start of the "age of reason"), after first communion, or when?

The Catholic Church (and Pope Benedict XVI) were presented with a public relations powder keg last March when news broke that a nine-year-old Brazilian girl underwent an abortion after she'd been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather. Catholics from Sao Paolo to Paris were outraged after the swift public declaration by the local archbishop, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, that the girl's family, as well as the doctors who performed the abortion, were automatically excommunicated. Monsignor Rino Fisichella, a solidly traditionalist Rome prelate considered close to Benedict, tried to soften the Church's approach on the Brazilian case by writing in the Vatican's official newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that the girl "should have been defended, hugged and held tenderly to help her feel that we were all on her side." Two weeks ago, the Vatican announced that Sobrinho, who had been serving past retirement, was stepping down. And that's where the Church stood. Until now.

In a tucked away "clarification" published on page 7 of a recent edition of L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican produced a document that unequivocally confirmed automatic excommunication for anyone involved in an abortion — even in such a situation as dire as the Brazilian case. It settles any questions about the absolute nature of Church doctrine on the matter of abortion — but could potentially reignite the PR firestorm.

Church conservatives have steadfastly defended Sobrinho, who had rejected Fisichella's criticism of insensitivity and said that he was simply stating Catholic doctrine in response to reporters' questions. The L'Osservatore Romano document makes it more than likely that the Pope Benedict has felt it necessary to publicly defend the Brazilian prelate's hard line as well, ordering up the recent to clear up of the "confusion" created by Fisichella's article.

The brief document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the orthodoxy office that Benedict personally led before becoming Pope, defends Sobrinho's "pastoral delicacy" and leaves no wiggle room on the standing of the family and doctors who carried out the abortion. "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life," reads the statement, which widely cites past Vatican documents. "The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society."

While the doctrinal stance breaks no new ground, the question now, like in March, is a matter of emphasis. Why, months after the difficult issue had largely faded from view, did the Pope feel compelled to return to a case that can leave the Church looking cold-hearted? A senior Vatican official says the Pope was forced to back up the Brazilian bishop. "[Sobrinho] was furious," says the official. "There was the impression that the local bishop had been subjected to immediate scrutiny by the Holy See."

But beyond the constant tug-of-war between Rome and local dioceses, there is a more important principle at stake. "We have laws, we have a discipline, we have a doctrine of the faith," the official says. "This is not just theory. And you can't start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight." Benedict makes it ever more clear that his strict approach to doctrine will remain a central pillar to his papacy, bad publicity be damned.

lunes, julio 13, 2009

[+/-]

a veces... quisiera ser periodista...

lunes, julio 06, 2009

[+/-]

What is Success?

viernes, julio 03, 2009

[+/-]

Fifty years of US terrorism against Cuba

The true responsibility for international terrorism
Fifty years of US terrorism against Cuba
by Salim Lamrani*

In his intervention during the round table on the rise of international terrorism, on the occasion of the Axis for Peace 2005 conference, Salim Lamrani took record of the US’s secret actions against Cuba. He shows, in an undisputable manner, that Washington – currently and for long time – practices international terrorism although it pretends to fight it.

15 December 2005
The case of Cuba has an exceptional and unique character in the history of international terrorism. Since 1959 to this day, Cuba has been a victim of an intense terrorism campaign that has included sabotage, armed invasions, the threat of nuclear war, extremely severe economic sanctions and implacable diplomatic, political and media aggression. [1].

International Terrorism and Economic Sabotage

US official documents that have been recently been declassified show that, between October 1960 and April 1961, the CIA smuggled in 75 tons of explosives into Cuba during 30 clandestine air operations, and infiltrated 45 tons of weapons and explosives during 31 sea incursions. Also during that short seven-month time span, the CIA carried out 110 attacks with dynamite, planted 200 bombs, derailed six trains and burned 150 factories and 800 plantations.

Between 1959 and 1997, the United States carried out 5,780 terrorist actions against Cuba – 804 of them considered as terrorist attacks of significant magnitude, including 78 bombings against the civil population that caused thousands of victims.

Terrorist attacks against Cuba have cost 3,478 lives and have left 2,099 people permanently disabled. Between 1959 and 2003, there were 61 hijackings of planes or boats. Between 1961 and 1996, there were 58 attacks from the sea against 67 economic targets and the population.

The CIA has directed and supported over 4,000 individuals in 299 paramilitary groups. They are responsible for 549 murders and thousands of people wounded.

In 1971, after a biological attack, half a million pigs had to be killed to prevent the spreading of swine fever. In 1981, the introduction of dengue fever caused 344,203 victims killing 158 of whom 101 were children. On July 6th, 1982, 11,400 cases were registered in one day alone.

Most of these aggressions were prepared in Florida by the CIA-trained and financed extreme right wing of Cuban origin.

Impunity for Terrorists

Luis Posada Carriles [2], considered by the FBI as “the worst terrorist of the hemisphere”, enjoys total impunity. He is currently under the protection of the Bush Administration, although he is responsible for many terrorist attacks. Venezuela continues demanding his extradition. Posada Carriles is the author of the bloody terrorist attack perpetrated off the coast of Barbados against a Cuban civil airliner in October 1976 that cost 73 lives. Orlando Bosch, another notorious terrorist, is also responsible for dozens of terrorist attacks. On June 23rd, 1989, the US Justice Department stated in a report that Bosch’s presence in the United States was inadmissible. Shortly afterwards, after he was severely condemned for having committed terrorist actions, Bosch was granted an amnesty by Bush Sr. Today, he walks the streets of Miami and even appears in television and radio programs declaring that he is still preparing attacks against Cuba.

The Case of the Five

On June 16-17, 1998, the Cuban government invited two important FBI officials to give them numerous documents proving the dangerousness of 40 people deeply involved in terrorist activities who live in Florida. To this day, in spite of having enough evidence, the US authorities have done nothing in regards to these people.

Three months later, on September 12, 1998, the FBI arrested five Cuban: René González Sehweret, Ramón Labañino Salazar, Fernando González Llort, Antonio Guerrero Rodríguez and Gerardo Hernández Nordelo, who, risking their own lives, had managed to prevent the carrying out of almost 170 terrorist attacks against Cuba by warning the Cuban government in advance.

An Iniquitous Trial

The Five were accused of espionage. However, they did not receive any formal notification of the accusation until four days after their arrest and after an aggressive media campaign had been launched condemning them before the judicial process had even started.

On September 14, 1998, the Grand Jury of Florida accused them of having infiltrated terrorist groups. Later, as it was an untenable charge from the legal point of view, the Jury changed its methods and accused the Five of 26 charges, the most serious of which was the first one (18 usc 371) that involved them of conspiracy to commit crimes against the United States. The second charge is about espionage. The third one accuses Gerardo Hernández of voluntary homicide, linking him to the events on February 24th, 1996, when a plane with four members of the terrorist organization Brothers to the Rescue was shot down after having violated the Cuban airspace on several occasions. The prosecutor could not present any evidence to support these three charges. The other 23 had to do with minor offenses including the use of false documentation and not being registered as agents of a foreign power. These accusations were not rejected by the defense.

Since the day they were arrested until February 3rd, 2000, that is, for 17 long months, the Five were kept in solitary confinement, without any communication with other inmates or with the outside.

Faced by the impossibility of proving that the Five had committed any act of espionage, the government accused them of conspiracy to commit espionage.

A Biased Court

During the trial, the prosecutor invoked the law of procedure for classified information that allows evidence to remain secret and not to make it available for the defense, even when it is being used against the defendants. Aware that the accusation was inconsistent, the attorney repeated three times, with disproportionate vehemence, that the Five had come to Miami “to destroy the United States”.

The arguments proving that the Five had not committed espionage were not presented by the defense but by high-ranking US military officials: Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, of the US Navy; Major General Edwards Breed Atkinson, of the US Army; and Lieutenant General James R. Clapper, of the US Air Force.

In order to justify the charge of conspiracy to commit espionage, the government used the fact that Antonio Guerrero worked in a metal workshop in the Army’s training base of Boca Chica. The defense questioned the high-ranking military official:

Question for Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll about Boca Chica: “What information about the tactics and training of the US Navy could be useful for the Cuban Army?”
Answer: “To my knowledge, none”.

Questions for General Atkinson: “Are there any differences between our relations with the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, and our relation with Cuba?”
Answer: “Yes, there are differences.”
Question: “What are these differences?”
Answer: “The Cubans are not a threat for us.” (Let us remember the attorney’s hysteria: “They came to destroy the United States”).
Question: “What is the relation between the fear of being attacked and the search for information?”
Answer: “I believe they use their intelligence services to find out if we are really getting ready to attack them.”
Question: “When you examined the documents, did you find any document classified as secret?”
Answer: “No.”
Question: “Did you find instructions ordering the agents to look for documents that could harm the United States?”
Answer: “No.”

Questions for General Clapper: “Would you agree on saying that having access to public information is not an act of espionage?”
Answer: “Yes.”
Question: “Would you, with your experience in intelligence matters, describe Cuba as a military threat for the United States?”
Answer: “Absolutely not. Cuba does not represent a threat.”
Question: “Did you find any evidence indicating that Gerardo Hernández was trying to obtain secret information?”
Answer: “No, not that I remember.”

Nonexistent Evidence

As for Gerardo Hernández, accused of murder, the prosecutor acknowledged that “considering the evidence presented during the process, proving Gerardo Hernández’s involvement constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for the United States”. However, the jury found Gerardo Hernández guilty of murder, although the prosecutor himself had expressed his incapacity to prove that charge. There is no precedent for this behavior in the history of US justice. The Five were condemned to long sentences in spite of the fact that none of the charges against them was proven. Actually, it was a political trial.

Extremely Long Sentences

Gerardo Hernández Nordelo was sentenced to two life terms plus 15 years. Ramón Labañino Salazar was sentenced to a life term plus 18 years in prison. Antonio Guerrero Rodríguez was sentenced to a life term plus 10 years. These three people would have to die in prison and then be born again in order to fulfill their sentences, except for Gerardo Hernández who would need three lives to be at peace with US justice. As for Fernando Hernández Llort and René González Sehwert they were sentenced to 19 and 15 years, respectively. In all, the Five were sentenced to four life terms plus 77 years.

Numerous Legal Violations Were Committed During the Process

The legal violations committed against the Five are numerous:

They had no immediate access to a lawyer after their arrest.
They had to wait more than two days before they had a legal representation.
They were interrogated for many hours without the presence of their defense attorneys.
They were kept in isolation cells for 17 months, a violation of penitentiary regulations that stipulate that the isolation regime should be applied only for murders and for a maximum of 60 days.
Some 20,000 pages of evidence presented against them were kept secret.
They were not able to have contacts with their attorneys to prepare their defense.
Several witnesses for the prosecution were threatened that they could be accused of being accomplices if they revealed any information to the defense.
The process took place in Miami, in spite of the extremely politicized environment that exists in that city when it comes to any Cuba-related issue.
Before the trial started, an aggressive propaganda campaign was launched accusing the Five of espionage. According to a survey carried out at that time, 79% of the people admitted to be biased against the defendants.
The members of the jury were threatened with death if they acquitted the defendants, as was shown in several articles in the local press [3].
They jury proved to be biased. It comprised of 12 members. The president of the jury had declared that he was against “Fidel Castro’s dictatorship”. The other 11 had similar opinions.

Protected Terrorist Groups

In addition to being a political action against Cuba, the trial aimed at protecting terrorist organizations, as shown by the surrealist statements made by Judge Joan A. Lenard. The prosecutor proposed to René González, sentenced to 15 years for having infiltrated terrorist groups, that if he gave false testimony against his compatriots he would be freed. But he categorically refused to do that. The judge expressed her “concern that this defendant, after completing his sentence, could resume his activities”. The judge then added to the 15-year sentence a “special additional condition in order to prevent him from associating with terrorist individuals or groups, members of organizations that advocate violence, figures of organized crime or to visit specific places frequented by them”. The court explicitly recognized that Miami is a haven for “terrorist individuals or groups” and that nothing is done in that respect, although President Bush has declared a “war on terror”.

Overturned Sentences and Arbitrary Detentions

In April and May 2003, the defense began the appeal process before the Court of Atlanta. In May 27, 2005, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions declared that the detention of the Five was arbitrary and that it violated international law. On August 9, 2005, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta annulled the trial held in Miami but, since then, the Five have remained not only unjustly but also illegally in prison.

Cases of Moral and Psychological Torture

Several forms of moral and psychological torture have taken place against the families of the Five. Olga Salanueva, wife of René González, and her daughter Ivette, have never been able to visit him in prison. Adriana Pérez O’Connor, wife of Gerardo Hernández, has not been able to visit her husband. These women have not been able to see their husbands for almost eight years. The treatment given to Adriana is a real case of psychological torture. In June 25, 2002, after five years of waiting, she was granted a visa to visit her husband, who was then in prison in Los Angeles. However, upon her arrival in the United States, Adriana was arrested by the FBI, interrogated for 11 hours and expelled to Cuba.

In order to defend this injustice, the US government has declared that Olga Salanueva and Adriana Pérez cannot be granted visas because they represent a threat to US national security. Even young Ivette, who is eight years old, who still doesn’t know her father, represents a serious threat for the US national security, according to the State Department.

In order to obstruct the Five’s consular visits, they have been placed in prisons located in the five corners of the country: Gerardo Hernández, in California; Antonio Guerrero, in Colorado; Fernando González, in Wisconsin; Ramón Labañino, in Texas, and René González, in South Carolina.

US Legislation and International Law are Trampled On

The trial against the Five violates the Constitution of the United States, the Regulations of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Declaration on the Protection against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Penalties, the Vienna Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on Children’s Rights, the UN Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners and the American Convention on Human Rights.

The Double Standards of the International Media

Washington gives shelter in the US to terrorist groups that carry out an aggressive war against the Cuban Revolution. These fascist groups act openly and with total impunity as the White House has historically supported them. The episode of Luis Posada Carriles, who has been in the United States since last March, in spite of the fact that US courts banned his presence there due to his terrorist activities, has again exposed the lie of the “war on terror”.

However, the double standards that the United States uses in its “war on terror”, which is only a subterfuge that hides its hegemonic aspirations, is also extended to the international media that accept, endorse and implement the doctrine of the “good terrorist and bad terrorist”. Thus, the international media acts as an accomplice of the global maneuver and in fact confirms the US’s imperialist plans.

This media plot is obvious. How is it possible that, at the peak of the “war on terror”, information transnationals do not talk about the case of Cuba, a country that has been, and still is, the victim of the longest and most fierce terrorist campaign in modern history?

In the name of what ideological amnesia has the international media, after the September 11 attacks, abstained from mentioning the bloody terrorist attack perpetrated on October 6, 1976, against a Cuban airliner off the coast of Barbados considering that it was one of the first cases of air terrorism attacks in history? How come, when the United is sheltering and protecting Luis Posada Carriles, international media prefers to give ample coverage to a meeting of a small group of Cuban “dissidents”, paid and controlled by Washington as shown by documents from the US State Department?

The media treatment of the terrorism issue confirms not only the current double talk but also the lie of the “war on terror”. If the “war on terror” had any foundation, the international media would denounce the aggressive terrorist campaign that all US administrations have carried out against the Cuban people since 1959. The censure of terrorism against Cuba, apparently the most sophisticated, clearly illustrates the duplicity of western media.

The proven selectivity of these media only further highlights the doctrinal atmosphere that prevails in editorial departments around the world. The scandal of the five Cuban citizens incarcerated in the United States is an example. If western societies were intellectually free, they would denounce the cruel and inhuman treatment given to the Five. However, this legal scandal has been completely ignored by the mainstream media.

The news has to go through an ideological filter that shows how deeply rooted are the basics of authoritarianism in the structures of the international media. Actually, the media, that is supposed to be a reliable source of information, is only an instrument to control thoughts and ideas as it systematically rules out important debates such as the foundation and the legitimacy of a terrorist war waged against a nation that decided to choose the path of independence and self-determination. The basic issues, such as Cuba’s right to defend itself against constant aggressions, are simply ignored.

The French media took indecency to its limit describing Luis Posada Carriles as an “anti-Castro militant”, “accused of terrorism” or, what is the height of hypocrisy, an “ex-terrorist”. Is that what terrorist crimes prescribe? Nobody denounced this semantic crime, which shows that doctrinal barriers work perfectly. What would happen if Osama Bin Laden were described as an “anti-Bush militant”, “accused of terrorism”, or an “ex terrorist”? The scandal that such words would cause would only equal the complicity of the media in the case of Posada Carriles.

In a certain way, the mainstream media are accomplices of terrorism considering that, for them, the attacks against Cuba are not important. Whenever possible, crimes committed in the name of an anti-revolutionary aversion are kept silent. And when it is impossible to keep on hiding them, they are minimized and the culprits are acquitted by the media with total impunity, as is shown by their description of the worst terrorist in the western hemisphere.

In a tacit way, the media accepts justifying certain violent behavior and denouncing what they describe as arbitrary terrorism. It all depends on who the victim is: if it is European or American, then the culprits are criminals without a God or law; if the victim is a Cuban, the culprits become people “accused of terrorism”, “anti-Castro militants” or “ex-terrorists”. Public opinion is the main target of this media tyranny.

The ideological framework established within the media censures the real reasons. Thus, the media, the property of big economic and financial groups, shows signs of despotism that represent a danger for the future of humanity.

Salim Lamrani

Salim Lamrani is a professor at Paris Descartes University and Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée University and French journalist, specialist on relations between Cuba and the US. He has just published Doble Moral. Cuba, la Unión Europea y los derechos humanos, [Double Standards. Cuba, the European Union and Human Rights]; (Hondarribia: Editorial Hiru, 2008).

This author's articles

To send a message

[1] By the same author and on the same subject, see: Salim Lamrani (edited by), Superpower Principles: U.S. Terrorism against Cuba (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2005); Salim Lamrani Washington contre Cuba: un demi-siècle de terrorisme et l’affaire des Cinq (Pantin: Le Temps des Cerises, 2005); Salim Lamrani (editor), La guerra contra el terrorismo y el caso de los Cinco (Barcelona: El Viejo Topo, 2005); Salim Lamrani (compiler), Terrorismo de Estados Unidos contra Cuba. El caso de los Cinco (La Habana: Editorial José Martí, 2005).

[2] “Les confessions de Luis Posada Carriles», Voltaire, June 14, 2005.

[3] El Nuevo Herald, “Afraid of being jurors in trial of spies”, December 2, 2000

[+/-]