Guardian: Cuban Officials Criticize U.S. Ruling

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit threw out all the convictions a year ago, ruling that pretrial publicity combined with pervasive anti-Castro feeling in Miami didn't allow for a fair trial. The government asked the full appeals court to reconsider.

<clips>

HAVANA (AP) - Communist officials said Thursday a U.S. appellate court decision denying a new trial for five Cuban agents was proof of Washington's ``hate and vengeance'' toward Cuba, and they implied it was tied to Fidel Castro's illness and absence from power.

The men were convicted in 2001 of serving as unregistered agents of a foreign government. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta on Wednesday rejected the argument that pervasive community prejudice against the Cuban government and publicity prevented them from receiving a fair trial.

The Communist Party daily Granma said the decision coincided with recent events in Cuba, where Castro temporarily ceded power to his brother, Raul, on July 31 after announcing he had undergone intestinal surgery.

Fidel Castro, who has ruled Cuba for 47 years and turns 80 on Sunday, has not been seen in public since the announcement. Neither has his brother.

``All of this occurs in an unusual way and at a time when Miami is calling for an end to a sovereign nation, calling for terrorism with the greatest insolence, urging bloodbaths, proclaiming to the news media in a loud voice their calls for political assassination and genocide,'' Granma said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6008370,00.html

Justice has been absolutely mocked.

From the Chicago Tribune, more on the story:

Cuba angry over ruling by U.S. court in spy case

By Gary Marx
Tribune foreign correspondent
Published August 11, 2006


HAVANA -- Cuban authorities reacted angrily Thursday to a decision by a U.S. appeals court to uphold the convictions of five Cubans sentenced in 2001 to long prison terms on spying-related charges.

Defense attorneys had argued on appeal that Miami's anti-Castro atmosphere ensured that their clients would be railroaded into prison sentences ranging from 15 years to life. They demanded a change of venue and a new trial.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta threw out all the convictions in August, ruling that the five Cubans were tried unfairly because of community prejudice, extensive news coverage and prosecutors' inflammatory remarks.
(snip)

Leonard Weinglass, an attorney for one of the defendants, said lawyers now must decide whether to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court or focus on nine other issues still before the 11th Circuit appellate court.
(snip/...)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0608110149aug11,1,5525663.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

<clips>

Weinglass:...And it was that atmosphere which interfered with and denied the defendants a fair trial. The dissent in this case repeated what was written by Judge Birch in his original 90-page opinion a year ago, on Aug. 9: that what this case record represents is a “perfect storm” of prejudice. The dissent yesterday once again used the phrase that these defendants were faced with a perfect storm of prejudice, and it said this case never should have proceeded in the Miami venue. That, of course, that position of the two judges in dissent, is the position we agree with.

The majority whitewashed the question of the coercive atmosphere of Miami. You can read the 68 pages of their opinion and you will find no substantial reference to the pre-existing community prejudice in Miami against anyone associated with the government of Cuba. This curious—what the dissent calls, “omission of fact”—is something that we are very concerned about, and something which we might have to bring to the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nestor: The National Lawyers Guild is an organization of over 5,000 attorneys, law professors and law students. Since our establishment in 1937 we have worked to defend many unpopular defendants and cases.

We filed an amicus brief in support of all five of the defendants in this case, precisely on the issue of venue because it is such an important issue. One of the things I want to emphasize is that this is not the end of the case. There are many very significant legal issues to be resolved, and there is also the ability to seek further review of this issue regarding the coercion and threats that exist in Miami, that denied a fair trial.

...The decision really gives tremendous power to the government to bring politically motivated prosecutions and to then select a favorable location where community prejudice will favor the government and allow the government to obtain a conviction where the evidence did not support a conviction.

That is precisely what we believe happened in this case and the decision of the en banc panel essentially deferring to the judgment of the trial court, really eliminates the potential for effective review of an individual trial judge and allows the judge in the location where that same judge may in fact be subject to the community prejudice and attitudes or at least to the pressure and the coercion that existed in this case. It doesn’t allow for effective review of that decision by an independent panel at the Circuit Court level.

http://www.freethefive.org/legalFront.htm?value=legalFront/LFEnBancPressConf081006.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amnesty International's Open Letter to the State Department:
The US is Violating the Rights of the Cuban Five

<clips>

Kevin Whitaker
Office of Cuban Affairs
United States Department of State
Washington, DC 20520 USA
11 January 2006


Dear Mr Whitaker,

Amnesty International has written to the US government previously regarding Gerardo Hernández Nordelo, Ramón Labañino, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando Gonzáles and René Gonzáles (commonly known as the "Miami Five") who were sentenced to lengthy prison terms in the USA after being convicted of conspiracy to act as agents of the Cuban government and related charges. One of the issues on which we have raised concern is the US government's decision to deny René Gonzáles and Gerardo Hernández visits with their wives. Olga Salanueva, wife of René Gonzáles (sentenced to 15 years, imprisonment), has been refused entry to the USA since 2002 and René Gonzáles has consequently not seen his young daughter since she was four months, old. Adriana Pérez, wife of Gerardo Hernández (sentenced to life imprisonment), has not been permitted to visit her husband since his arrest in 1998. International standards emphasize the importance of prisoners maintaining regular contact with their families, including through visits. We are concerned that the long-term, permanent denial of visits from their immediate families has caused substantial hardship to René Gonzáles and Gerardo Hernández beyond the penalties imposed. The denial of visits has also reportedly had a detrimental impact on family members, including René Gonzáles, young child who is unable to travel without her mother. We believe that, in the absence of a clear and immediate threat posed by such visits, this measure is unnecessarily punitive and contrary both to standards for the humane treatment of prisoners and to states, obligation to protect family life.

Amnesty International is aware that visas have been denied in these cases on national security grounds, including the fact that Olga Salanueva was deported from the USA in 2000 after being accused by the US government of being an agent for Cuban intelligence. No evidence was provided on which she could respond to this claim. Amnesty International understands that Olga Salanueva continued to live legally in the USA for two and a half years during the trial proceedings against her husband and was deported only after her husband refused to enter a plea arrangement in return for her being allowed to remain in the United States. Since then, both she and Adriana Pérez have been denied visas under provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act relating variously to terrorism, espionage or national security, again without detailed reasons being given. In December 2003 Amnesty International wrote to the US Justice Department urging the government to ensure that the visitor visa applications in these cases be considered with the utmost fairness and that the applicants be afforded an opportunity to make full representations. Yet two years later, no such measures appear to have been taken. Furthermore, the reasons given for denying visas to allow them to visit their husbands have reportedly changed at various points, making it more difficult for the applicants to make their case and raising questions about the good faith of the authorities in this matter. We understand that Adriana Pérez, for example, was denied a visa last September on the unsupported ground that she may seek to remain in the USA.

Such denial of family visits for convicted prisoners would represent a substantial hardship in any case. This is of even more urgent concern in the present cases given the serious questions which have been raised about the fairness of the convictions. As you will be aware, in August 2005 a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of appeals overturned the convictions of all of the above prisoners and ordered a retrial. This was based on a finding that the pervasive community prejudice against the Cuban government and its agents in the trial venue and the publicity and events surrounding the trial combined to create a situation where they were unable to obtain a fair and impartial trial. The defendants raised numerous other issues challenging the fairness of the trial which have not yet been addressed by the appeal courts. Meanwhile, in May 2005, the United Nations (UN) Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued an opinion that the five had been arbitrarily deprived of liberty based on failure to guarantee the right to a fair trial in a number of key areas. The five remain in prison pending a government appeal against the Fourth Circuit's decision, proceedings which Amnesty International shall follow closely. We urge the US government in the meantime to take every step to ensure that the five are treated fairly and are not subjected to any undue deprivations while they continue to be incarcerated, including denial of family visits.

http://www.mltoday.com/Pages/Cuba/AI-Cuban5.html

At least that's the refraim when they criticize Cuba or Venezuela

:eyes:

Have you read the article? they critique family visas?!?! nothing regarding the faux crime they committed, but the Sumate trial gets severe condemnation and yet they openly admit having recieved money from an agressive hyper power.

Seriously they serve a purpose but they are extremely lenient against the US and Israel when you compare it to Venezuela, it is as if they have to write SOMETHING and use the same ferociousness as if it were Qana.