So President Obama has decided to send to prisoners from GITMO to their home country of Algeria. It's nice that he seems to be doing something about the population in that prison since he couldn't deliver on his stated desire to close it down, right?
The two Algerians had been imprisoned in that black hole without charges for over 11 years by the government which likes to prance around the globe touting the sanctity of human rights and uses the issue as a political tool in its little box of propaganda that is employed against those whose "standards" just aren't the same as Washington's. Never mind that the Guantanamo base is basically a piece of occupied territory in a nation which has made it clear that it does not want the base there. Its use in the supposed war on terror was cleverly devised as some sort of loophole to the US Constitution so that lawyers could construct arguments somewhat along the lines that it somehow is outside the reach of the judicial branch. That alone isn't a "standard" that anyone should be proud of.
The United States in this situation hasn't failed its own standard of being consistently inconsistent. The US certainly strives to be a world leader in hypocrisy. The two men were sent against their will to Algeria where they feared persecution by militants. No big deal since they must have been terrorists since we decided to keep them in GITMO for so long and who thinks that prisoners should get to decide on their place of retirement, right? But it's not that simple. The United States had other options. Luxembourg was willing to accept them and allow them to resettle there. They would likely be safer in that country since it really hasn't been known as a hotbed for militant groups. But alas, that would make too much sense so off to Algeria they go.
But here's the kicker. The State Department's report on Algeria claims that their are many concerns that may cause Washington to reconsider it as a destination for these deportees. The report states Algerian security forces operated "unrecognized detention centers where detainees were at risk of torture or other ill treatment." It's no secret that throughout this war on terror that the US has sent people to countries known to employ torture so that information could be extracted by others with "lower standards" for Washington's benefit. But this all leads to the inconsistencies of US actions, consistently.
US actions are far removed from the lofty declarations about human rights, democracy, and everything else beautiful. Luis Posada Carriles, an boastful terrorist who has bombed civilian airliners and hotels and has been involved in countless other unconscionable acts, is living freely in Miami although his extradition has been requested by Venezuela. To its credit, the US government has allegedly sought to send him somewhere, anywhere, but not to the country that is requesting him! Why not Venezuela one might ask? The obvious reason is international politics and the fact that Venezuela's independent government isn't willing to bend to the will of Washington and has pursued its own path. (You could make the argument that Washington is tortured by this fact!) Posada Carriles is not eligible for asylum since the US doesn't grant it to terrorist suspects so he should be deported to Venezuela, but the US has refused to do so citing their concern that he might be tortured there by Venezuelan authorities. The same State Department that claims that torture goes on in Algeria also claims that torture is carried out in Venezuela.
I personally don't put full faith in the State Department since it is highly politicized. But wouldn't the US government have faith in its own departments? If the US finds it too risky to send a man, ineligible for asylum based on him being a terrorist suspect, to a country that it claims employs torture, how does it decide to send two men who it must have believed to be terrorist suspects (having imprisoned them for 11 years for just that) to another country that it claims employs torture?
The only logical explanation for such a decision would be the unwavering US policy of consistent inconsistency.
Showing posts with label Posada Carriles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Posada Carriles. Show all posts
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Sunday, April 29, 2012
A Dark Corner
Is it "here we go again"? Have the monsters who've been silent for about a decade decided that the urge for terrorism was too strong to ignore? Was this act the first of what may be more until Miami once again has more bombings than the Middle East as it did one year during the 1970's? Will the guilty be found? Who will cooperate? Who won't? These are important questions that may only be answered in time.
Given that we are in a war on terror, surely the people who did this must be against us since they obviously aren't with us. Ask the former President Bush who put it in those terms as he stated that the U.S. would search every dark corner of the globe for terrorists. There seems to be a dark corner in South Florida that needs to have some light shined upon it.
We know that there are individuals walking freely down the streets of Miami who have openly said that these types of acts are legitimate. We know that Luis Posada Carriles sleeps like a baby and has no regrets, even though he has said (although his lawyers now advise him against talking about it anymore) that he has been involved in violent acts of a similar nature. He is considered one of the masterminds of the most infamous acts of terror in our hemisphere.
Let's say for a moment that President Obama is true to his word and really favors increased engagement between Cubans and Americans. Would an attack on a business that helps facilitate his policy be offensive enough to him that he would want law enforcement to get to the bottom of this? I would think so. The fire could have been an attempt to intimidate those who are seeking more exchanges with the island. It could also be an act of desperation on the part of some folks who feel that they have been losing ground in the battle of public opinion as more and more people feel that a change to the wrong-headed policy the U.S. has to change. Either way, burning down offices is definitely the act of someone who should be brought before the law and dealt with accordingly. They are dangerous and shouldn't be free to wander among the peaceful public.
This act cannot be ignored and it seems like it isn't. The press reported that the FBI and ATF were on the scene including a counter-terrorism agent. They will have their hands full. There are plenty of people in Miami who they may want to talk to and look into. They can even question those who have heralded some of the most violent people as patriots, like the deceased Orlando Bosch. Even some congress people, both former and present, have relationships with same of those who have advocated violence, like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and the Diaz Balart brothers.
This could be a turning point, more powerful then the Elian Gonzalez incident when the American public got to see how incredibly illogical some elements in Miami actually are. Not only are there people willing to keep a boy away from his father like they were involved in some sort of imagined chess match against Fidel Castro, but there are people willing to blow up and burn down businesses right here in our cities simply because they feel like they can. Too many years have gone by and too many criminals have been ignored and this is what happens.
Given that we are in a war on terror, surely the people who did this must be against us since they obviously aren't with us. Ask the former President Bush who put it in those terms as he stated that the U.S. would search every dark corner of the globe for terrorists. There seems to be a dark corner in South Florida that needs to have some light shined upon it.
We know that there are individuals walking freely down the streets of Miami who have openly said that these types of acts are legitimate. We know that Luis Posada Carriles sleeps like a baby and has no regrets, even though he has said (although his lawyers now advise him against talking about it anymore) that he has been involved in violent acts of a similar nature. He is considered one of the masterminds of the most infamous acts of terror in our hemisphere.
Let's say for a moment that President Obama is true to his word and really favors increased engagement between Cubans and Americans. Would an attack on a business that helps facilitate his policy be offensive enough to him that he would want law enforcement to get to the bottom of this? I would think so. The fire could have been an attempt to intimidate those who are seeking more exchanges with the island. It could also be an act of desperation on the part of some folks who feel that they have been losing ground in the battle of public opinion as more and more people feel that a change to the wrong-headed policy the U.S. has to change. Either way, burning down offices is definitely the act of someone who should be brought before the law and dealt with accordingly. They are dangerous and shouldn't be free to wander among the peaceful public.
This act cannot be ignored and it seems like it isn't. The press reported that the FBI and ATF were on the scene including a counter-terrorism agent. They will have their hands full. There are plenty of people in Miami who they may want to talk to and look into. They can even question those who have heralded some of the most violent people as patriots, like the deceased Orlando Bosch. Even some congress people, both former and present, have relationships with same of those who have advocated violence, like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and the Diaz Balart brothers.
This could be a turning point, more powerful then the Elian Gonzalez incident when the American public got to see how incredibly illogical some elements in Miami actually are. Not only are there people willing to keep a boy away from his father like they were involved in some sort of imagined chess match against Fidel Castro, but there are people willing to blow up and burn down businesses right here in our cities simply because they feel like they can. Too many years have gone by and too many criminals have been ignored and this is what happens.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
"Ruthless Dictatorship"
The editorial section today in the Miami Herald, once again blessed us with a gem of an opinion. This time the opinion was offered by one of the writers/ editors at the Miami paper, Fabiola Santiago. She goes on about the Mass held this past Sunday in Havana by Cardinal Jaime Ortega and how he included prayers for the health of Hugo Chavez and his recovery after removing a cancerous tumor.
I'm not going to comment on people's religious beliefs. To each his own. I really couldn't care less about if or what religion a person decides to follow. But I will say that the suggestion made by Fabiola Santiago, that "Sometimes, as happened Sunday in Havana, that prayer reaches our ears in Miami and rattles our faith, breaks our hearts." if hearts are broken because of a prayer for someone's health to be bettered is heartbreaking to some in Miami, it is a reminder of the lack of respect for humanity that some in Miami's right wing Cuban community show. These twisted individuals who feel that giving the key to Hialeah to the air plane bomber, Luis Posada Carriles, is a good thing, somehow feel that praying for the health of Venezuela's president is offensive and heart breaking.
These right wing, anti-Cuban people are not in the least concerned about the well being of the people of Venezuela. They really couldn't care less about the leadership of Venezuela or any other country as long as they would lend a hand at isolating the Cuban people. But since Hugo Chavez decided that solidarity with the Cuban people would be his country's path, he is now an enemy of the powerful anti-Castro elite in South Florida.
She finds it cynical that such a mass would take place on the island based on the idea that decades ago "all but prohibited religious worship". Even if this were the case then, it isn't now and religious worship does take place, so much so that the Pope will be visiting Cuba later this month. As opposed to opening her mind and accepting the way things are now, she traps herself by the outdated logic prevalent in those that search for ways to rationalize the United States' policy of trying to isolate Cuba. Countless errors have been made in Cuba since 1959, just as mistakes are made by every government in the world, but there has been nothing more harmful to the Cuban people than the laws supported by the extremist in Miami. They have been willing to find any mechanism possible to attempt to cause as many hardships for ordinary Cubans over the past five decades, ironically professing their love for those same victims of their policies.
"Sometimes a prayer sounds less like a prayer and more like a political move." This is how Fabiola Santiago describes the prayers offered for Chavez. Yet she imagines that if the Pope were to decide to visit the so-called dissidents, the ones who have countless connections with the anti-Cuba group in Miami and U.S. government officials, that it wouldn't be a "political move" meant to please the spectators in South Florida. Political is the description offered by Mrs. Santiago of Cuba's government as a "ruthless dictatorship" who, according to her and others in Miami, causes the suffering of the Cuban people. She fails to recognize even once the effects that the embargo and all of the corresponding laws have on the "suffering" Cuban people. Under what she describes as a ruthless dictatorship, the Cuban people go to sleep every night peacefully knowing that not one child on the island goes without a place to call home. Under the "ruthless dictatorship", health care is a right, not a commodity, which all people have including the actors/dissidents who receive their financial support from groups who are openly enemies of the system which guarantees that right. Under the "ruthless dictatorship", people can study as long as they'd like, free of charge, because the "ruthless dictatorship" puts an enormous emphasis on education and, like health care, doesn't view education as a commodity.
Just to be clear, the definition of ruthless is having or showing no pity or compassion for others. The tens of thousands of Cuban doctors who have gone to the farthest corners of the earth on international missions can be considered functionaries of some sort of the "ruthless dictatorship". The children who suffered from health problems from the meltdown at Chernobyl and were saved and offered free care by Cuba's medical system may find it interesting that some folks consider the Cuban government ruthless.
To me, ruthless is a term better used to describe those who fatten themselves up thanks to the inability to fight the gluttonous urge to indulge on the foods so plentiful in countries not blockaded by more powerful ones, while they point to the fact that such food choices aren't readily available on the island, choosing to conveniently ignore one of the reasons for the situation, their own policies. Ruthless is a man with half of a chin, who walks freely in Hialeah although he helped mastermind the blowing up of a civilian airliner and says that he sleeps like a baby. Ruthless are those who are willing to intentionally separate families, by outlawing travel to Cuba.
But then again, ruthless is nothing more than a term used by Fabiola Santiago to describe something that she doesn't like. She can use it however she wants to, but too many people understand the true meaning of the word to find sympathy for the people she speaks for, the extremists in Miami.
I'm not going to comment on people's religious beliefs. To each his own. I really couldn't care less about if or what religion a person decides to follow. But I will say that the suggestion made by Fabiola Santiago, that "Sometimes, as happened Sunday in Havana, that prayer reaches our ears in Miami and rattles our faith, breaks our hearts." if hearts are broken because of a prayer for someone's health to be bettered is heartbreaking to some in Miami, it is a reminder of the lack of respect for humanity that some in Miami's right wing Cuban community show. These twisted individuals who feel that giving the key to Hialeah to the air plane bomber, Luis Posada Carriles, is a good thing, somehow feel that praying for the health of Venezuela's president is offensive and heart breaking.
These right wing, anti-Cuban people are not in the least concerned about the well being of the people of Venezuela. They really couldn't care less about the leadership of Venezuela or any other country as long as they would lend a hand at isolating the Cuban people. But since Hugo Chavez decided that solidarity with the Cuban people would be his country's path, he is now an enemy of the powerful anti-Castro elite in South Florida.
She finds it cynical that such a mass would take place on the island based on the idea that decades ago "all but prohibited religious worship". Even if this were the case then, it isn't now and religious worship does take place, so much so that the Pope will be visiting Cuba later this month. As opposed to opening her mind and accepting the way things are now, she traps herself by the outdated logic prevalent in those that search for ways to rationalize the United States' policy of trying to isolate Cuba. Countless errors have been made in Cuba since 1959, just as mistakes are made by every government in the world, but there has been nothing more harmful to the Cuban people than the laws supported by the extremist in Miami. They have been willing to find any mechanism possible to attempt to cause as many hardships for ordinary Cubans over the past five decades, ironically professing their love for those same victims of their policies.
"Sometimes a prayer sounds less like a prayer and more like a political move." This is how Fabiola Santiago describes the prayers offered for Chavez. Yet she imagines that if the Pope were to decide to visit the so-called dissidents, the ones who have countless connections with the anti-Cuba group in Miami and U.S. government officials, that it wouldn't be a "political move" meant to please the spectators in South Florida. Political is the description offered by Mrs. Santiago of Cuba's government as a "ruthless dictatorship" who, according to her and others in Miami, causes the suffering of the Cuban people. She fails to recognize even once the effects that the embargo and all of the corresponding laws have on the "suffering" Cuban people. Under what she describes as a ruthless dictatorship, the Cuban people go to sleep every night peacefully knowing that not one child on the island goes without a place to call home. Under the "ruthless dictatorship", health care is a right, not a commodity, which all people have including the actors/dissidents who receive their financial support from groups who are openly enemies of the system which guarantees that right. Under the "ruthless dictatorship", people can study as long as they'd like, free of charge, because the "ruthless dictatorship" puts an enormous emphasis on education and, like health care, doesn't view education as a commodity.
Just to be clear, the definition of ruthless is having or showing no pity or compassion for others. The tens of thousands of Cuban doctors who have gone to the farthest corners of the earth on international missions can be considered functionaries of some sort of the "ruthless dictatorship". The children who suffered from health problems from the meltdown at Chernobyl and were saved and offered free care by Cuba's medical system may find it interesting that some folks consider the Cuban government ruthless.
To me, ruthless is a term better used to describe those who fatten themselves up thanks to the inability to fight the gluttonous urge to indulge on the foods so plentiful in countries not blockaded by more powerful ones, while they point to the fact that such food choices aren't readily available on the island, choosing to conveniently ignore one of the reasons for the situation, their own policies. Ruthless is a man with half of a chin, who walks freely in Hialeah although he helped mastermind the blowing up of a civilian airliner and says that he sleeps like a baby. Ruthless are those who are willing to intentionally separate families, by outlawing travel to Cuba.
But then again, ruthless is nothing more than a term used by Fabiola Santiago to describe something that she doesn't like. She can use it however she wants to, but too many people understand the true meaning of the word to find sympathy for the people she speaks for, the extremists in Miami.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Florida's 21st District's Representative Is Shameful
Hialeah. The home of international fugitive terrorist Luis Posada. Hialeah. The city awarded the keys to the city to this terrorist. Hialeah. Is it any wonder that Mario Diaz-Balart is its representative in the House of Representatives? Hialeah. Florida's 21st district.
As nearly the entire world has recognized, the U.S. embargo against Cuba should end. Long after the end of the Cold War, over a decade after the attempted kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez, tensions remain between the two countries. It really isn't necessary, Cuba has reiterated its willingness to have discussions with the United States. But the prerequisite Cuba places is too much for Washington to accept at this time. What is Cuba's prerequisite? To be treated respectfully.
Cuba isn't alone in its insistence of a prerequisite for talks. The U.S. believes that it has some sort of moral authority to decide if Cuba has met the artificial requirements that the U.S. has decided to place as conditions to holding talks. It's pure arrogance on the part of my country, the United States.
History's irony has landed Mario Diaz-Balart in the position of U.S. Representative for the 21st District of Florida. He is the congressman with the most direct ties to the Batista regime which was removed by the triumph of the Cuban revolution. His father worked directly for Fulgencio Batista and obviously couldn't accept the revolution that removed his ruling circle. But the most ironic historical fact is that Mario's aunt had been married to Fidel himself and with him, had a child, Mario's cousin.
Opinions of Cubans living in the U.S. are drasticly different than they were a few decades ago. Cubans living here are now very interested in maintaining family ties with relatives on the island. Many are apolitical or are just plain tired of the politics of the past. Diaz-Balart couldn't care less. His personal frustrations about Cuba's independence trump the desires of much of the public he is supposed to represent. He has refused to speak with constituents who oppose his policies choosing instead to be sure that people like the old terrorist Posada Carriles, who have spent much of their lives dedicated to policies that are meant to cause suffering, can smile to each other even though their circle is getting smaller and weaker as the days pass.
His personal ambitions of impressing to most extremist elements in South Florida outweigh the respect of family that his own political party like to tout (although it is just a lot of political posturing). His most recent claim to fame is the fact that he is attempting to turn back the laws regarding travel to where they were during the infinitely terrible Bush presidency. His proposal is to prevent people from traveling to the island more than once every three years. Of course in the twisted logic of an anti-Cuba politician, this proposal is supposedly for the good of the Cuban people.
Candidate Obama made a lot of promises. To me, the most easy to accomplish of all was his promise to eliminate restrictions on travel for people with relatives on the island. This opinion was so popular that he was able to receive applause while speaking to the Cuban American National Foundation during the campaign. The Bush policy was extremely upsetting to many and a change was more than welcomed. Now if Mario Diaz-Balart's proposal makes its way through all of the wrangling in Congress, it will be up to President Obama to stand by his word and veto this madness. Will he? Will this provision even make it that far? That is to be seen. But either way, the President must realize that allowing this kind of thing to make its way into law will be an insult to the idea of family, a defeat for justice.
It is to be expected that Hialeah's representative stands for destructive, counterproductive policy. It is expected that a son of the Batista dictatorship has no regard for the Cuban people, neither those one the island nor those he is supposed to represent. Congressman Jose Serrano from the Bronx represents the immigrants from Cuba better than Mario Diaz-Balart. What a shame that such a man, such a hateful ideology still seems to find a way to cause so much hurt.
Let"s find a replacement for the folks like Diaz-Balart in 2012. Let's move towards the future in a way that avoids the obvious mistakes of the past. Let's respect our fellow nations and let us truly respect the idea of family. Throw away this hurtful provision and go further. End the travel ban on Americans to Cuba and the entire embargo. Let's not let the small man from Florida's 21st district destroy the only positive pieces to the puzzle of U.S.-Cuba relations.
As nearly the entire world has recognized, the U.S. embargo against Cuba should end. Long after the end of the Cold War, over a decade after the attempted kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez, tensions remain between the two countries. It really isn't necessary, Cuba has reiterated its willingness to have discussions with the United States. But the prerequisite Cuba places is too much for Washington to accept at this time. What is Cuba's prerequisite? To be treated respectfully.
Cuba isn't alone in its insistence of a prerequisite for talks. The U.S. believes that it has some sort of moral authority to decide if Cuba has met the artificial requirements that the U.S. has decided to place as conditions to holding talks. It's pure arrogance on the part of my country, the United States.
History's irony has landed Mario Diaz-Balart in the position of U.S. Representative for the 21st District of Florida. He is the congressman with the most direct ties to the Batista regime which was removed by the triumph of the Cuban revolution. His father worked directly for Fulgencio Batista and obviously couldn't accept the revolution that removed his ruling circle. But the most ironic historical fact is that Mario's aunt had been married to Fidel himself and with him, had a child, Mario's cousin.
Opinions of Cubans living in the U.S. are drasticly different than they were a few decades ago. Cubans living here are now very interested in maintaining family ties with relatives on the island. Many are apolitical or are just plain tired of the politics of the past. Diaz-Balart couldn't care less. His personal frustrations about Cuba's independence trump the desires of much of the public he is supposed to represent. He has refused to speak with constituents who oppose his policies choosing instead to be sure that people like the old terrorist Posada Carriles, who have spent much of their lives dedicated to policies that are meant to cause suffering, can smile to each other even though their circle is getting smaller and weaker as the days pass.
His personal ambitions of impressing to most extremist elements in South Florida outweigh the respect of family that his own political party like to tout (although it is just a lot of political posturing). His most recent claim to fame is the fact that he is attempting to turn back the laws regarding travel to where they were during the infinitely terrible Bush presidency. His proposal is to prevent people from traveling to the island more than once every three years. Of course in the twisted logic of an anti-Cuba politician, this proposal is supposedly for the good of the Cuban people.
Candidate Obama made a lot of promises. To me, the most easy to accomplish of all was his promise to eliminate restrictions on travel for people with relatives on the island. This opinion was so popular that he was able to receive applause while speaking to the Cuban American National Foundation during the campaign. The Bush policy was extremely upsetting to many and a change was more than welcomed. Now if Mario Diaz-Balart's proposal makes its way through all of the wrangling in Congress, it will be up to President Obama to stand by his word and veto this madness. Will he? Will this provision even make it that far? That is to be seen. But either way, the President must realize that allowing this kind of thing to make its way into law will be an insult to the idea of family, a defeat for justice.
It is to be expected that Hialeah's representative stands for destructive, counterproductive policy. It is expected that a son of the Batista dictatorship has no regard for the Cuban people, neither those one the island nor those he is supposed to represent. Congressman Jose Serrano from the Bronx represents the immigrants from Cuba better than Mario Diaz-Balart. What a shame that such a man, such a hateful ideology still seems to find a way to cause so much hurt.
Let"s find a replacement for the folks like Diaz-Balart in 2012. Let's move towards the future in a way that avoids the obvious mistakes of the past. Let's respect our fellow nations and let us truly respect the idea of family. Throw away this hurtful provision and go further. End the travel ban on Americans to Cuba and the entire embargo. Let's not let the small man from Florida's 21st district destroy the only positive pieces to the puzzle of U.S.-Cuba relations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)