Havana Cuba Business Travel Culture and Politics

Havana Cuba News

Cuba Politics News

Posted January 14, 2006 by I-taoist in Cuban History

Email this article | Print this article | Search Havana Journal        

Arrested for Exposing Terrorists
The Singular Story of the Cuban Five

Five Cuban men, were arrested in Miami, Florida in September, 1998 and charged with 26 counts of violating the federal laws of the United States. 24 of those charges were relatively minor and technical offenses, such as the use of false names and failure to register as foreign agents. None of the charges involved violence in the U.S., the use of weapons, or property damage.

The Five had come to the United States from Cuba following years of violence perpetrated by a network of terrorist made up of armed mercenaries drawn from the Cuban exile community in Florida. For over forty years these groups have been tolerated, and even hosted, by successive U.S. Governments.

Cuba suffered significant casualties and property destruction at their hands. Cuban protests to the United States Government and the United Nations fell on deaf ears. Following the demise of the socialist states in the early 90’s the violence escalated as Cuba struggled to establish a tourism industry. The Miami mercenaries responded with a violent campaign to dissuade foreigners from visiting. A bomb was found in the airport terminal in Havana, tourist buses were bombed, as were hotels. Boats from Miami traveled to Cuba and shelled hotels and tourist facilities.

The mission of the Five was not to obtain U.S. military secrets, as was charged, but rather to monitor the terrorist activities of those mercenaries and report their planned threats back to Cuba.. The arrest and prosecution of these men for their courageous attempt to stop the terror was not only unjust, it exposed the hypocrisy of America’s claim to oppose terrorism wherever it surfaces.

Nothing reveals this more than the contrast between the U.S. government’s handling of the Five’s case with that of Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles. Both Bosch and Carriles were members, even leaders, of the Miami terror network and self confessed terrorists, who planted a bomb on a Cubana airline in 1976, which exploded in midair, killing 73 people.

When Bosch applied for legal residence in the United States in 1990 an official investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice examined his 30 year history of criminality directed against Cuba and concluded, “...over the years he has been involved in terrorist attacks abroad and has advocated and been involved in bombings and sabotage.” Despite that official finding he was granted legal residence by the then President of the United States, George Bush Sr.

The case of Posada Carriles’ is no less revealing. A fugitive from justice, he “escaped” from a Venezuela prison in 1985 (with the help of powerful “friends”) where he was accused and prosecuted for master-minding the 1976 bombing of the Cuban airliner.

Twice Posada publicly admitted that he was responsible for a series of bombings in Havana in 1997, in which an Italian tourist was killed and dozens of others were wounded . He was convicted by a Panamanian Court in 2000 for “endangering public safety” by having several dozen pounds of C-4 explosives in his possession, which he intended to use at a public gathering at the University in order to kill President Fidel Castro (along with what would have been hundreds of others, mostly students, who attended that meeting). His long career in violence and terror is undeniable.

He, too, however, became the recipient of inexplicable hospitality from the government of the U.S.. His presence in the United States, following a fraudulent pardon by the outgoing President of Panama, was an open secret, but he was reluctantly taken into custody only after giving a televised press conference. He’s now housed by American authorities, not in a prison, but in a special residence inside a detention facility. He faces no prosecutions, only an administrative procedure for not having appropriate residential documents, which could lead to his deportation to a country of his choosing. Meanwhile the U.S. has refused to extradite him to Venezuela where he is facing charges related to terrorism.

Contrast that treatment with that of the Five who were arrested without a struggle and immediately cast into solitary confinement cells reserved as punishment for the most dangerous prisoners, and kept there for 17 months until the start of their trial. When their trial ended 7 months later (more on the trial to follow) they were sentenced three months after 9/11 to maximum prison terms, with Gerardo Hernandez receiving a double life sentence and Antonio Guerrero and Ramon Laba�ino getting life. The remaining two, Fernando Gonzalez and Rene Gonzalez, got 19 and 15 years respectively.

The Five were then separated into maximum security prisons (some of the worst in the U.S.), each several hundred miles from the other, where they remain today. Two have been denied visits from their wives for the last 7 years in violation of U.S. laws and international norms. Protests from Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have been rejected.

The Five immediately appealed their convictions and sentences. Their appeal was to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal which sits outside of Florida, in Atlanta, Georgia. After a thorough review of the proceedings, on August 9, 2005, a distinguished 3 judge panel of the Court released their opinion, a comprehensive 93 page analysis of the trial process and evidence, reversing the convictions and sentences on the ground that the Five did not receive a fair trial in Miami. A new trial was ordered. Beyond finding that the trial violated the fundamental rights of the accused, the Court, for the first time in American jurisprudence, acknowledged evidence produced by the defense at trial revealing that terrorist actions emanating from Florida against Cuba had taken place, even citing in a footnote the role of Mr. Posada Carriles and correctly referring to him as a terrorist.

This panel decision stunned the Bush administration. Miami, with its 650,000 Cuban exiles who provided the margin of victory for Bush in the 2000 presidential election, was officially found by a federal appellate court to be so irrationally hostile to the Cuban government, and supportive of violence against it, as to be incapable of providing a fair forum for a trial of these five Cubans. Moreover, the behavior of the government prosecutors in making exaggerated and unfounded arguments to the twelve members of the public who heard and decided the case, exacerbated that prejudice, as did the news reporting both before and during the trial.

The Attorney General of the United States, Albert Gonzalez, Bush’s former counsel, then took the unusual step of ordering the filing of an appeal to all 12 judges of the Eleventh Circuit, calling on them to review the August 9th decision of the 3 judge panel, a process rarely successful, especially when all 3 judges were in agreement and expressed themselves in such a scholarly and lengthy opinion. To the complete surprise of the many lawyers following the case, the judges of the 11th Circuit agreed on October 31st to review the decision of the panel. That process is now ongoing.

It is also worth noting that prior to the August 9th decision of the 11th Circuit panel, a panel of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention also concluded that the deprivation of liberty of the Five was arbitrary and called on the Government of the United States to take steps of remedy the situation.

The record of the Miami trial was mammoth. The process took over 7 months to complete, making it the longest criminal trial in the United States during the time it occurred. Over 70 witnesses testified, including two retired generals, one retired admiral and a presidential advisor who served in the White House, all called by the defense . The trial record consumed over 119 volumes of transcript. In addition there were 15 volumes of pre-trial testimony and argument. More than 800 exhibits were introduced into evidence, some as long as 40 pages. The twelve jurors, with the jury foreman openly expressing his dislike of Fidel Castro, returned verdicts of guilty on all 26 counts without asking a single question or requesting a rereading of any testimony, unusual in a trial of this length and complexity.

The two main charges against the Five alleged a theory of prosecution that’s ordinarily used in politically charged cases: conspiracy. A conspiracy is an illegal agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime. The crime need not occur. Once such an agreement is established, the crime is complete. All the prosecution need do is to demonstrate through circumstantial evidence that there must have been an agreement. In a political case, such as this one, juries often infer agreement, absent evidence of a crime, on the basis of the politics, minority status or national identity of the accused. This is precisely why and how the conspiracy charge was used here. The first conspiracy charge alleged that three of the Five had agreed to commit espionage. The government argued at the outset that it need not prove that espionage occurred, merely that there was an agreement to do it sometime in the future. While the media was quick to refer to the Five as spies, the legal fact, and actual truth, was that this was not a case of spying, but of an alleged agreement to do it. Thus relieved of the duty of proving actual espionage, the prosecutors set about convincing a Miami jury that these five Cuban men, living in their midst, must have had such an agreement.

In his opening statement to the jury, the prosecutor conceded that the Five did not have in their possession a single page of classified government information even though the government had succeeded in obtaining over 20,000 pages of correspondence between them and Cuba. Moreover, that correspondence was reviewed by one of the highest ranking military officers in the Pentagon on intelligence who, when asked, acknowledged that he couldn’t recall seeing any national defense information. The law requires the presence of national defense information in order to prove the crime of espionage.

Rather, all the prosecution relied upon was the fact that one of the Five, Antonio Guerrero, worked in a metal shop on the Boca Chica Navy training base in Southern Florida. The base was completely open to the public, and even had a special viewing area set aside to allow people to take photographs of planes on the runways. While working there Guerrero had never applied for a security clearance, had no access to restricted areas, and had never tried to enter any. Indeed, while the FBI had him under surveillance for two years before the arrests, there was no testimony from any of the agents about a single act of wrongdoing on his part.

Far from providing damning evidence for the prosecution, the documents seized from the defendants were used by the defense because they demonstrated the non-criminal nature of Guerrero’s activity at the base. He was to “discover and report in a timely manner the information or indications that denote the preparation of a military aggression against Cuba” on the basis of “what he could see” by observing “open public activities.” This included information visible to any member of the public: the comings and goings of aircraft. He was also cutting news articles out of the local paper which reported on the military units stationed there. Former high-ranking US military and security officials testified that Cuba presents no military threat to the United States, that there is no useful military information to be obtained from Boca Chica, and that Cuba’s interest in obtaining the kind of information presented at trial was “to find out whether indeed we are preparing to attack them”.

Information that is generally available to the public cannot form the basis of an espionage prosecution. Once again, General Clapper, when asked, “Would you agree that open source intelligence is not espionage?” replied, “That is correct.” Nonetheless, after hearing the prosecution’s highly improper argument, repeated 3 times, that the five Cubans were in this country ” for the purpose of destroying the United States,” the jury, more swayed by passion than the law and evidence, convicted.

The second conspiracy charge was added seven months after the first. It alleged that one of the Five, Gerardo Hernandez, conspired with others, non-indicted Cuaban officials, to shoot down two aircraft flown by Cuban exiles from Miami as they entered Cuban airspace. They were intercepted by Cuban Migs, killing all four aboard. The prosecution conceded that it had no evidence whatsoever regarding any alleged agreement between Gerardo and Cuban officials to either shoot down planes or where and how they were to be shot down. In consequence, the law’s requirement that an agreement be proven beyond a reasonable doubt was not satisfied. The government admitted in court papers that it faced an” insurmountable obstacle” in proving its case against Gerardo and proposed to modify its own charge, which the Court of Appeals rejected. Nonetheless, the jury convicted him of that specious charge.

The case of the Five is one of the few cases in American jurisprudence that involves injustice at home as well as injustice abroad. Like the trial of the Pentagon Papers concerning the war in Vietnam, it derives from a failed foreign policy, which it exposes. In order to achieve a political end, the criminal justice system was manipulated by the government which consistently violated legal norms.

The Five were not prosecuted because they violated American law, but because their work exposed those who were. By infiltrating the terror network that is allowed to exist in Florida they demonstrated the hypocrisy of America’s claimed opposition to terrorism.

Leonard Weinglass is a defense lawyer and civil rights activist.

  1. Follow up post #1 added on January 16, 2006 by Cubana with 282 total posts

    FACT: An independent jury (non of which were Cuban Americans) convicted these men ON THE FACTS of spying and being involved in the murder of American residents. No amount of ranting by Leonard Weinglass can change this fact.

  2. Follow up post #2 added on January 16, 2006 by ElaineMiami

    The Five were simply doing what the U.S. government should be doing, and that is to investigate the activities of these anti-Castro terrorist groups, disband them and make any appropriate arrests.  Cubana:  where are your sources that the FIVE were “involved in the murder of American residents?”

  3. Follow up post #3 added on January 17, 2006 by Dana Garrett with 252 total posts

    “FACT: An independent jury (non of which were Cuban Americans) convicted these men ON THE FACTS of spying and being involved in the murder of American residents.”

    FACT: When Bernardo Benes successfully worked to get political prisoners released from Cuban prisons and to allow Cuban exiles opportunities to visit their families in Cuba (what Bush has rolled back), the militants in the Miami exile community responded w/ death threats and bombs going off outside his place of employment. 

    If I lived in Miami and were not a Cuban American, and if I were on that jury, I would feel extraordinary pressure to vote guilty against the Cuban 5.  It would be dangerous & foolhardy to do otherwise. 

  4. Follow up post #4 added on January 17, 2006 by mattlawrence with 69 total posts

    FACT: An independent jury (none of which were Cuban Americans) convicted these men ON THE FACTS of spying and being involved in the murder of American residents.(TWO OF WHICH WERE CITIZENS BORN IN THE U.S.A., AND ANOTHER A VIETNEM VETERAN….all shot down over INTERNATIONAL WATERS)

    No amount of ranting by Leonard Weinglass can change this fact. AND IF MR. WEINGLASS LIVED IN CUBA HE’D NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO RANT. . .

    May the Cuban 5 never see daylight again!

    Matt Lawrence, Author [url=http://www.mattlawrencebooks.com]http://www.mattlawrencebooks.com[/url]
    MURDER OVER THE HIGH SEAS: Castro, Clinton and Complicity in the Shootdown of Brothers to the Rescue (2006 release coming soon)
    DYING TO GET HERE: A Story of Coming to America (out now)

  5. Follow up post #5 added on January 17, 2006 by ElaineMiami

    Good point about the pressure the jury must have felt, Dana.  These are the small things that are often overlooked.  Matt, as for the shooting down of the Brothers to the Rescue planes, I’ve often wondered what the U.S. would have done if during the cold war era Russia had persistently antagonized us by flying into our airspace and dropping pro-communist propaganda leaflets on our cities.  There would have never been a second attempt and everyone would have applauded the shooting as an act of self-defense.

  6. Follow up post #6 added on January 18, 2006 by mattlawrence with 69 total posts


    We’re not in the 60’ anymore, and we’re not talking about the Cold War.  We’re talking about two civilian aircraft monitored by multiple U.S. radar sites being shot down over International Waters.

    We’re talking about the shoot down occurring on a day when Cuban MIGs were airborne in the early AM searching for this flight only to shoot it down. F-16’ were scrambled out of Homestead and chased those MIGs back to Cuba.  (This occurred before noon on that day) 

    The BTTR flight was in touch with HVA when they crossed the 24 line and one plane was actually in touch with the tower as the Perez-Perez brothers flew their MIGs into International Airspace,identified the planes as civilian. . .and then proceeded to shoot them down…. in front of a cruise ship w/ passengers and a fishing boat….cold blooded murder.

    I wonder if it would have been different if you had been on one of those planes. . .I some how doubt you have the fortitude…financially or in your personal make-up to risk your life to save another….

    Please remember your statements the next time you board a plane and fly over any foreign soil…a prime example of your mindset is that of the Islamic fundamentalists (terrorists). They too dwell on the past as you seem to, and posess that OLD WRINKLED THOUGHT PROCESS (Crusades, Cold War, WWII, Prejudice) it’ what keeps the FREE world from moving forward. 

    Matt Lawrence, Author
    Former Director of Special Projects, Freedom Flight International

  7. Follow up post #7 added on January 18, 2006 by ElaineMiami

    Wow, Matt, I find your personal accusations against me truly amusing, given that we’ve never met.  Is this the kind of in-depth, critical, unbiased analysis you used to come up with the “facts” for your book?

    No one can argue that the outcome for the Brothers to the Rescue and their families is lamentable.  But it was a COMPLETELY avoidable situation.  Too many facts often obscure the real truth, which probably lies somewhere between what Basulto says and what the Cuban government says.  But any reasoning person can easily conclude that there was no need for the Brothers to fly so dangerously close to Cuba, given the tensions between the two countries and the repeated warnings over possible consequences to their actions.  If it was rafters they were looking for, there were plenty of them along the Florida Straits and the Bahamas.  That is why their flights into and near Cuban airspace will always remain questionable.

  8. Follow up post #8 added on January 19, 2006 by mattlawrence with 69 total posts


    The “facts” in my books come from personal experience….while I NEVER personally flew into Cuban airspace…I did fly close to (without crossing) the 12 mile limit.  I did so because the rafters were more likely to be alive when found closer to the island they had fled from (shorter time on the sea). I assure you, I only write about what I’ve seen with my own eyes. . .

    Your statements about FIDEL’ FIVE are beyond “amusing”... SPYING, INFILTRATION, & CONSTRUCTING the shoot down of civilian aircraft are “criminal acts”. . .that resulted in the murder of four innocent AMERICANS

  9. Follow up post #9 added on January 19, 2006 by ElaineMiami


    Then I can presume the reason you’re alive and the others are not is because you DID NOT cross the 12 mile limit.  That’ my point.

  10. Follow up post #10 added on January 19, 2006 by mattlawrence with 69 total posts


    It is apparant you speak of that; which you have no first hand knowledge of….

Would you like to add more information?

Only members can add more information. Please register or log in

  • Advertise at Havana Journal Inc
We recommend this AirBnB Food and Drink Experience... Cuban flavors: Food, Rum and Cigars
Images of Cuba
Classic partagas cigar label
Follow Havana Journal
SUBSCRIBE to our Cuba Watch newsletter
LIKE us on Facebook

FOLLOW us on Twitter

CONNECT with us on Linked In

Section Archive
Havana Journal, Inc. BBB Business Review

Member of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy