A recent visit to Havana by US attorney Leonard Weinglass, who represents Antonio Guerrero in the case of the Five, was a chance for the Antiterrorist Working Group to speak with him on the status of the current appeal presented before the Eleventh Circuit Court in Atlanta, Georgia. Weinglass explained to a number of Cuban attorneys who have been assisting him with the case that on November 17 the defense will respond to the arguments recently submitted by the US Government’s attorneys. The Court will then grant a date for verbal arguments from both sides.
[Antiterrorist Working Group]: What exactly are the defense attorneys doing right now?
[Leonard Weinglass]: They’re working very hard towards the November 17 deadline where they must respond to the US Government’s argument before the appeals court. There are enormous quantities of documents to analyze – more than 100 volumes of transcriptions. It’s quite an effort to correct the impression that the Government has created by its argument.
A great deal of what the Government has argued is exaggeration with only a small part being the absolute truth. So the attorneys are going through the documents to provide the Court with an historical reference that will prove that the Government is attempting to manipulate and distract the attention of the Court.
[AWG]: What are the weakest elements of the US Government’s argument?
[LW]: Their weakest element is the fact that they cannot defend the atmosphere that existed in Miami. They cannot defend it without going against the most elemental principles of US law - for example, a fair trial before an impartial court. It’s obvious that this didn’t happen in this case and the Government is having a hard time justifying what happened in Miami. They’ve presented an extensive 86 page document but not a word can defend the decision to hold the trial in Miami.
[AWG]: What will happen after November 17?
[LW]: After we have presented our response to the Court it will notify us of the date when we can make our argument and the length of time accorded for the argument. We don’t know when or where this will be. We can only guess that it will be sometime in February. It might be a little later but I don’t think it will be before.
[AWG]: And there will be an oral argument?
[LW]: In cases of this complexity and importance the Court always offers an oral argument. It would be surprising if they didn’t.
[AWG]: How do you see this case resolved if the judges are fair and impartial and practice according to US law?
[LW]: A pragmatic judge will clearly see that justice was not served in Miami. This Atlanta appeals court knows Miami. It was this court that was denounced in Miami for its ruling in favor of the child, Elián González. They know Miami and I don’t see how they can possibly avoid what everyone else in the United States knows: that in regards to Cuba, Miami is different from any other location in the US. There is only one place in the US where justice cannot be served, and that is Miami. Even in Fort Lauderdale, only 80 kilometers from Miami, a fair trial could have been held.
[AWG]: Recently here in Havana, Noam Chomsky said that what has happened to the five Cubans is incredible and called attention to the silence of the mainstream media in the United States. How damaging has this complicit silence been for the appeals process in Atlanta?
[LW]: Chomsky’s is a well-known voice among US intellectuals and progressives in relation to foreign policy and legal matters. We are very grateful for his comments. The silence of the US press in this case, and in the current atmosphere is not surprising. To speak on this case one is obliged to refer to the more than 40 years relationship between Cuba and the United States – a history lesson that the US Government wishes to avoid and the press is compliant. They know that if the Cuban Five are mentioned then the obvious question will be: Why were they sent here? The response to this question is one that the US Government and the press don’t want to hear – especially know in the middle of the war against terrorism. The position the United States has taken is that it is opposed to terrorism. If one answers the question as to why the Five went to the US, one has to go into the fact that they went there because the United States supports terrorism. Thus, it would be inconvenient for them to enter into this discussion at the moment.
[AWG): Is the 2004 presidential campaign likely to have a negative effect on the appeal of the Five?
[LW]: Everyone – even the prosecution – recognizes that this case has a political foundation. In a political case such as this in the middle of a presidential campaign where Florida could be important – especially the Miami vote – it is probably the worst possible time to have the case decided before the court.
[AWG]: Different commissions of the European Parliament have recently criticized the situation of the families of René González and Gerardo Hernández and the human rights condition of the Five. Are these violations included in the appeal?
[LW]: Above and beyond the legal difficulties of this case can now be added the question of the violation of the human rights of the prisoners and their families. Amnesty International has approached the Supreme Court of the United States on this. Amnesty adopted the position that the Constitution of the United States protects the rights of a family to stay unified. The Constitution protects the families of René and Gerardo who should be allowed to maintain a relationship with their spouses and children. The regulations of the US Bureau of Prisons also specifically protect this family relationship – the right to visits.
Thus, the separation of these two families cannot be justified under present regulations, or under the US Constitution, nor international human rights legislation. This is such a flagrant violation that I don’t understand how even US churches are allowing this to happen. You cannot separate a child from her father; you cannot separate a wife from her husband. This is unacceptable under any moral or legal code.
17th Nov 2003