Index | Judicial Process and Prison -- International Solidarity -- Terrorism against the Island -- Testimony by the heroes
They will return -- Gallery

Interview with the brother of Rene González, one of the Five
BY MIREYA CASTAÑEDA, —Granma International staff writer—

DOESN’T it seem strange that a case with so many ingredients for a film, a best seller or a high-profile news item is unknown in the United States?

There would seem to be an order for silence on the subject of the Five because they know that the men they have caught, put on trial, and sentenced are not spies.

Those thoughts were conveyed to Granma International by Roberto González, in his double role as Rene’s brother and lawyer. This duality allowed the affable, calm man, who received us in his own home, to talk about the Five — because he didn’t just discuss his brother — from the point of view of his personal feelings and the law.

Since their arrest, René González, Fernando González, Tony Guerrero, Ramón Labañino and Gerardo Hernández have been subjected to especially cruel treatment: 17 months in the Miami hole while awaiting trial; totally ridiculous sentences such as two life terms plus 15 years; returned to the hole without any explanation, making it difficult to prepare their appeals or see their lawyers and preventing them from receiving visits from their families.

I’ve visited René. My contact with the Five has been in court (during the Miami trial); it was visual, not physical contact. René is the only one I’ve seen in prison, on family visits.

I can go and see him at anytime because I’m an American and I don’t have any visa problems. I was in Miami for the whole process, at the trial; I was able to make frequent visits during the preparatory stage; since sentencing I’ve seen him three times. It depends on work, on the need to visit, on my dual roles as brother and lawyer.

René is currently being held in a prison in a little town called Edgeville, in South Carolina.

No, it’s medium security. Gerardo, Tony and Ramón are in top security facilities. Fernando and René are in medium security prisons.

It’s relatively normal; there aren’t any special circumstances. That is when he’s in with the normal prison population; it’s different when he’s in the hole. You have no physical contact with prisoners in the hole, there’s mesh or glass in between you; you can’t touch them. Normally we get on well because the atmosphere between us is good. One of René’s characteristics is that he doesn’t make you feel like he’s in prison, he’s very relaxed, very calm. Topics of conversation aren’t dramatic ones at all. We don’t put the world to rights in the prison. It’s just like we could be talking here, about our problems, life, hopes, worries, we tell stories. It’s just like you could be doing here or at home.

It doesn’t surprise me, but I think that more that having an ability to distance himself, what René has is an ability to concentrate. He’s a person who can relate very well to what’s going on, and a very aware man. More than distancing, what he does is involve himself in things, and he knows exactly what’s going on. What he has is a calmness, confidence; he’s got his objectives in life very well defined. It’s not that he’s a masochist or anything, he’s just a very decisive man, a very brave guy and he’s taken this on with decision and bravery. He’s clear, he knows the circumstances, what’s happening around him, he knows why; he’s aware of things, he’s very aware that the problem is not with him, but somewhere else. The fact that he could write an account of what he’s a part of with such objectivity is the most valuable thing about it. Such honesty in his account, narrating it as if he wasn’t part of this problem, comes from his concentration. René knows that Cuba is on trial, that it is a political trial, and he tells it like that, he is a consequence, the judge’s decision is going to fall on him. He knows that it’s something bigger and that one day he made the decision and took the risk, he’s just being consistent. This gives him a lot of tranquility, it makes him a serene person, secure in himself; he has no regrets. As he said in his plea, ‘I have no right to ask for leniency, I have no right to be regretful, I did what I had to do.’ I think that his ability to write the account has to do with his vocation as a reader, he’s always read a lot, ever since he was a boy. He had never written but having read so much and having a capacity to analyze problems, to be descriptive, he was able to write an account. And he did so, without hate, without resentment, despite the fact that he can see the evil situation developing around him. But Rene is an extremely balanced man, capable of evaluating things.

None of the Five have any problems in that sense, and they don’t because of the type of people they are. The fact that they spent 17 months in the hole and the way they emerged from it gave them a lot of authority in the Miami prison. Normally someone who’s been in the hole leaves it feeling unbalanced. A person who spends one month in the hole comes out affected in some way. Everyone in the Miami jail knew about the five Cubans, they talked about them. When they came out they were fresh as daisies. The Five came out of it very well, made calls to their families, were communicating well, and they immediately began integrating into prison life. People in the prison understood that the five men were different, they had an element that other prisoners lacked, and that earned them a lot of respect. Afterwards, they weren’t problematic prisoners, they followed the prison rules, they weren’t submissive but they are respectful and at the same time respected. And because of their educational level, they help other prisoners; they write letters to lawyers, to families, they even solve some of the interracial problem that arise in prison because they’re not racist and can prevent friction among prisoners.

Yes, René’s wife still hasn’t been given a visa. His eldest daughter, 18-year-old Irmita, has been. That was last year. She wasn’t refused (a visa) but her mother has been refused three times.

Yes, my parents have been twice; they went together. They need a visa and that’s why they’ve only been on those two occasions. They requested the first one at the beginning of last year and went. On their return they asked for the second one but only received an answer in December. That meant that the visit was delayed until this February. That’s the problem, the visits aren’t prohibited as such, but it takes so long for the visas to be issued that only one visit a year is possible.

I work here (in Havana) as a criminal lawyer at the law practice on J and 23rd. This gives rise to a series of circumstances. I’m a criminal lawyer, I’m an American and I’m René’s brother. As is only logical I became involved in the case and the U.S. lawyers began to establish links with my office, for everything that they needed in Cuba, to seek evidence, come to research the case, negotiate visas. I don’t really consider myself as being familiar with U.S. law, but at the end of the day, what happens is that one trial has more or less the same structure as another. The objective is the same, to work with the evidence and demonstrate innocence. The procedure is different, but the U.S. lawyers (Philip Horowitz for René) acknowledge that I’m a professional and give me a role. What I’ve done has helped in the sense of what is needed here in Cuba, researching subjects such as terrorism, the victims of terrorism, the violations of Cuban air space by the Brothers to the Rescue group. We’ve developed a good relationship that’s worked very well. When I was in Miami I was able to take part in their defense preparation meetings, give my opinion, they accepted my suggestions, and it’s been an experience working with them. I call it the privilege of misfortune.

Yes, the common defense is the necessity Cuba has to defend itself from acts of terrorism; another point of contact is that Cuba is not interested in information relating to the national security of the United States. It’s a point that all the defense teams are touching on. Gerardo’s case stands out because he is charged with conspiracy to commit murder in the context of the downing of the Brothers to the Rescue light aircraft; the others have not been accused of this. It affects René from the point of view that he had infiltrated Brothers to the Rescue, he knows that organization inside out, he knows how it functions. In this case it’s not that the defense cases are connected but that René could really help Gerardo´s defense as he had questions for each of the Brother to the Rescue witnesses and points to take up with them and that really helped Gerardo’s lawyer, Paul McKenna. In a general sense, the common focus of the defense is the non-existence of the crime of espionage, the false claim that Cuba is a threat to U.S. national security, and the necessity, the real history of acts of terrorism against Cuba. The lawyers worked on the existence of terrorism being recognized and Cuba’s need to defend itself. This is the biggest hypocrisy of the trial, that a judge can tell you that there are indeed acts of terrorism, that she acknowledges that innocent people ate losing their lives, and then hands down a life sentence to the defendant.

Yes, the text actually says terrorist groups and organized crime. The Five’s defense brought the terrorists to the courtroom and they stood there, and the terrorists said that they were terrorists. ‘Yes, I fired a rocket at a hotel in 1970,’ that was Basulto. Another one said, ‘I’ve got a training camp in the Everglades, and an office in Flager where I recruit people,’ and an FBI agent effectively stated that Frómeta was detained whilst purchasing a Stinger anti-aircraft missile and a quantity of explosive with a concrete plan to blow up a hotel. The judge offered him the "sanction" of one year under house arrest. Another FBI official said that he had stopped a vessel headed for Cuba - manned by members of Alpha-66 carrying M16 rifles and explosives - but let them go because they said they were only lobster fishing. This came out during the trial, including Basulto’s activities with Brothers to the Rescue, flying planes over Havana and, more seriously, interfering with civil aviation communications in Boyeros and Matanzas. They penetrated the radio frequency to broadcast messages, and this is very dangerous during take-off and landing; it could have caused a plane carrying 300 people to crash. They are delinquents; they are given warnings but continue to break the law and don’t have any problems. The lawyers put it to the judge that she should take into account that while these men, the Five, certainly had violated a formality by not presenting themselves to the attorney general as agents of the Cuban government, they were unable to do so precisely because of the support that the U.S. government gives to those activities. It would be ridiculous. The lawyers informed the judge that the good jurisprudence they had broken was in not registering themselves, which is a formality. The judge was forced to respond to that: that they had violated a formality but had saved lives, which are worth more. They had committed an administrative error but should be benefited by the law. The judge replied, and this is what the text of René’s sentence states: Acts of terrorism that are committed against innocent people...are pernicious and illegal...but they do not justify improper conduct...And you are sentenced to 15 years for the crime of non-registration.

Effectively, because by sentencing him to 15 years, one would assume that as René is a U.S. citizen, after 12 years he will have the right to parole, and is not obliged to leave the country. At the request of the federal judge, the judge had to impose a further special parole condition: that the accused is prohibited from associating with or visiting specific places known to be frequented by terrorists, members of violent organizations or figures from organized crime. This is a legal stipulation. It is not an interpretation, it is what she wrote. When I heard this in the courtroom, I froze. This is a sentence given after September 11. How is it possible that after September 11 a judge can effectively admit that there are acts of terrorism like the ones this man was fighting against, and then sanction him to 15 years imprisonment and say that when he is released, he is forbidden to approach those who are carrying out these crimes? That is the same as saying: I’m not interested in human life or in the fact that innocent people die. And the other interpretation is: I know they are terrorists, I know where they are, but leave them alone because they’re my terrorists. Technically, this has no explanation. For this reason, they couldn’t make this public. And we say that if this was known, the U.S. public wouldn’t be able to understand it. After September 11, how can you explain why a man has been sent to prison for combating terrorism?

The most important argument in the appeal is a request to annul the trial for violating the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. constitution, which establishes the right to a fair trial and an impartial jury. The key element within the legal system is the jury. In order to achieve this, there are two conditions: first, that the jury members selected should not have an opinion on the content of the case, and second, that is should have no fear regarding the decision it makes. The jury cannot have prior opinions or fear, it is impartial. In the case of Miami, that cannot be the case; everyone there has an opinion of Cuba and an opinion of Cuban agents. Any average Miami citizen would be scared to pronounce a man accused of being an agent of the Cuban government innocent. This is the principal request, that the trial be annulled and there should be a retrial in a different city.

The district attorney’s office must respond; it will say ‘no, that Miami is a paradise’ and then the Atlanta Court has to decide whether Miami was or was not the place to hold the trial. They are also going to contest the charges of conspiring to commit murder and espionage, and with regards to terrorism, they will state to the Atlanta Court that the judge in the original trial did not apply the law correctly because although she acknowledged the subject of terrorism, she did not give the defendant the benefit of combating terrorism. This is going to take us all year. The district attorney’s office has 60 days to reply, then the defense has a further month. After that, there will be a hearing in which the appeal will be argued and then comes the judges’ decision, which, as yet, does not have any date.

-- What Were They Protecting Us From?
In 1996 Noam Chomsky remarked that "Cuba was the target of more international terrorism than probably the rest of the world combined". The following list published in the web site antiterroristas.cu is just a part of the terrorism directed against Cuba over the last 40 years.
--FIDEL AT LAUNCH OF BOOK OF CARTOONS BY ONE 
OF THE IMPRISONED CUBANS
Love and humor can do anything
PRESIDENT Fidel Castro presided over the launch of a book of cartoons by Gerardo Hernández, one of the five Cubans imprisoned in the United States on alleged charges of threatening that country’s national security.
- Message from Gerardo and his four comrades
--The Days of Gerardo Hernandez in the United States Federal Prison at Lompoc
FOR millions of Cubans, the living conditions of the Five Cuban Political Prisoners being held in

Index | Judicial Process and Prison -- International Solidarity -- Terrorism against the Island -- Testimony by the heroes
They will return -- Gallery
E-Mail: correo@granma.cip.cu

Up