Blowback - S2 Bonus 8 - "The Capital of Terrorism"

Episode Date: November 1, 2021

Noah talks with José Pertierra, a Cuban-American immigration attorney who has long tangled with right-wing Miami Cubans in the media and in court. Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

You're a Patsy from New York. Patsy? But the point of this whole trip was to leave me drunk and Texan. The point of tonight is to kill Castro and bring back his chin-pelt! What about making me a Texan? Wait, all this was about trying to frame me? Oh, you won't try for it. We're just covering our own tracks.

Who'd believe you'd be mad enough to kill Castro? Dad, you can't kill Castro. For God's sakes, you're not even supposed to drive. at night. Now untie me, the game is over. Lopez, take his clothes. Stinky, throw him over the fence. Welcome to Blowback. I'm Brendan James, and this is episode 8, the capital of terrorism. In this bonus episode, you'll hear a conversation between Noah and friend of the show, lawyer, Jose Pertierra. Jose is based in Washington, D.C., and has been practicing immigration law for decades. He previously hosted a weekly segment on Univision in the D.C. area, giving Spanish language immigration assistance on TV.

Perhaps more famously, two decades ago, Jose represented the father of Ileon Gonzalez. If you don't know the details of the Gonzalez case, that's okay. You'll get more detail from the interview. But the gist of it is this in late 1999. Five-year-old Ileon showed up on the coast of Florida. He had come to America on a raft with his mother. That story gets a little bit more complicated as we get into it. But the other passengers on this journey, including his mother, had died. Elian's father in Cuba was a perfectly fit and willing and able parent and wanted his son to come home. Relatives of Elion in Florida, using political pressure, launched a media and legal campaign to keep the child in Florida. So you'll hear more about Jose's role in the Elian Gonzalez case,

his own personal story, and other highlights and wisdom from his career. So without further ado, here's Noah interviewing Jose Perthierra. I found this letter to the editor that you wrote in 1981 to the New York Times expressing frustration about the fact that you had to get a license to read Cuban magazines. So there's something in that, and like a theme of our show is, you know, talking about the ways in which it has been made difficult over the last 50, 60 years for Americans and Cubans to develop any really sort of meaningful connection and understanding of one of the last 50, 60 years for Americans and Cubans to develop any really sort of meaningful connection and understanding of one of. and other societies. And I thought that your letter was obviously, you know, it just, it spoke that to me. And I think illustrated, you know, obviously one dimension of that. And I wanted to sort of get your perspective on, I like to hear a little bit more about

that and how that, what that distance looked like and how it shaped your perspective as a sort of, you know, young Cuban American. Well, I came to this country and I was a little kid. I was about as nine years old, about to turn 10. So I sort of grew up in the United States, but also my first memories were, of course, in Cuba. And I wanted very much to rekindle those memories and bring them up to date. I had gone to Cuba with the Brigada Antonio Maceo. I think it was in 1978.

This was before Internet. I mean, we couldn't read about what was going on in Cuba without reading it in the New York Times or in the Washington Post, which had a skewed view of Cuba. I wanted to see what was going on in Cuba from Cuba's perspective. It is, after all, the country where I was born. And I found that I could subscribe to some Cuban magazines and newspapers, and I would get them in the mail a month later. a month later is better than never. And so I started receiving them until I got this notice from the Department of the Treasury that I needed to get a license to get these magazines.

And I thought it was absolutely preposterous that the United States would try to block a United States citizen from reading without having a license. I didn't know you needed a license to read anything. The requirement goes against the very grain of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It gives us a freedom to read whatever we want. So I think there's something related here that is like kind of interesting too. Well, I guess then to sort of go back, you know, it goes against the grain of the First Amendment.

And you obviously that like I'm guessing that holds special significance to you, but as a lawyer. And so the journey of many Cuban exiles who come to be engaged in this issue does not end where or has not gone in the direction that yours has. I'm kind of curious, I guess, as to how you personally sort of came to practice the law in that way with this sort of perspective, with this idea that, like, the, you know, Cuba was a place that should be engaged with and not isolated under the terms of the embargo policy. I guess my thinking was formed thanks to the distance between my mother and her mother-in-law. We left Cuba, not because my mother was afraid of communists, but because she hated our mother-in-law, absolutely despised her. And we arrived in Miami, and my father went looking for work, and my mother kept saying to me, Armenia, which was her name, the name of the mother-in-law, says, Armenia will soon join us in Miami. I don't want to have anything to do with Armenia. We need to move far away. She knew that my father had sisters, and they would come, and they would probably settle in Miami or very near Miami.

So about two weeks after we arrived in Miami, we went to the refugee office, and it was a very nice officer from the Immigration Service sitting at a desk advising Cuban refugees. When Cuban refugees have it different than Central American refugees who get accosted and deported, Cuban refugees get. Cuban refugees get a green card and a parade in Miami. And back then, we also got the privilege of a one-way airplane ticket to anywhere in the United States we wanted to go as long as we promised not to return to settle in Miami. They would also give us food stamps and access to medical care if we needed it. Why didn't they want you in Miami? I think they were afraid back in 1961 of what Miami would become and what it would represent.

domestically in the United States. I don't know, but the program existed. I mean, when you say that what it would represent, like, what do you think that is? Well, I think right now, Miami is the capital of hatred against Cuba in the world. Right. So it was an idea, like, the government, in offering these kinds of incentives,

it was sort of a tacit awareness of the fact that, like, Miami was getting pretty radical. It's getting pretty radical, and it's getting Cubanized. You remember Miami was a place where all New Yorkers would go retire. Oh, my people. Yeah. I mean, no, literally, my grandfather, he retired to West Palm Beach.

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, my uncle, I think, has he and his wife living at home not far from where my grandfather once resided. It's a right of passage, you know, birds, just like that. Well, this nice officer put down a map of the United States on the table, and Miami was on the extreme right below. And my mother looked at Miami, and her eyesight went all the way across to the other side of the map. And she didn't have her glasses on, and she said to me, Jose Ignacio, what is that city? They said, it says Los Angeles. And she said, tell the American we want to go there.

And so we went to Los Angeles. So thanks to that, I grew up with Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, instead of with Jorge Mascanoza. and the Cubans in Miami. All right. Well, we are going to get to Jorge Mosquinoza. I have some fun questions for you on him and camp. So just to sort of chronologize this a little bit, where, you know, when do you, you're a philosophy graduate student at the time that you're writing this letter in 1981,

but by the late 1990s, you're representing, you know, people in cases as a lawyer that are getting, you know, written up in the New York Times and so on. How do you get from graduate school and philosophy to, you know, human rights law on the scale that you were doing and immigration law as well? When I was in graduate school, there was a debate in this city about the refugee law. There wasn't a refugee law. Where were you in graduate school? Georgetown University in Washington.

And people were discussing, you know, how do we guarantee that folks fleeing. violence in Central America and the world get a fair hearing in the United States without a refugee law. And that law eventually came to be known as a 1980 refugee act that was sponsored by Senator Kennedy. That inspired me to go to law school. I said, I want to be an attorney and I want to be able to represent asylum seekers in the United States. And I want to do immigration law from the very beginning. I got a job as a legal assistant in a law firm, representing union members, and specifically local 25, which is the hotel and restaurant employees union. We had a whole bunch of central...

My roommate who now publishes a left-wing Jewish magazine, of which I used to be an employee, he was previously before that an organizer for the Hotel Trades Council in New York. Ah, yeah. Well, that's how I got into law. And I began doing cases. I didn't look for them. They sort of came to me. How does a case come to you? I mean, this is actually interesting because, you know, in the movies, like in a John Grisham novel, Matthew McConaughey's feet are on the desk and a case comes

in and somebody says, listen, my daughter is in Guatemala City and I need you to get her out and then drama unfolds over 250 pages. As a matter of procedure, when you say cases come to you, like how did that start to happen? For example, one of the biggest cases that I did

It was a case involving the guerrilla commandante from Guatemala who was married to a United States citizen named Jennifer Harbury. And that guerrilla commandante was captured by the Guatemalan military. And the guerrillas were told he was dead, and then somebody escaped from a clandestine prison and informed the guerrillas that the man was alive. So I had written something on the guerrillas a few years before, and it came to the attention of one of the heads of the guerrillas, a man by the name of Rodrigo Astudius, who was also known as Gaspari Lung, happened to be the son of Miguel Angel Astudius, Nobel Prize of Literature in Guatemala. And out of the blue, I got a call from Mexico. Vaspari Loma is on the phone. And I thought he was kidding. But he said, no.

And he said, you know, we've got this case. And he described to me the case. And he says, what do you think? I said, well, it seems to have everything. It has violence. It has intrigue. It has mystery. It has the United States involvement with the Guatemalan military.

It has a U.S. citizen. Why does sex and violence? I mean, what more do you want? This case can come to the attention of the public and we can do something with it. And there's, I mean, but that came at a cost. You know, in 1996, for example, your car was set on fire in your driveway and Jennifer Harbury's home was shot at and a bullet broker window. And there was reprisals.

So for all the intrigue, there was, you know, a reason for that intrigue. There was a real menace there. Could you talk a little bit about that? There's a sort of lineage here, right, of Orlando Letellier and the, and Carillo. and all that, that we, you know, starts and begins earlier. But in this specific episode, yeah, if you could just talk a little bit more about that. Yeah, I think it was the first time that an explosive device had been placed in a car for political reasons. We've watched it since the case of Orlando Letelier.

Question, though. The news report that I read said that it was something like there was an accelerant, like, poured on the vehicle, like that they had just, like, lit it on fire. Was there actually, like, a bomb? It wasn't a bomb. It was an incendiary device, like an incendiary bomb. It exploded, though. Oh, like a Molotov cocktail kind of thing.

They didn't throw it at the car. They placed it on the car, on top of the car. And the car ended up like a charcoal briquette. You know, when it exploded, where were you? I was in bed because it was at like 4.30 in the morning. Did it wake you up? Oh, yeah. I was trying to put out the fire.

But I can't. Like, I mean, you don't. remember what you thought before you even knew that it was a fire and you just heard like you know the car's on fire what the hell is happening something and i remember getting a big bucket and throwing water at it but it was the entire car was in flames all right so this is the first time since orlando letellier a chilean diplomat is blown up in his car by pinochet in in the united states with you know like the degree to which one wants to say the u.s intelligence was involved in active can vary widely But what definitely feels interesting, though, is that this episode that we just talked about, this whole thing, didn't seem to, what did it provoke? Like, it doesn't seem to have, like, you know, I just watched a new documentary on HBO, for example, about the Guatemalan, Guatemala in the U.S. in the 1990s. And this incident doesn't come up. You know, why do you think it didn't make more? And also, there was the gunshot at Jennifer Harbury's report. There's Washington Post reports about that. Why didn't it get further, do you think? Because nobody was killed. I mean, the only damage was to a car and trying to terrorize a lawyer into dropping the case and a client from not pursuing it.

But nobody was killed. Had I been killed, I'm sure it would have been reported. I immediately thought that it might be the Guatemalan's. We were, after all, on the hit list of the Guatemalan death squads of Howard Ustiziero, both generations. for Harbury and myself. So I thought, no, this has to be the Guatemalans. But I later got confirmation of that from, ironically enough, the then ambassador from Guatemala to the United States,

who at the time was in Guatemala, a guy named Edmund Moulet, who told me that it was a hit that was meant to scare me, that I should watch out. He sent a fax to the Guatemala Human Rights Commission that I turned over to the FBI. And they were, you know, they investigated, they didn't arrest anybody or give me the results of their investigation or anything. It doesn't surprise me. There's one thing that I'm definitely kind of, you know, curious about is that there's, at the same time that this is happening chronologically, I guess, there is also, I guess, although the, I guess the involvement of where you come into the picture may come later, but the case of the Cuban Five.

I was involved with a Cuban Five, but not as a practicing attorney in court. I was involved with a Cuban Five case in a sense of bringing to the attention of the American people and people across the world what that case was about. To you, what was that case about? The United States has been using Miami-based Cuban-American terrorists against Cuba since the triumphant, the Revolution. Operation Mungus was launched in the early 60s. I'm not going to go through the whole history, but Miami is the capital of terrorism in the United States. Luis Posada Garillas was the Osama bin Laden of Latin America. And these men, these Cuban five and others, came to the United States with a hope of penetrating not the United States government in its military

in intelligence installations, but in the hope of penetrating the Cuban-American terrorist organizations that were engaging in acts of terrorism against Cuba. And to try them as spies was contrary to law and contrary to ethics, and to try one of them as possibly an assassin or as a murderer pinning on him the downing on him the of the Cuban plane of Irmano Sal Rescate, brothers to the rescue, is ludicrous. That man, Gerard de Hernandez, got two life sentences, two life sentences. But Crans, he didn't commit.

He wasn't a spy and he wasn't a murderer. it was a case that was tried in a place where it should never have been tried, which is Miami. Why was it tried in Miami? Because in Miami, if they tried Santa Claus for working on behalf of Cuba, he would be convicted. Hey, everybody, it's Brendan. I just wanted to announce the blowback soundtrack is now available. Anywhere you stream your music, Spotify, Apple. It's also available. on Bandcamp if you want to purchase the album and support us. These are full tracks, fully fleshed out versions of the musical themes and cues that you've been hearing this season. Music's composed

by yours truly under the pseudonym The Great Vorelli. I co-produced it with Marty Sulkow and Joe Valley of the band Wet, who also have an album coming out soon, by the way. And there's a very special track co-written and co-performed by the synth prophetess Robin Hatch. So if you like the music in the show, go check it out. It's streaming everywhere. Spotify. Apple, the blowback soundtrack for season two. There's, you know, this is happening at the same time as the L.A.N. Gonzalez Affairs. So I went back through, in prepping for this, I went back to, like, through some old Miami Herald issues, and I went back to a story from December 1st, 1999. And, like, you know, this

is as the L. Ian Gonzalez affairs in its earliest stages. And you told the Miami Herald that because, quote, it's an affair between the United States and Cuba, personal rights move to a third place. So it's difficult to know what's going to happen. I wanted to know what you meant by this third place. Because I think that when we've talked about some of the other issues here,

like this kind of contagion of right of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, on, you know, sort of clear-cut issues of legal morality in terms of the treatment of the Cuban agents, in terms of now the custody of L.E. and Gonzalez. I thought that the way you said that at, like, the earliest stages of the Gonzalez case was really, really interesting. And like I said, I'm not interested in, like, going over the fine details of this. But I just thought that characterization stuck with me. And I wanted to know if, you know, me reading it back to you, like, years later, you know, calls anything to mind. about it, yeah. Elian is a perfect example of the problems of doing anything in Miami. Only in Miami would somebody think that a father doesn't have a right to raise his son anywhere he wants. I mean, the case of Elian Gonzalez, the mother dies in the Florida Straits.

The father is still alive. The father is a good father, an excellent. father and he wants to be able to raise his son and in Miami they say no we should give him to distant relatives who've never met the boy because they are anti-communist and the father lives in Cuba only in Miami does that argument fly I would like to show you something I'm going to share my screen so I found um this uh news hour, PBS NewsHour clip that you appeared on with Jim Lair and Otto Reich from 1999 as well. It's like a week after that quote.

There is, I think, this dynamic that you are describing, you know, you sort of begin by saying that it applies to Cuba. But I want to play a clip because I think it shows that this attitude, although it may have been most fervently held and emanated from Cuba, it was something that went far deeper. So I'm going to share my screen with you so that you can see this. This case is also different from the Pedro Pan cases, because in the Pedro Pan cases that Ms. Condé talks about, the parents chose to send their children to the United States. In this particular case, the father is in Cuba and does not wish his son to live in the United States.

Now, Mr. Reich may not want this boy to live in Cuba, but unfortunately, this boy is not Mr. Reich's son. The father in this case is the one who has, ultimate authority as to where and how this child should live. If the child then grows up and reaches the age of majority and decides to live in the United States, then we're talking about a different matter. But right now the father has decided to live in Cuba. There's absolutely no evidence of any coercion.

On the contrary, all evidence is that this father is a member of the Communist Party and has chosen to live in Cuba freely and of his own volition. Otto Wright? I don't know where Mr. Prater is getting his information. It has to come from the government of Cuba because otherwise there is no other source of information. How does he know how the father really feels in a country where there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, no freedom of association?

You can belong to the Communist Party, and that's it, or you don't belong to the Communist Party. I mean, I think that the father should come here, see the child, and participate in that hearing, and this is what the law prescribes. I hope you're not saying that we should send the child back without a child. a hearing according to the U.S. law. Well, so far, there's been no case presented in a family court. I understand that the U.S. government has said that there will be a hearing in Florida court.

In order for the... And that all the parties involved will, in fact, including the father. The U.S. intersection in Havana, according to the U.S. State Department today, is going to contact or has contacted the father as the law requires. Well, in order for there to be a hearing in family court, it's not up to the United States government to present the complaint for custody. It's up to the family of the little boy in Miami. He has a family, right? I know he has a family here, but that family so far has not presented a complaint for custody. So right now, there is no legal impediment. There

hasn't been any writ issued by a Florida judge to prevent this boy from being sent back to Cuba and to obey the wishes of his father. Right now, the United States government could comply with the wishes of the government, of the father of Elian Gonzalez put him on a plane and send him back. And if he were from any other country, if he was a Guatemalan boy or a Mexican boy, he would have been on a plane longer ago. If Castro really cares so much about Cuban children, he would change the economic system that has condemned these children and their parents to risk 90 miles of shark-infested waters to reach the United States. Well, then quickly, Jose Perthirra, is there a legitimate place in a hearing to discuss

the relative prospects for this boy if he does return and the fact that he may be less well-nourished, well educated. Well, first, there has to be a complaint filed in a family court. Thus far, there hasn't been one. But in the event that one is filed, I don't think the fact that the father lives in poverty as against Miami really has any bearing on what kind of a father he is. Just because a person is poor, it doesn't mean he's a bad father. Just because a person lives in Watts, for example, doesn't mean that his children are better off in Beverly Hills with a distant relative. I don't think that the material riches of this country can compare with the value of the

relationship between a father and his son. Jose Perthierre, Yvonne Condé, Otto Reich, good to talk to you all. Thank you. Bye, bye, Otto. God, I was young. Right? The mustache and glasses, though, I mean, I'm going to be honest, you were the best-dressed person there, like on this whole panel.

Like, Yvonne Kande has like a very dated pantsuit, and Otto Reich looks like his name. And I still got that tie. Yeah, it's a good tie, in my opinion. You know, in that day, Lawrence Eagleburger was there. Eagle Burger. Yes, I saw that. We were in the makeup room, Otto Reich and I, before going on the air, and Eagle Burger comes by and walks right past Otto Reich.

And Otto Wright says, Larry, Larry, the guy turns around and Otto says, remember me? I used to be Otto Reich. I used to be. There's nobody gives a shit who he is anyone. And Eagle Burger says, oh, yes, Otto, what are you doing here? He says, oh, I've come to debate the alien case. He says, four or against the boy going back to Cuba? And Otto says, no, no, no, he needs to stay here. Oh, God, Otto, you'll never change. And he left. Jesus Christ Oh my God Yeah I kind of wanted to You know sitting with it again Like that exchange You know what Otto says there Look

Otto Reich is a hardliner And he's not like It's like a Which is to say that You know there are people Who represent more measured perspectives Who hold But who hold similar positions

And who don't sound As cartoonish as he does Or he's in that context But the thing is is that at that time, I don't think he sounded that cartoonish to a lot of people. I think that that was an answer that a lot of people, even if Larry Eagleberger, understood it as though he's being a cuck, if you say something enough like that, then people actually start to treat it as if it's fact and that it's real.

And I'm kind of curious, you know, sitting with that 20 years. I mean, that's my own commentary on it. But, you know, two decades after this, I guess I'm now kind of curious how you sort of view this, looking back on it. Well, I saw Otto giving a bunch of statistics. I don't know where he got him from regarding Cuba and whether people have freedom there and what the caloric intake in Cuba is

is the man who hasn't been in Cuba since before the revolution. And I saw this other woman from the Pedro Pan book, Condé, is her name. And it struck me that back then maybe I didn't recognize it as such, but now looking back, I do, which is the invention of fake news by the right wing, the invention of propaganda. If you say it long enough and loud enough, people will believe it, even though it is not true. But here's the thing. This was

on PBS News Hour. This was not on Fox News. This was not on Tucker Carlson. This was not on Bill O'Reilly. This was on like the most, you know, state political commentary program that probably existed on television at that time. But it's a news, it's a news segment that thinks that both sides should be heard no matter how ludicrous one of the sides is. You know, that's, you know, PBS has always taken that position. Yeah, if you've got people in the government, such as Otto had been, If he's saying outrageously crazy things, they're to be taking seriously and put on the same pedestal as somebody who may be saying reasonable things. That's just the way the news business works in the United States.

So there's one piece of the Elion narrative that I did specifically want to address, which is this, there was an article from like 19. 2000 basically that basically it's like a Miami Herald article but there's an assertion made by the head by Jose Cardenas that I kind of wanted to see like I'm less

interested in your perspective on Cardenas but I wanted to know what you thought about the validity of the assertion he makes in this throughout the Adura that followed federal officials seemed unable to grasp just how intense, sovereign, and single-minded this cause can be. Much of

the Cuban-American community quickly closed ranks around Elion. And the Cuban-American National Foundation, an exile group struggling to retain its power, began advising the family, bankrolling its travels, and warning that relinquishing the boy would amount to a propaganda victory for Fidel Castro. Quote, I think this thing necessarily became much more difficult when Fidel Castro laid out the ultimatum that the boy had to be returned in 72 hours, said Jose Cardenas, Washington director of the foundation. That inflamed the Cuban American community in South Florida.

It put the U.S. government in a position where they couldn't move with determinate haste to do what they wanted to do for fear of bending to Castro's wishes. A couple of things. First, the United States government, I think from early on, knew that the law said that the only person who was authorized to speak for the boy is his father. They knew that from the very beginning. Doris Meisner said it later, and it wasn't until near the end of the case that the U.S. government as a whole. admitted it. What we did not know was that the Attorney General of the United States at the time, Janet Reno, wanted to run for Governor of Florida. She declared her candidacy after the Elian case was over. And she knew, being a politician herself, she knew that it would not be very popular with Cuban-American voters for her to come out and an source, Elian's return to his father. Because to be clear, the issue is that when Elion arrived in Cuba and the, you know, in the

days after his arrival as the furor kicks up, there is this false notion that gets perpetrated that there is a hearing at which Elion's family can make some sort of appeal to him. And they reference, you know, this family hearing or family court thing that doesn't happen. And then eventually a state court judge intervenes in their own dimension before INS gets involved. And so the point being, like, well, hold on, hold on, hold on. Why is all this stuff like with a fucking family court happening when the actual administrative body that oversees these matters and has policies for these matters that are administrative policies independent of a court of law? You know, why are they not involved? And I think that your explanation makes more sense to me because it's like, well, who's the person in control of that administrative apparatus and who can, you know, delay it.

And who is, you know, yeah. was rescued in the high seas, or at least in the water. Immigration had jurisdiction of the boy. He was turned over temporarily, paroled in the temporary custody of relatives who had never met him. Was that a mistake? Yes, it was a huge mistake. And why, like, it's interesting because I think, I think it, well, there's an issue now, though, because this has been recast, like, where... With the rhetoric in the image of family separation at the border in Mexico, there have been some, I mean, in my personal view, disingenuous, but there have been claims made that it's like, well, hold on.

Like, this was actually the humane thing to have done, to have released this, like, rather than have them institutionalized or something. Like, you know, like, like, that's the counter argument that comes up there. What, what do you? But see, those cases are a bit different because those children are here and don't want to go back. You know, their parents don't want them to go back. If they query their parents in Guatemala and El Salvador, we don't want the child to come back. We sent the child to the United States.

In Elienne's case, if you go back to Elian's life in Cuba, the parents were separated and had joint custody. That child was kidnapped by the mother. The U.S. government knew that. He was kidnapped by the mother because her mother went to the school during daylight hours, during school hours, and said she was taking her child to the doctor. She didn't take the child to the doctor. She took the child with her lover to hide out until nightfall came so they can get on a boat

with a bunch of people who paid her lover, who was a coyote, paid them thousands of dollars to take him to the United States. That child is kidnapped. When the father shows up in the school to pick up the boy, because it was his day to pick him up, they told him, no, the mother took him to the doctor. Juan Miguel spends all kinds of time trying to figure out where Elian is. And days later, he finds out that Elian is alive. He was fished out of the water by two fishermen and taken to Miami.

And Juan Miguel immediately says, I want my boy back. Now, if an American child is kidnapped by one of the parents and ends up in that, France or Saudi Arabia, and the mother who kidnaps him dies in the attempt to get the child out of this country. But the father in New York says, I want my boy back. What do you think happens? The boy comes back. There's no custody hearing Saudi Arabia about the boy. You don't give him to some cousins who don't have anything to do with a boy who never met him.

The only reason that that boy was not immediately returned is because he's killed. Cuban and the Cuban American National Foundation at the time, beginning in Seattle, during the time that those demonstrations were occurring in Seattle, beginning then, they were already agitating for the boy to remain in the United States. He became a symbol of anti-communism. And the boy's not a symbol. He's the son of a very humble man who was a bartender in a restaurant in Baradero Beach. I mean, he wanted those. live with a boy. The father is one of the most extraordinary individuals you will ever want to meet. So there's then I want to move to another subject that I think again

touches on the same theme and I want to read from a 2005 article that's like a wire, an interpress service article regarding an immigration judge's decision not to return the terrorist

Luis Posada Correles to Venezuela. And so So, yeah, this is just a little passage I'll read here. I think the context will be clear. In a 1998 New York Times interview in Central America, Posada admitted to organizing a wave of... Pasada admitted to organizing a wave of bombings in Cuba in 1997 that killed an Italian tourist and injured 11 others.

None of this was deemed relevant to the immigration judge, however, who wrote that, quote, the most heinous terrorist or mass murderer would qualify for deferral of extradition if he or she could establish the probability of torture in the future, end quote. In fact, the only testimony before the judge that Posada could face torture if returned to Venezuela came from a single witness, Joaquin Chafferde, a close friend of Posada's and his attorney, Matthew Archimbo. To the amazement of Venezuela's attorney, Jose Perthierra,

U.S. government lawyers offered no rebuttal to Chafferde's testimony and went on to voice reservations about Venezuela's judicial system and its increasingly tight relations with Cuba. DHS gave this decision to the judge on a silver platter, Peritiera told reporters, we feel very deceived with the conduct of the prosecutors and DHS, which didn't litigate this case in good faith. So I think that that's actually basically the relevant context there.

But I think there's, like, again, this issue where there is a naked and clear-cut issue of somebody committed a crime and there are ostensibly legal procedures and arrangements for how this gets adjudicated and I think you can tell me about the crime that Carrella is committed

but I think I'm you know I I think that this quote sort of demonstrates and you know I'd like to know how a guy who commits that crime and with the training and support and background that he does in the U.S. by the U.S.

government, how he can get to that point in 2005 where an immigration judge says tough shit. Osada Carrillas, by his own admission and by his own lawyer's admission, worked for the CIA for over 25 years, I think more. Everything that he did in Latin America, he did in the name of the CIA. That's not my quote. That's from his own lawyer, Artud Hernandez. What did he do in Latin America? Well, he was chief of operations for the Venezuelan intelligence services where he was in charge of torturing and murdering scores of political prisoners.

He was the mastermind of a downing of a passenger airplane with 73 people on board, including a little nine-year-old girl. He was tried to Venezuela, and before a verdict was rendered, he escaped. He escaped with the help of people in Miami. And he ends up... Who are people in Miami? People who sent him tens of thousands of dollars to finance the escape. And who are these people? Right-wing Cubans in Miami, bodies of Posada Carrillas,

against the government of Cuba, against left-wing forces in Latin America. He ends up in the military base Ilopango in San Salvador, which was then being used by the CIA, in an operation that later became known as Iran contract. They were sending arms and munitions and foodstuffs to the Contras in Nicaragua in violation of U.S. laws. The guy who was in charge of administering the funds and the munitions and everything was Posa Agarillas in the name of the CIA.

This is weeks after he escapes. You know, and we're talking about a man who is being tried for 73 counts of first-degree murder, and he gets a job right away with the CIA making over $100,000 a year doing this on Iran contract. If you and I go to the 7-Eleven to get a job, it takes us more time to get a job at 7-Eleven than Posaharlene in El Salvador. I mean, and there's context for this, right? Or precedent, you know, I mean, Antonio Vesiana, for example, a colleague of Posada Corriles, who was the founder of Alpha 66, and this is for, I'm now stating this for the clarity of our listeners, not to lecture you on people and things you know, but Antonio Vassiana, whom listeners will have

heard about in other parts of the show, the accountant and advisor to Juan Lobo turned sort of exile terrorist activity mastermind. Antonio Vesiana, for example, was set up with a job by his CIA handler at USAID, proof of which the Department of Treasury

Stubbs for which were verified by House investigators in the 1970s. So, like, Posada Carrele's was not the only one who was doing stuff like this, nor is he the only person, the sole culprit for the things of which he's accused is, yeah, that's all I wanted to interject to point out.

But he is a big fish. He's the, I mean, he's, yes, certainly. He's a big fish. Yes. And after he leaves El Salvador, he gets a job with the intelligence services of Guatemala, right-wing government in Guatemala, sponsored by the United States. Then we next hear of him when he tries to blow up an auditorium full of students in Panama, because Fidel Castro is to speak there.

He buys a bunch of C4 explosives, and the Cubans who are onto him give that information to the Panamanians, the Panamanians arrest him, they try him, they convict him. He goes to jail. Then he suspiciously gets pardoned by Midea Moskosa, the then president of Panama, but four or five years after the conviction, and his buddies... who get convicted with him, four of them, end up in Miami. Posada can come to Miami because he's got all these other problems. So he disappears supposedly until he ends up in 2005 in Yucatan or in Isla Mujeres near Cancun.

A yacht from Miami picks him up, takes him to Miami. he lands in Miami he enters Miami through the river called the Miami River and lands in a restaurant a very famous restaurant and walks right by the Miami Chief of Police who doesn't recognize him you know he taunts

the U.S. government at a press conference at a bizarre press conference he taunts the United States government saying you know I nobody's come to arrest me So the U.S. government being humiliated by this terrorist, besides, they've got no choice but to arrest him. They arrest him and they charge him with immigration violations. He applies for asylum and then lies on his asylum application.

I want to come to the, I want to get to the 2011 revelations and that problem later. what was as you saw it at the time in in 2005 when you are engaging in this immigration like matter now you know for the listeners like the context is that immigration matters i mean i'm pretty sure this is still the case then um those are administrative law courts right with an administrative law judge yeah yeah it's an immigration judge right and so and so is there i guess like for is there something like i guess that you know um is there something about that process that for the outside observer is different from a normal court of law that is important context and understanding what happens in 2005 well there's there's a couple of different things i mean first you've got the immigration case where He applies for asylum. In 2005, he applies for asylum.

And then you've got the extradition case. Venezuela retains me to file an extradition claim against Posada Carrily for 73 counts of first-degree murder. That case is still open in Caracas. We tried, and we tried and we tried to get the United States government to present that case before a federal district court judge so we can get him extradited. Venezuela cannot present the case to federal district court under the laws of extradition. It has to be the United States government. And the United States government receives the evidence from Venezuela. They review the evidence and then they kick it back.

They say, we need more evidence. We send more evidence. The standard for extradition is probable cause. It's not even beyond a reasonable doubt. It's probable cause. So a scintilla of evidence is enough. What we had on Osada Carrillas wasn't his own confession. It was the confessions of the people who placed the bombs on the plane,

saying Posada Carreles was our boss. We reported to him. We called him after the plane went down and those people died. They even drew a diagram to the police in Trinidad who arrested him. about the, you know, the structure of the terrorist organization to which they belonged that Posada Carrillas was the head of, and that was directed by, according to them, the CIA. So then in 2011. No, before you.

Sorry. So, please, please. I mean, so you've got the extradition case going on at the same time that Posada, on his own, decides to defend himself against the possible deportation, and he files for Assad. In the asylum application, they asked him in 2005, have you committed any crimes in the past? Have you engaged in any violent actions in the past? He puts no. But he had confessed to the New York Times already that he had been the mastermind of the bombs in Havana in 1997 that resulted in the murder of an Italian businessman by the name of Fabio Lichelmo.

so they then accuse the government then accuses him because the government had those proofs they accused him of lying on an immigration form in 2011 in el paso are you frozen or no no i'm i'm just riveted truly in 2011 when we did the the case in el paso the immigration prosecutor from 2005 testified she said she saw the file of Posada Carrily. She saw the I-589, the asylum application, and she called her supervisor to put her in touch with the U.S. District Attorney in Miami to say, why aren't we bringing terrorism charges against this guy instead of trying him for immigration violations? or letting him apply for asylum in earnest.

See, he's disqualified for asylum for committing crimes of this sort. I mean, you don't give asylum to somebody who admits to murdering an Italian businessman. Well, I mean, you don't know many Italian businessmen, I don't think. And the curious thing is, she, the immigration prosecutor testified in federal court under oath that she was told by the U.S. District Attorney in Miami that she should pursue only the immigration case and not terrorist cases. And you know the prosecutor was the same prosecutor that tried the Cuban five? You know what's funny?

Florida is the state that has like the most recycled legal figures of all time. For example, the Terry Schiavo lawyer for the parents is later shows up as the Pinellas County judge who oversees the Gawker Hulk Hogan trial, which is also like an insane legal farce. And so, you know, and she, a judge ships that she was got because she was given it by Jeff Bush as a favor for the Shivo thing, which is, I mean, I'm not presenting to listeners as a, as anything, you know, causative or linked, but just to say that Florida is spiritually a place where demons recycle through time and history. So the asylum case gets tried in the immigration court, and you began this discussion with a quote about that trial and the fact that there was no cross-examination.

Well, I wasn't at the trial, but I had a guy there. And he told me on the phone during a break in proceedings, we're a break in proceedings, so say, and he just finished. direct examination, and the prosecutor asked for, the same prosecutor who led it testified in El Paso, the prosecutor asked for a timeout, and she went into the hall and she's talking on the phone. When she came back to court, is when she said no cross-examination. So you put two and two together, you get four. I mean, this woman was asking her supervisor or somebody, do we cross this guy or not? And they said, don't cross him because in the law, if there's direct examination that is not challenged, that is

evidence. That's why cross-examination is so important. There's a point, though, at which he ends up being tried for lying, and he is acquitted, ultimately. Yes. And you give the line that the theater was worth more than the evidence in this case. That's right. What did you mean by that that's that's the that's the main of the american legal system it's all theater how do you mean well if

I'm sorry I'm just a simple country lawyer how do you mean sir that's what I mean all country lawyer I mean that's part of theater um you jurors get bored

you know and putting on evidence is boring um they want theater and they you know they're they're mesmerized by impressions and so forth. Here we have the case, Posada Carrillas, of a man who had confessed to the New York Times,

who had confessed to a woman for Spanish language television named Maria Elvira Salazar, who is now a member of the United States Congress representing Miami. She's doing Ros Letton and's old district. She's a Cuban-American. who, when she was running for Congress this last time, had a commercial saying,

hi, I'm Mary Alvira Salazar, and I'm running for Congress. Oh, she's Mary Asala Salazar? Salazar? I mean, I'm in risky, I don't speak Spanish, so I'm in risky territory playing that game, but. And those two women took the stand in El Paso. Anna Luisa Bardash, who did the New York Times interview, and Maria Lvira Salazar, who did the Spanish language television interview. And Maria Lvira said, yes, he told me that he had masterminded this,

but I think he was just showing off. I think he was al-A-Lardieno. How were you saying in English, al-A-Diando? taking credit for something he didn't do just so he could show himself all. But she said also that he did it. No, she didn't say he did. Oh, so she just said, so she believes entirely that it was a fabricated boast. It was a boast.

That's the word. He was boasting. And in the case of Ana Luisa Radash, she said, well, yeah, he said that the Italian was in the wrong place at the wrong time. and that he doesn't lose any sleep over it. But, you know, he takes credit for a lot of things that he didn't do. He says he, you know, he did all of the anti-communist operations against Cuba. And he's obviously exaggerating, so I don't know. I mean, it's funny because it's just like by the time that this trial is happening, too, you know, in 19, let's say this were happening in 1981, right?

and the matter is over the Cubana bombing or some of the related matter of terrorism in which this guy is a hand and it's proven that comes before. That is a period before which you have, you know, even like the select committee, for example, revelations about the extent of the CIA and the American government's involvement in this stuff is known. But in 2011, we know everything. Like, none of this stuff is hidden. so there's a she's denying like you know like basic fact and reality there um i guess like why you know this is this is where i think like you have this phrase that you gave to this reporter probably you know bleary-eyed and maybe it was tossed off i don't know but you call it the third place and i love that phrase because that is like the thing that explains this like what is

like the like what the third place is this space that allows a judge to look at an open record of terrorism and feel the pressure from government say, eh, fuck it, he's just a noisy Cuban who's bragging, as the Cubans do. And it's what enables people to look at L.E.N. Gonzalez, a case involving, you know, a,

like, like, a just, the textbook, it is what it is, a negligent mother taking the kid away from a loving father in an act of like, you know, like divorce gone bad, and it produces a catastrophe that with any other country would have been handled in a different fashion.

And then you go before that to the Cuban Five, and we talk about the revelation of espionage agents. And again, it's this excessive and harsh treatment based on spurious allegations that are deeply ironic, given the long and openly admitted history of American government's efforts to assassinate Castro. So again, this special place, this set of exceptions, it's just something that like in researching your career and in preparing for this episode and also just making this whole fucking season of the show, frankly, it's just a thing that I can't help it. see constantly. And so, you know, I'm curious about it. Like, you know, I, like, like, the third place. What is it? How do you see it? It's anything that deals with Cuba in the United States. Cuba has been so vilified here that, um, there are rules for Cuba and rules for everybody else. only in particularly in Miami

but also the United States government I mean come on it had an extradition request been presented to the United States government regarding an Islamic terrorist who blew up an airplane with 73 people on board you don't think the United States government

would have paid attention to that and extradited the guy they would have done that in a heartbeat and, you know, had Posada Carrillas been Mexican and claimed to the New York Times that he had masterminded a series of bombs in Mexico City that killed an Italian tourist and had, there was an extradition request

pending against him for having blown up an airplane. And he writes on the I-589 on the asylum application that he's never done anything violently. Do you think the United States government prosecutor in the immigration case would have foregone cross-examining? The witness had said that he would be tortured back home if he's returned. No, come on. There was no evidence, no evidence presented on torture. Absolutely none except the testimony of the guy's own lawyer, one Venezuelan lawyer, Joaquin Chapardé, who was suspected in Venezuela of helping Posada Carrile's escape from prison.

There was a case brought against him and later dropped for having helped his client escape from prison. There were some tools found in the trunk of his car. This is the supposedly objective witness that the government used to establish that Posada Carreelis would be tortured back on. come on. They're just different rules. Where do they come from? Why are there different rules now? It's 2021.

And like I think like, you know, the State Department, just a few days ago, I think this is actually a really good transition to what my next set of questions were going to be. You know, the State Department a few days ago released a 2020 human rights paper with white paper on Cuba. And it's a fascinating document. It is, it details an enormous number of. Cuban human rights violations and all the sort of, you know, the things that we hear about what life is like in Cuba in a regime that is a one-party state, that is into democracy, that is authoritarian, and all that. And one of the things that it specifically does, you know, I took the time to go through it and to read the citations and to understand it. And one of the things that I noticed was, oh, how interesting. A lot of the articles come from a news organization that is characterized explicitly as an independent news outlet. and it's Cubanet, which is a news outlet that, you know, has, it may do some journalism, but it also happens to receive money from the National Endowment for Democracy, which is

the American government. So a U.S. government news outlet for a government that has a, is, you know, working on a, says it has active information operations against a declared terrorist state is cited as the source for, you know, still in the human rights reports being put out by the State Department that is expected to be the people who are negotiating in good faith normalization with Cuba. So the upside down world, this third place, it remains the status quo, you know, and the most obvious, you know, marker of that is that the embargo remains in place, you know, from 1962. So to my mind, you know, I guess, you know, considering, you know, how does what is the way that

the, like, what does the third place look like now as you see it? because I really enjoy staying with this metaphor and making you use it with me. Like, how does it, like, what does that look like now? And how does, you know, I guess with the change of power from, you know, the Obama steps toward normalization and then the Trump reversals and the sort of Biden fork in the road? Like, how, like, how do I guess you view this, you know, just from your vantage, right? I don't want you to feel like you have to explain, you know, how to pass a trailer truck through the eye of a needle. But, you know, how do you, how, like, from your perspective, like, what are the options available to the American government right now?

Like, what are the possibilities that can play out, given the sustained political dilemma? I'm not terribly optimistic that President Biden and his administration are going to move. to change things with respect to Cuba. The human rights report, the U.S.ide, is a perfect example. That human rights report was written by the Trump administration. It was the Trump regime that did the so-called investigation, and their sources were organizations that are propaganda organizations that have been created by the United States government

to the tune of over $20 million a year to change the narrative on Cuba and tell the world that Cuba is what it is not. And there's a good... I want to give one corroborating example of this, which is Kimberly Breyer, Cuban, you know, D.C. Cuban analyst, who previously worked for the State Department

and is now on staff as an advisor because she's not a lawyer, at the D.C. law firm, or lobbying firm, Covington and Burling. It's a law firm, but it does legal lobbying services, in my view. And, you know, where Eric Holder used to, it's where Eric Holder does work as do others and so on. And she wrote an article in Politico saying that Biden can't give the Cuban government

a pass for the Havana syndrome stuff because they didn't help out enough. And the think tank that she works, and to me, the think tank that, you know, she has an association with CSIS, that also happens to be the one, that auto right was, you know, had, you know, and on the caption under his name and on the screen. And I're not saying that like the CISIS is explicit job. I'm not, you know, I'm not saying that there's like a, you know, a guy, you know, holding like a little marionettes at the CSIS saying, oh, no, we've got to go rebutt Cuba stuff now. But I do think that like, to your point, there's just such a, there was real continuity with this stuff that is very,

very hard to shake. And that article that I'm talking about, like it was published in Politico magazine. And, you know, it's, it's like, there's not a lot of stuff that gets a lot of ink about America-Cuban relations. And the stuff that does is, it's that. And even, you know, you mentioned the Ivana syndrome things, the so-called sonic attacks. Yes. For which there's, again, no evidence. There is no, zero evidence. There is no evidence that there are sonic attacks that they originated from Cuba and the Cuban, that the Cuban government has any knowledge about their nature. But even the progressive community in Washington, even the NGOs that deal with supposedly an attempt to normalize relations with Cuba, even they accept the major premise of the sonic

attacks. And it amazes me because if there's no evidence for something, the laws of metaphysics tell you it doesn't exist. It doesn't happen. I mean, And evidence is key to any position, particularly in politics. And there's no evidence whatsoever for this. And once again, we arrive at the third place. There's no evidence. So what do you need to explain it? So here's, I think, a good note to end the interview on then,

because I think that, you know, that is sort of a real challenge to the progressive movement in a lot of ways. And like the left, or at least like the Democratic left. Because, you know, it's Bob Menendez now, who is a. Cuban American from my home state, New Jersey. He's the chair of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as he was in the 90s, when the last wave of punishing anti-Cuban policies were really crammed through. And he's the guy running the show now, as far as it goes in the Senate, which is where congressionally speaking, these things matter.

And I think that there's a real capacity if these narratives, these false narratives, this fake news, you know, if it gets entrenched, then that's not a good thing. That means that, like, you know, the people who are ostensibly supposed to be checks on this kind of power are, in fact, preventing what was, you know, some really important steps being taken in the Obama years towards, at the very least, beginning to relieve pressure on Cuba. Because, again, you know, if I can end this on any note, it would just be that, like, the embargo is a fucking nightmare and a crisis. And it has been for, you know, 59, you know, going on 60 years. And the fact that there is no end in sight, even though there is no cost to Americans whatsoever for ending it, is it just a shame? And it's not, yeah. You mentioned Senator Menendez, and I think you're right, the Biden administration seems to be afraid of Senator Menendez.

If he's scared of a senator from New Jersey, who's got political problems of his own, corruption and allegations of sex traffic. and all that aside. He's got political problems. You cannot be afraid of him. You have to move ahead and you have to do the right thing for the United States. Miami should not dictate United States policy on Cuba or United States policy in Venezuela. It has to be Washington. If Washington decides to go a particular way on Cuba, Miami will follow. They followed Obama for the most part. You know, people, the Cuban Americans in Miami want to be American, and they think being American is following their president.

Right now, ironically, the millions of dollars of the United States is spending on regime change against Cuba is blowing back on them in Miami because what they've done is they've created this false narrative of what Cuba is like and bombarded them with fake news about Cuba, and it's riled up a bunch of Cuban Americans in Miami who actually believe all that bull. If the Democratic Party wants to win back these Cuban Americans in Miami, one of the things they have to do is cut off those millions of dollars a year to create these propaganda news organizations

that are feeding the public in Miami all this false information. You cannot have a normalization of relations with Cuba and still preserve a program of over $20 million a year for regime change. Jose, I want to thank you for your time. Thank you.