by A.M.Rosenthal. The New York Daily News, April 14, 2000 .
Cuba is a totalitarian state controlled by President Fidel Castro, who is chief of state, head of government, First Secretary of the Communist Party and commander in chief of the armed forces.
"President Castro exercises control over all aspects of Cuban life through the Communist Party and its affiliated mass organizations, the government
bureaucracy and the state security apparatus."
"The judiciary is completely subordinate to the government and to the Communist Party."
"The government does not allow criticism of the revolution or its leaders. If President Castro or members of the National Assembly or Council of State are the objects of criticism, the sentence can be extended to three years. Charges of disseminating enemy propaganda (which includes
merely expressing opinions at odds with those of the government) can bring sentences of up to 14 years.
"In the government's view, such material as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international reports of human rights violations and mainstream foreign newspapers and magazines constitute enemy propaganda."
Those are verbatim statements from the report on Cuba in 1999 by the State Department's human rights bureau. They are based entirely on Cuban law and regulation. The report is available to every member of the Clinton government and of Congress, which made annual human rights reviews mandatory
and generally ignores them. In fact, it is available to every American and foreigner through the State Department Web site. Well, not Cubans, of course. Their computers have been declared the property of the government, and their access to computers and the Internet are naturally controlled by
it.
Critically important: The report on Cuba is evidence that the Clinton government has been lying. It has been lying throughout the entire moral and legal crisis about whether Elian Gonzalez should be returned to Cuba or allowed to stay in the United States awaiting hearing and American law.
There are many forms of lying. Every adult and government knows them, from a facial expression that knowingly depicts the opposite of truth to at least two forms punishable by American law. These are outright false statement under oath and deliberately withholding of evidence or testimony
that hurts
the case of the prosecution or defense.
Every U.S. official and lawyer of the administration involved in the case is guilty of withholding vital evidence. Not one of them said in any statement, document or public appearance that if Elian's father did not demand that his son be returned to Cuba, he himself would face 14 years in
bestial prison should he ever set foot in the country. That would be a separation from Elian hideously longer than it could have been if Elian remained in America and father and son were given unlimited visiting rights by Washington and Castro.
And no official or lawyer said a public word about what would face the child: A careful record of his obedience to Communist doctrine. His teachers would add to it constantly, and he would have to carry it wherever he went.
Unlike Attorney General Janet Reno, I cannot tell what road the father would have taken had he been free, not just on free soil â€" or what forms of hell his mother and other relatives would have been put through in Cuba. Reno said she knew he spoke the truth by looking into
his eyes. She could save us big money by flying about, looking into eyes, instead of going through that boring due process nonsense.
The administration did not have to worry that more than a very few press people would actually read the human rights report after Elian was brought ashore and Castro and the U.S. organized campaigns to send him back to Cuba. I have not heard of any reporter curious and tough enough to ask why
the U.S. had never mentioned in or out of court, or in immigration papers, what would face Juan Gonzalez if he defied the first secretary of the Communist Party.
Maybe, now that the determination of the American relatives and other Cuban-Americans has forced Reno to put off any attempt to grab the boy and make off with him, an independent-minded judge who hears any part of the case might ask her why she and her underlings never brought up what could
happen to Gonzalez or any other Cuban who defied the first secretary.
I am willing to believe that all who said they wanted Elian returned to Cuba, including his father, were as sincere as are the American Cubans who insist on due process â€" for Elian's sake and for American decency.
But to those Americans and foreigners who use the boy to display their unlimited compassion, who never use Fidel's word "Communist" for his regime but pick something more delicate â€" you know, Socialist â€" and who say how do we know our society is
really better for children than Fidel's dictatorship, may I tell you in all courtesy that you make me sick to my stomach.
Original Publication Date: 04/14/2000 |