|← Ten European Countries||Police Department →|
Criminals or Anti-Terrorism
Buy custom Criminals or Anti-Terrorism essay
The Cuban Five was the group of intelligence officers from Cuba that were convicted of conspiring to commit espionage, murder and other illegal activities in Miami, USA. The five were on a mission in the US to observe and infiltrate the Cuban-American groups that were based in the US, and were a threat to the peace and stability of the Cuban Government. The evidence that was presented on their trial that indicated that they had infiltrated the Miami based group of exiled Cubans and had obtained employment in the US naval air station sending reports about the base to the Cuban Government.
They had also been accused of penetrating the southern command of the US. The Cuban Government acknowledged that the five men are the intelligence agents that were sent to spy on the Cuban exiled community and not the US Government. The Five had been sent to the south of Florida as there were bombings in Havana, Cuba, which were thought to be masterminded by the anti-communist militants who are based in Miami. The Five in their defense were pointing that they were monitoring the actions that were perpetrated by the terrorist groups that were based in Miami and preventing further attacks on their country. Their actions had not been directed on the US Government as they did not harm or were in possession of arms while they were in the US.
The terrorists based in Miami had been engaging in terrorist activities against Cuba. The terrorist groups that comprised of commandos and F4's were operating inside the territories of the US with complete impunity, attacking Cuba with the knowledge and the support of the US Government agencies.
The necessary decision was made by Cuba to send the group of five agents to Miami so that they could monitor the activities of these terrorists and infiltrate them to prevent further attacks. The clandestine operation by the Cuban Five risking their lives was to curb the criminal acts with the aim of protecting the citizens of Cuba. The US agencies arrested the five anti-terrorists rather than the terrorists that were on their territory, and illegally held them in confinement for over 17 months.
The five Cubans were arbitrary deprived of their freedom and subjected to unfair judgments as the Cuban revolutionaries did not conceive a fair trial in the Miami justice system. They had been prosecuted though they had peacefully, without any weapons, penetrated the terrorists groups that acted against the Cuban government. The large and the diverse community of Miami is heterogeneous and it was capable of handling sensitive issues of the Cuban revolution (committee).
This is the sentiments that the prosecutor relied upon when rejecting the motions that were presented by the defense lawyers during the trials of the Cuban Five. The trial of the Five had been kept secret, and it was the longest in the US, as it was the Miami press that covered the proceedings when the testifying was being done by the army generals. It was the case that involved the foreign policy and terrorism, and the refusal to cover the case was indeed the violation of the fundamental rights and the rights of prisoners (De quesada, 2011).
The coverng of the case by the media was exceedingly intrusive as they had condemned the Five much earlier the court had indicted them. The media had depicted the Five as being Cuban agents that were terrible with the aim of destroying the US as they were spying on them. The propaganda that was launched against the five made them defenseless as they had already spent a long time in isolation from the rest of the world.
The anti-Cuban propaganda by the media was launched by the government (Smith, 2010). The decision of the court to appeal was the summary of the campaign of the trial, as this led to the panels vacating and ordering a new trial. The role of the media was to create a climate that guaranteed conviction of the Five. The US government was not interested in a fair trial as there were exclusion of jurors that did not echo the anti-Castro sentiments.
A Case of Impunity
The jurors in the case of the Cuban Five based their conviction on the sentiments of anti-Cuba referring to the Five as an odd parade of individuals, and these speeches threatened the defense lawyers and demanded the worst punishment to the convicts (Smith, 2010). This was after the realization that there were violent actions against the Cuban government that were formulated and implemented on the US territory (Mottas, 2011).
There was a clandestine activity of the Five and the terrorists groups operating in Miami, and there was a perception that the jurors could end up harmed by the terrorists if they rendered unfavorable verdict. The abundance of evidence of the terrorist acts the Five were averting led the court to take the right to exonerate the Five on necessity basis, which was their only fundamental defense. Thus, Cuba was to protect its people from the terrorist attempts who enjoyed total impunity in the US (De quesada, 2011).
The US failed to recognize the five who on behalf of Cuba were trying to prevent terror acts of criminals in the US, and while protecting their terrorists, the preparation of the 9/11 attack was being carried out in the same state; the terms imposed to the five were disproportionate as compared to other applied in recent years. The nature of the Five indicated the motivation of vengeful politics in the trial.
This clearly demonstrates that the US was protecting the anti- Cuban terrorists so that they can cover their plans from being discovered in the future. This was to make sure that even if the were released they would not do anything to deter the actions of the terrorists in the US. The sentencing of the Five was to incapacitate them interfering with the activities of the anti-Cuba criminals.
Spies without Espionage
The Five was charged as being unregistered agents from Cuba alongside other violations. They were never accused of any actual espionage as nothing like that took place. The prosecutor had warned the jury from expecting any secrets in their presentation as it only needed to convince the jury that the Five were dangerous and capable of committing security bleach to the US currently or in the future (De quesada, 2011). This made sure that the Five were severely punished as failure to do so was seen as a betraayal to the US. The media portrayed them as spies, even after the appeal court ruled that there was no evidence that connected the group to secret information transfer to the Cuban government.
Thus, there was nothing that was involved concerning the secrets and military information that affected the national security of the US. The Cuban Five were sentenced not because they worked in the Pentagon or the White House; they had never sought the accessing of the secret information, but it was unforgivable to fight against the anti-Cuban terrorism in Miami.
New charges were presented by the US more than seven month after the arrest of the Cuban Five with conspiracy to commit the first degree murder due to the campaign that prompted the journalists to the US payroll. This was an anti-Cuban terrorist’s political concession that was seeking the revenge of two planes that were downed by Cuba’s Air Force. Information that was provided by the government showed that the real nature of the Five had been identified as being on a revolutionary mission in Miami, and they monitored their communications with Havana, but this case was never mentioned at any time after the arrest of the Five (Publication, 2010).
The terrorists had announced they continued illegal flights to Cuban airspace while proclaiming that the island was not capable of responding to the acts. Proper notifications were made by the Cuban Government that concerned the provocation by those who were concerned with such flights. The alleged conspiracy that Cuba has been provoking war with the US was illogical as the military confrontation would result in blowing of the Cuban Government with its people.
As motivation is the primary factor in decisive cue, Cuba could not be motivated by anything to provoke any event at that moment due to safety concerns. It only denounced the violations of the FAA send statements to the state department, even reaching the administration level to prevent any incidents from occurring. The conspiracy was meant to provoke the downing of the two planes which was the entire work of the terrorist groups in Miami campaigning against Cuba. These events always came to the open with a sense of impunity (De quesada, 2011).
The efforts of the Cuban Five appeal had been exhausted and thus they petitioned the Supreme Court to review their case. They claimed that the legal process had some of their constitutional rights violated, and the rulings were also holding other circuits that were seen as being the main purpose of justice. This is because some crucial aspects were never considered, which included the venue, racial discrimination of the jury selections, and the rights of the defendant and the defense lawyers.
The case was seen to be directly connected to the activities of the terrorists in Miami, and this was supposed to be the highest time concerning the issue of terrorism. This case appeared to attract the military and the distinctive advisors to the witness stand, and had the uniqueness in several distinctions (Cox, 2009). The appeal court was also in this case unique as it ordered the case to be retried after it examined the case in several years. The government decision was to demand the reversal of the case decision that was uncommon for such petition.