Herald finally acknowledges accusations of espionage…
made against one of its editorial contributors.
Graphic from Newsbusters
Read about it at Herald Watch.
|
|||
     |
28 comments to Herald finally acknowledges accusations of espionage…You must be logged in to post a comment. |
   |
|
|
Copyright © 2003-2010 • All Rights Reserved • Hatuey Modifications to Atahualpa Theme by HLG |
|||
After Lt. Col. Christopher Simmons, U.S. Army counterintelligence officer, recently denounced Marifeli Perez-Stable as controlled by Cuba's Directorate General of Intelligence (DGI) during the 1980s and up to 1991, I upgraded her website on
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/espionage/marifeli.htm
to be included on the website on Cuban Espionage in the U.S.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cuban-espionage.htm
Perez-Stable's photo is now next to that of her comrade in espionage Ana Belen Montes.
In December 2006, Perez-Stable had ACLU attorney John de Leon send letters threatening a libel and defamation suit against Indiana University because my website at the time was on the university's network. According to the IU attorney, the letters were sent to the president, chancellor, and dean of the university. The IU attorney upheld my academic freedom, the university took no action against me, and did not make the requested apology. The FedEx letter addressed to me from de Leon was returned to sender without opening it.
In March 2007, about the time Henry Gomez received a threatening letter from John de Leon, entitled "Personal and Confidential (Not for Publication) and for Settlement Purposes Only," a certified letter from de Leon to me via the U.S. Postal Service was also returned to sender without opening it. I'm sure that it also contained the intimidating "for Settlement Purposes Only" caveat.
I spent the summer of 2007 in Miami promoting my latest book and making announced appearances at bookstore presentations and on radio and TV programs. Mr. de Leon failed to give me a summons or subpoena me for a deposition.
Lt. Col. Chris Simmons recently stated on Radio Mambi to Ninoska Perez Castellon that he challenges Marifeli Perez-Stable to sue him in court for defamation. He will then present the two DGI defectors who were her handlers, including the case notes of one of them detailing Perez-Stable's covert activities, and the case will abruptly end.
I likewise challenge Marifeli Perez-Stable to carry out her hollow threats of a defamation lawsuit against me. She will end up like former General Rafael del Pino, who had to withdraw his defamation lawsuit against Cuban exiles before the case went to trial. The guilty silence of Marifeli Perez-Stable speaks volumes.
Someday, when democracy returns to Cuba, the DGI archives will be opened to researchers, and Perez-Stable's espionage role will be revealed in detail. The Miami Herald report by Alfonso Chardy will then be exposed as a whitewash.
this is honestly quite pathetic. I am not going to say that Ms. Perez-Stable was not once a Castro lover - because she was. Her book on the Cuban Revolution could easily be released in Cuba without being cut up at all. Since that time she has become much more critical of the Castro regime. Just because she opposes the embargo doesn't mean that she doesn't want democracy in Cuba. I understand looking out for possible infiltrators. Focus on Cuba and cut out the with hunting just because you disagree with someone. This is why they rip us in the rest of the country for being reactionaries - we look like fricking morons.
Cardinal,
Really?
I mean the words of two Cuban intelligence defectors mean nothing to you?
Remember that Perez-Mendez made his statement in 1983 when Marifeli was a nobody, at least in comparison to what she is today (a college professor, a member of several institutions with influence including the Miami Herald).
What would convince you?
Are you not aware of Carlos and Elsa Alvarez?
I mean why does Marifeli get the benefit of the doubt when one of the officers involved in the arrest of Ana Belen Montes says Marifeli was a Cuban agent?
It's simple. The Cardinal has imbibed of the poisonous Kool-Aid about Cuban-Americans that the media has been making for over four decades. We have been become so poisoned by it, have been made so dense by it, that the truth -- bitch-slapping us in the fucking face -- isn't taken seriously lest we be seen as "kooks" or "reactionaries" or "hard-liners." We don't want to be called that, do we? No. I mean what'll we talk about with our enlightened liberal friends at parties?
Bingo, George. Saved me the trouble of saying it, though it's obvious enough.
Henry-------The interview with Lt. Col. Christoper Simmons.... SUPERB!
I have some of my non-Cuban friends listen to it and it really made an impression.
It was very interesting to hear about the real reasons the castro police state wants these spies back.
Great work!
I, too, thought it was a fascinating interview. And what he says is very believable, especially about how people could be used as agents of influence without being aware of it. The explanation of why Cuba wants the five spies back also makes sense. And I thought the bit about how the Cuban government is more afraid of its own people than the U.S. was insightful - I mean, the resources used to spy on the Cubans themselves. I wish he could give more details, but I guess there is a lot of classified info we don't know.
Note that The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald minimized LTC Chris Simmons' service and experience.
LTC Christopher S. Simmons is an Army Reservist on extended active duty with 13 years' active duty and 12 years as a "traditional" reservist. He was also not simply a DIA "analyst" as most of his DIA career was spent as a counterintelligence supervisor.
Why would the Herald intentionally minimize LTC Chris Simmons' service and experience?
what is absurd is that we worry so much about what motivates those that have chosen a different path that we lose focus on what is truly important - what is going on in Cuba. As hurtful as it may seem it does matter how we are perceived by others it doesn't mean that we should not speak hurtful truths but rather that we act responsibly. For all of Simmons talk, it is just that - talk. We have to take his word for it -show us something, anything to back up the claims.
We need to have good PR not because leftists will love us but we need to woo middle America. Let's face it and be honest - if you are going to do a strict national interest equation it doesn't make any sense for the US to keep travel restrictions and the embargo. It is a policy based on morality. In addition - if we are willing to let bygones be bygones with a country that killed over 58,000 of our own in combat what is to stop us from opening up to an island nation that only took a handful of American lives. If public interest be damned then we will be damned.
We must act prudently and responsibly - it's nuts to make half-cocked accusations based on the eloquent assertions of a guy who is sooooo knowledgeable about Cuban affairs that he can't even handle an interview in Spanish. Dont get all worked up with no proof.
one thing i neglected to mention is the accusation that the Cuban Study Group was infiltrated. there isn't a group in miami with more than 2 members that isn't being informed on. It's depressing but true.
When a Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Army says he saw a debriefing of a Cuban intelligence officer who was Marifeli's case officer and it corroborates another Cuban officer's testimony given years before it's more than just idle speculation.
Are you saying that Marifeli is innocent? What evidence to you have of her innocence? We aren't talking about court. O.J. won in court though we all know he killed two people.
And about the Cuba study group (the old one) he wasn't saying it was infiltrated, he was saying it was infiltrated at a high level. That it was in fact a tool for the regime.
this where it gets derailed - where she has to prove her innocence. you can't prove innocence in a situation like this - and someone shouldn't have to. the burden of proof should be on the side of the accusers and the stone throwers have a less than convincing case. it is a shame that you deride the entire criminal justice system of the US based on OJ. Any system on this earth is imperfect because we are all human.
This is why we Cubans are all messed up, we would rather tear each other apart for some stupid bs. believe it or not some people really want to ditch the embargo because they actually believe that it will open Cuba up and even get rid of the Castros - you can argue that they are wrong, you may even argue that they are being duped but there is no need to brand them as sympathizers just because they disagree with you.
Ok, put yourself in the shoes of U.S. government. We're a post 9/11 world. You know there's Cuban espionage going on. You have testimony of Cuban defectors (high ranking intelligence officers) dating back more than 20 years. In addition to their testimony there's circumstantial evidence (like photos of the subject fraternizing with known Cuban intelligence officials). Now it may not be enough for court. Or perhaps the evidence that would prove it beyond a reasonable doubt can not be revealed in court because it would compromise American agents or assets. What do you do? What can you do?
One thing you can do is "burn" her. That is to publicly out her as what she is, an agent of the regime. Her value to the regime ends as she is discredited.
That's what's happening here.
I have never accused embargo opponents of being agent simply because they are against the embargo. But I have always cautioned that removal of the embargo without concessions is an objective of the regime and that there Castro agents among us spouting the same reasonable sounding rhetoric.
These type of agents do exist. You know they do. You've seen the Carlos and Elsa Alvarez case. I don't understand why the defense of Marifeli. Do you have any reason to disbelieve the Perez-Mendez debrief from 1983?
In it he makes it plain as day that Marifeli was being controlled by the Cuban DGI. Why would this man make such an accusation when Marifeli was a nobody back then? Consider the idea that it just may be true.
I think Simmons stated on the show that he does not name anyone without proof that would hold up in court. Also that his certainty of their guilt is not based just on the testimony of one person. I seriosuly doubt that her position on the embargo is the issue. Like Henry said, plenty of people honestly believe that lifting the embargo would bring change to Cuba, that doesn't make them a foreign agent.
Where and how exactly did we jump from pointing out the accusation made by a high-level intelligence officer that Perez-Stable is an agent, to "brand them as sympathizers just because they disagree with you", as The Cardinal mistakenly noted?
fact of the matter is that i don't trust Simmons or anyone else for that matter unless I have something more than circumstantial evidence. I agree that the regime wants the embargo to be dropped without conditions and there are some who would go along with that and that some of those are either agents, interested parties or sympathizers but not everyone.
I have no doubt that Marefeli met with others that were implicated as agents - back when she was a "nobody" she helped found a group to bolster support for Castro's regime. We could argue for days as to whether it was unwittingly or not - there just isnt proof either way. Until there is then I'd rather not knock her down because we've been burned before and looked foolish because of it. The important thing is where she is now rather than where she was then. I've been to events where people like Carlos Franqui and Huber Matos have been feted and they actually have blood on their hands unlike Marifeli, Coll, et al.
THE CASE AGAINST MARIFELI PEREZ-STABLE
by Diego Trinidad, Ph.D.
Because of the renewed controversy in the last week about Marifeli Perez-Stable and her lurid past, especially since old accusations of service to the Cuban DGI and, by her own admission, sympathies, support and work of all kind for the Cuban Revolution and its totalitarian and tyrannical rulers; and, since last Monday, because of my call (in a private message, I must point out) to newly elected president of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy (ASCE), my friend Jorge Sanguinetty, to oust Ms. Perez-Stable from her also newly elected position as one of ASCE’s seven directors, I believe it pertinent to outline the case against her.
To begin with, this is a very brief account of all the charges against Ms. Perez-Stable. And I must emphasize that what follows is NOT a legal case against her. Moreover, I am merely summarizing the extensive, painstaking work of Dr. Antonio de la Cova, who, since 1993, has dedicated countless hours to document her activities. Most of her involvement with the Cuban government since the early 1970’s, be it as a sympathizer, supporter or tireless worker on behalf of the Cuban Revolution, truly are immaterial now. First, she has stated publicly, many times in the last 25 years, that she no longer supports the Cuban cause. She believes that in the few books and extensive writing in academic journals and newspaper columns, such as El Nuevo Herald, for which she still writes, she has done enough “anti-Castro” work to absolve her of all offences committed in the past, and that this entitles her to be an opponent of the Cuban government now. Without reviewing any of her writings, this is also immaterial, because it is both self-serving and, to say the least, very much open to interpretation. Indeed, if her extensive writings were to be submitted to an impartial panel of critics (no academics, of course), I venture to say that the overwhelming verdict would be that far from being an opponent of Castro’s Cuba, she continues to be a supporter. But her past up to 1983, as we said, does not count in this case that is being made against her.
The charges that count begin in the Summer of 1983, when a defector from the Cuban DGI, Captain Jesús Perez Mendez, was first debriefed by FBI agents. During that debriefing, Captain Perez Mendez claimed that Ms. Perez-Stable was “controlled by the DGI” and among other things, that Ms. Perez-Stable was paid $100 for every tourist that traveled to Cuba with the Círculo de Cultura Cubana, with which Ms. Perez-Stable was heavily involved. This was an organization also controlled and financed by the Cuban DGI with the purpose of taking tourists, mainly U.S. university students, to Cuba, to be indoctrinated by DGI agents. Ms. Perez-Stable has denied these accusations and the U.S. government has never charged her with any crime.
Then, for the sake of briefness, we jump to the present, as last week, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Lieutenant Colonel Chris Simmons made what appear to be new accusations against Ms. Perez-Stable, during a local TV program. Simmons accused Perez-Stable of, bluntly, being a spy. A few nights later, he gave a slew of details, including new charges that during a visit to Ottawa, Canada, in 1991, Ms. Perez-Stable had met with her more recent DGI controller (whom he did not name, but whose identity he claims to know well) and at that time, she was still working for the DGI. Ms. Perez-Stable, of course, has said repeatedly, that she stopped her pro-Castro activities in the mid-1980’s. But this was 1991. So, who is lying? A woman with a sordid past involvement with the Cuban Revolution, who just 12 years before was photographed next to the notorious Castro executioner, spy-master and indicted drug trafficker René Rodriguez Cruz
Miami Herald, “a smear artist”? (see Section B, pages 1 and 2). We report, you decide.
(see http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/espionage/marifeli.htm),
who, contrary to her claims otherwise, still, returned to Havana in 1984 for an event sponsored by the DGI? Or a prestigious U.S. counterintelligence officer such as Lieutenant Colonel Simmons, who went on to track and capture perhaps the greatest spy of them all, Ana Belén Montes, in 2002? Or is Simmons, as “Cuba analyst” Phil Peters claims in today’s (August
Now, the question that is foremost in this situation is the following: Why has no U.S. government agency EVER charged Ms. Perez-Stable with ANY crime, much less espionage or treason? The answer is, really, elementary. Because ALL the statutes of limitation on espionage and treason—which usually last five years—have long expired in any case to be made against her. This takes us back to a short history lesson, as far back as the 1940’s and the most famous espionage case of them all in U.S. history, that of Alger Hiss. In a flash, Hiss was accused of being a communist (notice, NOT a spy) by Whittaker Chambers in executive session of a House of Representatives investigating sub-committee. The charge was made public. Hiss demanded to be heard and denied it UNDER oath before the same sub-committee. He further challenged Chambers to repeat the charges (which Chambers was reluctant to do) outside the House. Chambers did. Hiss sued him for defamation. Depositions were taken of both, still under oath. After many ups and downs, when it appeared that Chambers would be proven a liar, ruined, and worse, as if by magic, Chambers took carloads of Congressmen and reporters to a pumpkin patch in his Maryland farm, and VOILA, he produced old papers, official reports and records, and a typewriter, all of which had been given him by Hiss years before when they were both Communist Party members working out of the same undercover cell (the typewriter had been used by Hiss to copy secret papers which he then delivered to Chambers). Because Hiss had even denied knowing Chambers, among other things, he was indicted and eventually convicted. BUT NOT OF SPYING. He was convicted of perjury for denying under oath all of Chambers’s accusations. Hiss, incidentally, was defended by both Secretary of State Dean Acheson and President Harry Truman after Hiss was convicted of perjury. They never repudiated him afterwards. Shades of Ms. Perez-Stable’s present defenders?
This is exactly the case against Ms. Perez-Stable and this is exactly why SHE WILL NOT, WILL NEVER, BRING ANY LAWSUIT AGAINST ANYONE FOR DEFAMATION. As long as she merely denies all charges and her defenders continue to believe her and to protect her, she is perfectly safe. If she dares to initiate legal proceedings and is put under oath, she is done. Even with the evidence that we know, that is, what has been revealed by Tony de la Cova and others, plus what Simmons has claimed on TV in the last few days, that is more than enough to sink her. Why? Because she will deny all those charges under oath, just as Hiss did before she was born, the charges WILL be proven, and she will be convicted of perjury. Just like Hiss was. Needless to say, it is most probable that the U.S. government has far more evidence against her, some of which would also come out in a trial. But none of that is needed. Just by denying one measly little charge, as she has done so many times, she will be convicted of perjury. And because all the charges she will deny are about espionage and treason, by direct implication, she will obviously be proven guilty of that, too, even if she can never be charged as a spy or a traitor, because of the statutes of limitation.
Now then, the second question begs the stage. Should someone like Marifeli Perez-Stable be: first, an FIU professor; second, an El Nuevo Herald columnist; and third, a director of ASCE? I have made the case against her. Now all of you out there must answer those questions and decide what to do about her. I do not need any time to decide. The verdict? Guilty as charged. The sentence? To be ostracized forever, at least in the South Florida community where she lives and continues to do harm. Case closed.
there just isnt proof either way
I guess you haven't been paying attention then.
The comments by Mr. Gomez is interesting:
"Are you saying that Marifeli is innocent? What evidence to you have of her innocence?"
I have to wonder, did you stop and think about that precept of innocent until proven guilty? It's one of the things they don't bother with in Cuba, as you well know.
And as incontrovertible evidence, you offer.."I mean the words of two Cuban intelligence defectors mean nothing to you?"
I have to wonder...did you stop and think about whether, maybe, that most, if not all, of this sort of testimony and in fact, the sort of innuendo-laden statements that Sommers and Delacova, are not acceptable as evidence in a court of law?
Or better yet, that without a court of law and/or due process, absolutist conclusion about the guilt of anyone charged with being a foreign agent or spy, constitute either a witch hunt (which is what seems to be going on here.
What you are doing is akin to putting faith in the same sort of "evidence" that is presented by head in the sand apologists from the left, as in, for example, those who continue to insist the Rosenbergs are innocent.
And worse, you and others have actually suggested that support for lifting the embargo is akin to being a sympathizer or supporter of the dictatorship! You are, aware, that based on recent polls, this litmus test that you've applied to Perez-Stable means that some 40% of cuban-americans/exiles who support lifting the embargo are "Castro agents"?
Perez-Stable's past support of the revolution is out in the open, as is her more recent and very active criticism of it.
I can't even guess at the percentage of Cubans now in exile who at one point in their life didn't support Castro or the revolution who have not been subjected to the sort of accusations that is being focused on Perez-Stable (including, btw, some rather prominent members of the rabidly anti-Castro, pro-embargo portion of the exile community).
Keeping a more open mind regarding past, youthful transgressions, and welcoming those who reformed and/or have seen the light, even if it's not the absolute reform or light we might believe in, into the fold is not a bad thing.
If you don't believe me, ask your Professor Delacova, who's so eager to condemn every past transgression in others, whether this attitude was a good thing in his particular case or not.
Tribilin,
You are a fucking idiot.
This isn't a court of law.
I don't have an obligation to see Marifeli as innocent. I am not a juror.
I'm a commentator.
There's a difference between having supported Fidel Castro at some point and being an agent for a foreign government. Period.
Mr. Gomez writes:
>Tribilin,
>You are a fucking idiot.
Sir..I tried to politely point out that some of your specific comments were, shall we say, somewhat exaggerated (a better word might be hysterical, but I am, in spite of your, apparently having no better riposte to profer than an insult, still trying to have a civil conversation).
>This isn't a court of law.
Obviously! As they say in the old country "mijo..descubriste el agua tibia".
But I daresay that if it were a court of law, it would certainly be a kangaroo court. In fact, if one reads between the lines of some of the posts regarding Ms. Perez-Stable, one might even hear the faint echoes of "Paredon! Paredon!" and see faint images of chaps dressed in green uniforms.
>I don't have an obligation to see Marifeli as >innocent. I am not a juror.
Well..of course..this (I think) is simply an open forum where ideas could be exchanged without obligation on any one's part (it's all part of that free speech/open flow of ideas thing they don't have in Cuba). Points and counterpoints are proferred and vive la difference, for otherwise, it would be like well...let's see what's that country that we correctly criticize for not being open to dissent?).
I made mine, you made yours (though I think yours boils down to "You are a fucking idiot", which does seem to speak volumes of your ability to engage intelligently and or in a civil manner).
>I'm a commentator.
And like that other famous "commentator" Mr. Castro, apparently one who doesn't like his comments challenged, more monologuist apparently than commentator.
>There's a difference between having supported >Fidel Castro at some point and being an agent >for a foreign government. Period.
Why sir...of course there is a difference. And, as I'm sure an expert like you knows that there are also statutes in place that clearly establish what constitutes being an agent of a foreign government, penalties for being an unregistered one. Similarly, there are laws on the books that govern acts of espionage. And..it gets better! Did you know there are also law enforcement organizations which keep an eye on these activities and arrest and prosecute those who step outside the law?.
Say... maybe, you and the good Colonel and, of course, Dr. Delacova can gather all that "evidence" of y'alls and traipse down to the local FBI office and give it to them and see if they'll place Ms. Perez-Stable under arrest.
After all, it's everyone's civic duty to keep witches...ooops...sorry, I meant spies, off the street and the nation safe!
Heck..I bet even Joe Garcia would turn her in if he had what y'all had.
Best of luck!
Tribilin
PS BTW...Delacova has first hand knowledge of the sort of evidence that leads not only to a conviction, but to a guilty plea. With his knowledge, his notes, the Colonel's notes, and of course, your "commentary", Marifeli's ass will be grass in no time.
Asshole,
You don't get any respect from me because you totally fucking misrepresented what I said.
And worse, you and others have actually suggested that support for lifting the embargo is akin to being a sympathizer or supporter of the dictatorship! You are, aware, that based on recent polls, this litmus test that you've applied to Perez-Stable means that some 40% of cuban-americans/exiles who support lifting the embargo are "Castro agents"?
Show me where I said that fuckface.
Here's what I said:
I have never accused embargo opponents of being agent simply because they are against the embargo. But I have always cautioned that removal of the embargo without concessions is an objective of the regime and that there Castro agents among us spouting the same reasonable sounding rhetoric.
Castro agents of influence are never going to advocate FOR THE EMBARGO.
Alfonso Chardy
The Miami Herald
Dear Mr. Chardy:
I have previously indicated to you factual errors and important omissions in your articles, which I described as “selective reporting and slipshod journalism.” Your latest article “Spy catcher claims four are agents for Cuba,” is another classic example of this negligence.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/633389.html
You have narrowed down more than a decade of overt pro-Castro activism by Dr. Marifeli Perez-Stable to only one sentence describing her as a founder of “the pro-Castro Antonio Maceo Brigade.” According to public documents on a website link that I sent to you
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/espionage/marifeli.htm
Perez-Stable was also a founder of the pro-Castro Areito magazine in 1974; four years later she founded the Cuban-American Committee for Normalization of Relations with Cuba and participated with the Committee of 75 in the so-called “dialogue” with Fidel Castro; and in 1980, Pérez-Stable created the Círculo de Cultura Cubana, a Castro propaganda front that took tourists to Cuba and Sandinista Nicaragua during the 1980s. She also organized conferences that included the participation of Cuban government officials in New York City in 1979 and in Halifax, Canada, in 1989.
You also omitted from your article reference to the congressional document “The Role of Cuba in International Terrorism and Subversion,” which indicates that on March 4, 1982, Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) officers Sergio Piñón and Daniel Benitez testified before a U.S. Senate subcommittee on security and terrorism and declared under oath that the Committee of 75, Areito magazine, and the Antonio Maceo Brigade were "sponsored and headed by the Cuban DGI" intelligence agency. Dr. Perez-Stable had a leadership role in all of these groups.
In my e-mail to you on August 1, 2008, I wrote that DGI defector “Jesús Pérez Méndez presently resides in Puerto Rico and can be reached to verify the statements in his FBI debriefing” of July 15, 1983. You apparently did not contact him, even though Pérez Méndez stated in the debriefing that DGI officials Isidro Gómez and Jesús Arboleya Cervera, both high ranking DGI officials, “placed Marifeli in charge of the Círculo de Cultura Cubana.” According to the defector, Pérez-Stable substituted Rutgers University Professor Lourdes Casal, “who was a DGI agent.” Pérez Méndez went on to say that "the annual plans of Marifeli are prepared by the DGI and ICAP” and that “she receives $100 for every tourist that travels to Cuba with the Círculo de Cultura Cubana." It is not known if Pérez-Stable has reported this income on her annual tax returns. Pérez Méndez indicated that Pérez-Stable “infiltrated” the Cuban Studies Institute directed by María Cristina Herrera, and “turned its position more favorable to Cuba.”
Lt. Col. Christopher Simmons, a U.S. Army Counterintelligence officer who for years worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency dealing with Cuban spies, has recently publicly stated that the last DGI case officer who handled Dr. Pérez-Stable “recalled meeting with her in Ottawa, Canada, in mid 1991, and she was still an active agent of Cuban intelligence.” After the case officer defected, he gave U.S. intelligence copies of his notebook detailing Pérez-Stable’s covert activities. Simmons had access to these notes. You also selectively omitted these facts from your article.
On August 1, 2008, you e-mailed me and later telephoned me to ask about the Pérez Méndez debriefing and an article that I “wrote that contained pictures of Perez-Stable.” I replied by e-mail that I was “dismayed that you were assigned to this story” because of your previous track record of "selective reporting and slipshod journalism." I responded to you with my views of the Pérez-Stable situation and concluded by saying: “I hope that the Miami Herald, which has had a credibility problem with the Cuban American community during the last half century, will do a thorough investigative report on Pérez-Stable and uphold journalistic integrity and ethics while investigating one of their own.” You replied by e-mail nine minutes later: “many thanks for your response. I am doing a story based on Simmons' interviews and I will be in touch again.” You never again contacted me and even though you mention my name in your article, you decided to omit citing my viewpoint.
In your article, you quote Dr. Pérez-Stable accusing Lt. Col. Simmons and I of using “McCarthyite tactics.” McCarthyism met its demise in the U.S. Supreme Court cases Slochower v. Board of Education (1956) and Yates v. United States (1957). I believe that a judicial court is the proper place to settle such controversies. You are also aware, but failed to report, that within the last two years, Ms. Perez-Stable has had ACLU attorney John de Leon twice threaten to sue me for slander and defamation. You apparently did not question Dr. Pérez-Stable as to why she has failed to carry out her threat. I continue to urge her to take legal action to settle this matter once and for all. Otherwise, these allegations will haunt Dr. Pérez-Stable for the rest of her life in the Cuban community, where she is being convicted in the court of public opinion due to her evasiveness about her relationship with the DGI. Cuban American academics are already circulating on the Internet opinions about her culpability, such as “The Case Against Marifeli Perez-Stable,” by Dr. Diego Trinidad, which can be read at
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/espionage/trinidad.htm
Joe Oglesby, editor of the Herald's editorial page, defends Dr. Perez-Stable, who writes for his section, by accusing Lt. Col. Simmons and I of using “character assassination” and a “witch hunt” against her. Similar apologist phrases have been used since the days of Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs to defend those involved in Communist espionage. I also welcome Mr. Oglesby to use the courts to sustain his allegations. If he cannot get the Herald attorneys to take the case, Oglesby could appeal to the ACLU, like Dr. Pérez-Stable has done.
If Perez-Stable, Oglesby, and The Miami Herald shirk from settling this challenge in court, their silence will speak volumes. Someday, when democracy returns to Cuba, the DGI archives will be opened to researchers, as has similarly occurred in the former European Soviet bloc nations, and Perez-Stable’s espionage role will be revealed in detail. Your latest article will then be reduced to a whitewash.
Sincerely,
Dr. Antonio de la Cova
Henry...
Again...be civil. Gratuitous insults only add to the image of you having no riposte to speak of.
You write:
"Castro agents of influence are never going to advocate FOR THE EMBARGO."
And you're in advertising, right?
So..we don't have to go over the power of innuendo and suggestion? Right?
Or do we?
Let's see...
The party you are witch hunting as a Castro agen, is against the embargo.
You say...Castro agents will never advocate for the embargo.
Hmm...you think there's an effect of this on the audience...that some will go where I suggested you want to take them..that a person, like that "witch", who is against the embargo is at the very least "suspicious" of being a Castro agent.
Did your grandmother ever tell you about how Granma (the paper) specialized in "tirando una piedra con la mano escondida" against people that were being purged?
Did you ever read anything about McCarthy in college or high school?
Have you taken the time to read some of Delacova's attempts at slander by innuendo, like for example, his attempt to suggest that, of all people, *Carlos Alberto Montaner*, is one of "them"?
Same tactics, same approach, same result.
So...puhleeze...spare me the holier than thou routine. Too late.
If you don't, I'm gonna write Joe Garcia and tell him you think it's fine and dandy to associate with all those supporters of his you and others called/alluded to being Castro sympathizers because, in part, of their position vis-a-vis the embargo.
Ciao,
Tribilin
Speaking of this concept of Delacova's of conviction in the court of public opinion.
In 1976, a 20-something Marifeli Perez-Stable was likely with the Antonio Maceo Brigade cutting cane as a "volunteer" and believing/supporting the so-called Cuban Revolution (like countless persons who did so in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, who are now against the system, in and outside of Cuba).
In 1976, a 26 year old Islamic fanatic was throwing Molotov cocktails at another person whose political perspective didn't agree with his and followed this up by placing a bomb in front of a bookstore in the heart of a busy thoroughfare..on the path innocent people took to get the bus on to go to work..luckily, the terrorist was busted before the bomb went off).
Flash forward 30 years...where we have unsupported allegations of Marifeli being in the service of the Revolution sometime in the 70s and 80s. The terrorist, in the meantime, was convicted (actually, plead guilty) and was sentenced to, what was it, 65 years in prison?.
Which of the two should the public, in a civil and democratic society, feel safer being loose on the streets, feels is less of a threat, is less/more guilty of a criminal act, should have their bygones be bygones, etc.?
Curioso na' ma',
Tribilin
Dickface,
I posted my riposte to your stupid ramblings on the main page of the blog. Do you think I give a flying fuck what you tell Joe Garcia? I mean seriously, get over yourself.
By the way let me ask you something. If the Castro regime was going to have agents of influence in the U.S. where would they try to place them? What would they be trying to influence? What opinions would they be offering?
Now I know you don't have much brains so it may be difficult for you to follow this but at no point did I (or Chris Simmons or de la Cova) say that Marifeli is a spy because of her opinions. She's a spy because actual spies have said as much to FBI interrogators at the time they defected. She's a spy because she was a leader in several pro-castro organizations that are controlled by Cuban intelligence.
That she now has a respectable job and appears to now have "reasonable opinions" has no bearing on whether she is a spy or not but if she were a spy wouldn't help to have a such a job and be known as someone that has "reasonable opinions"?
I mean how much influence could agents have if they seem too far out of the mainstream to be relevant?
Again, dipshit this does not mean all people that are against the embargo are agents. But there are certainly agents among those that are against the embargo. And if I were one of those people who is against the embargo and not an agent I'd have to be asking myself why I had the same opinion as people who are carrying out orders from Havana. It might make me rethink my position. I mean most of the anti-embargo rhetoric is based on the idea that it's the embargo that keeps the regime in power. But if that were true, why would the regime be trying so hard to have it removed? The answer is, of course removing the embargo won't hurt the regime. It only helps it.
Oh and fuck you.
Tribilin,
de la Cova's past is public record. Convicted, yes. He served his time. So what? Is that evidence of Marifeli's innocence? Is that all you got? That's it for you.