A resounding smack down of a Castro-apologist ‘journalist’

Capitol Hill Cubans delivers a resounding smack down to “journalist” and professor Stephen Kimber, who foolishly attempted to debate with Mauricio Claver-Carone the innocence of five Castro spies convicted and imprisoned for espionage and murder. For our Cuban American readers, this is what we call a classic galleta sin manos!

Here it is, in its full glory:

Where Are the Facts, Prof. Kimber? On #Cuban5Spies

Last month, we wrote a critique of Canadian professor Stephen Kimber’s defense in The Washington Post of the imprisoned “Cuban Five (Four)” spies.

Last week, Prof. Kimber countered with a post entitled, “Capitol Hill Cubans: Let us compare the facts.”

Great, let’s do so.

Kimber’s retort is divided into five parts.

The first part is a pithy attack on our political and issue advocacy; or as he states, that we have “skin in the game.”

So let’s make sure to leave him without any doubt: Yes, we do.

We wholeheartedly and intensely advocate for an end to Cuba’s totalitarian dictatorship; for respect for the Cuban people’s human, civil and political rights; and for an unconditional transition to representative democracy.

To be fair, Kimber does actually get some of the organizational facts regarding our advocacy correct (although he conveniently omits any bipartisan elements) — but this doesn’t take much research or effort, for all of our activities are open, transparent and fully-disclosed.

In other words, we do not hide our overt political and issue advocacy under the guise of journalism or academia.

But (thankfully) he’s free to do so (outside of Cuba).

In the second part, Kimber tries to counter our point that, “if the Cuban Five constantly appear on national television and billboards across the country, it’s not because they are venerated by the Cuban people — it’s because the dictatorship compels it.”

He does so by discussing an experience he had in Havana, where he walked around with a “Free the Five” t-shirt and discusses the “positive” reaction he got on the streets.

This is not a fact — it’s an anecdote.

Moreover, it’s much different (and less significant) what a Cuban tells a Canadian tourist walking around Havana with a “Free the Five” t-shirt, than what that same Cuban then says behind his back.

It probably sounds something like “Que clase de come……

In the third part, Kimber insists the “Cuban Five” were justified in penetrating U.S. military bases, including the U.S. Southern and Central Command and Ft. Bragg, for the Castro regime should have been legitimately concerned about a U.S. invasion.

He challenges us to present him with evidence to the contrary.  Yet, his only “evidence” is a broad quote from a non-cited 1995 Miami Herald story that refers to the U.S. Southern Command’s contingency plans for an eventual “toppling of the communist government in Cuba.”

Surely the U.S. Southern Command has — or should have — a host of migratory and security plans, in order to be prepared for the eventual end of the Castro regime. But to Kimber, this means “Invasion USA” — and serves as a green-light for Cuban espionage.

This is not a fact either — it’s speculation.

Anyone that has worked in a pertinent position for the U.S. government can attest — as a matter of fact — that the U.S. has had no plans of military intervention in Cuba since the 1962 Missile Crisis’ Kennedy-Khrushchev Pact.

Moreover, as we stated in our original critique, the Castro brothers have been fully aware of this (and much more), courtesy of its well-placed spies in the most senior levels of the Pentagon and the State Department — namely Ana Belen Montes and Kendall and Gwendolyn Myers, who are all currently serving long prison terms.

Thus, we ask again, Prof. Kimber — where Montes and the Myers’ convictions unmerited also?

In the fourth part, Kimber finally concedes that no Cuban-American served on the juries that convicted the “Five” — an important fact he omits in The Washington Post.

Yet, he still insists that “the poisonous anti-Cuban government atmosphere in Miami” influenced the juries.

Apparently, he believes non-Cubans in Miami sit around listening to Radio Mambi.

This is not fact either — it’s a silly assertion.

We remind Prof. Kimber that — on appeal — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit (in Atlanta) ruled en banc (10 to 2) that “the arguments about the suppression of evidence, sovereign immunity, discovery, jury selection, and the trial are meritless, and sufficient evidence supports each conviction.”

Maybe the 11th Circuit judges in Atlanta were also sitting around listening to Miami’s Radio Mambi.

In the fifth part, Kimber insists that despite Operacion Escorpion (“Operation Scorpion”), the code-name used by the spy network for the operation to shoot-down the civilian “Brothers to the Rescue” planes, spy-leader Gerardo Hernandez was probably unaware of the plot because he was “a street-level illegal intelligence officer.”

Needless to say, Kimber is not an expert on Cuban intelligence and counter-intelligence.

For this too is not a fact — it’s an uneducated guess.

As Edgerton Ivor Levy, one of the other members of the Cuban spy-network who cooperated with U.S. authorities, recently warned: “the real objective of Cuban espionage in the United States is to penetrate and influence the various spheres of government, the military, academia, the media and social organizations.

In sum, if Prof. Kimber would like to “compare facts,” we’re happy to do so — but he should actually provide some first.