On Jan. 6, 2006, university professors Carlos Álvarez and Elsa Prieto were arrested by federal authorities in Miami and charged with failing to register as agents of a foreign government—Cuba. The government claims that they admitted to spying for Cuba in the United States for three decades, an accusation they both deny. Along with the professors, the clear target of the U.S. government’s campaign is the progressive Cuban community in Miami—those who dare to speak out against U.S. imperialist anti-Cuba policies.
The author is a long-time progressive Cuban activist in Miami. He is the editor of the on-line journal Areíto Digital and leader of the Antonio Maceo Brigade.
 Photo: AFP Photo/Adalberto Roque |
You can always count on Miami to offer a spectacle like the one we are witnessing today, unimaginable in any other city in the world. Thanks to the U.S. Attorney in this district, the city is once again subjected to infernal fears reminiscent of the Holy Inquisition.
From the start, as in the case of the Cuban Five, Carlos Álvarez and Elsa Prieto have been declared spies without proof or trial. By virtue of the U.S. Attorney’s declarations, as well as those of the press and ultra-reactionary sector, their constitutional rights to due process are being deliberately trampled. They are accused of the crime of favoring the Cuban government.
Government-led witch hunt
Álvarez, a university education professor, and Prieto, a clinical psychology specialist and professor, both teach at Florida International University.
 Elsa Prieto Photo: Florida International University |
It does not matter that in the formal indictment, the word “spy” is not mentioned. Nor that the law requires that to be accused of the crime of espionage, one has to have obtained classified information.
It does not matter that the FBI and the U.S. prosecutors acknowledge that the accused—already declared guilty—had no access to either classified information, secrets or “delicate information.” Nor does it matter that they had not communicated any such information to anyone.
And it does not even matter that what they are accused of—according to the very declaration of the U.S. prosecutors—is simply relaying public information about the activities of terrorist organizations, or groups associated with terrorists operating in this city, and public activities that occurred in Miami.
None of that matters to U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta. He declared to the press, “There is always a danger to the United States when spies transmit any type of information to the Cuban government.”
If the formal indictment does not accuse or substantiate the crime of espionage against Professors Carlos Álvarez and Elsa Prieto, why, then, did prosecutor Acosta accuse both of being “spies?”
Who, then, does the U.S. attorney consider a “spy?” How can he make that decision when the law makes no such determination? The statements of U.S. Attorney Acosta not only return us to the climate of medieval times but also to those unmentionable acts that occurred in Salem, when instead of the word “spy” to condemn someone, it was “witch.”
Besides, exactly what does the U.S. attorney mean by his claim that when a “spy” is transmitting some type of information to Cuba, it is a danger for the United States?
The federal prosecutor is acting as if the constitutional right of freedom of speech—consecrated in the First Amendment—does not exist.
Will the federal prosecutor now also decide to abolish freedom of the press and academic freedom, just because the Cuban government could have access to information that is published in press articles and academic research studies?
Phony confessions
Ever since both professors were arrested on Jan. 6, the public presentation of the case by the U.S. attorney and the press could not have been more sensational. The prosecutors declared that in June and July 2005, both academics admitted “voluntarily” in separate interviews with FBI agents that for years they had sent information to the Cuban government. Specifically, Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Frazier said, “He (Álvarez) confessed that he spied for Cuba, and she (Prieto) said (to the FBI) that she felt more loyalty toward Cuba than toward the United States.”
How can these supposed declarations by two educated persons be credible, especially when they are accused of much more? Everyone, I am sure, is thinking the same thing: “Who would make such statements?”
Is this not reminiscent of the “confessions” of the relapsed heretics in the trials of the Inquisition? What is more perplexing is that the attorneys of both the accused say their clients affirm they never confessed to the crimes of which they are accused.
If both presented such a danger to “national security,” why did the competent authorities not arrest them at that time? Why did they wait five months to do so instead?
The question is not only why in January instead of June but also what are the reasons for these specific charges against them, which according to the available information seem so far-fetched? Various versions of the reasons why are circulating in our city.
The first is that the U.S. attorney wants to right himself with the extreme right-wing in Miami because of the charges filed against the right-wing terrorists Santiago Álvarez and Osvaldo Mitat. Those crimes that are truly major and do put the community and the country in danger.
Another reason could be the personal ambitions of a federal prosecutor who is, until now, only temporarily assigned to his office. The arrest of Álvarez and Prieto also leads to the question of who will control Florida International University and its million-dollar institutes and research programs.
No fair trial in Miami
The ultra-right has reacted, as always, in an inquisitional manner. Their objective is to destroy anyone who opposes them. Taking advantage of this situation, they have acted hysterically against the academic exchange trips to Cuba, and against the moderate sector of the immigrant Cuban community.
That moderate sector, of which Álvarez and Prieto have been a part for more than two decades, advocates an end to the policy of aggression against Cuba, and is for a resolution to the existing conflicts between the governments of Cuba and the United States through means of dialogue.
Either by design or as a result of the accusations, there exists a real danger that the moderate sector—intimidated and bullied by the nature of the U.S. attorney’s statements, and for fear of being considered guilty by association—could withdraw from its responsibilities and stop participating.
In achieving this objective, those who favor the continued aggression against the Cuban people would gain a great deal.
Finally, it is more than a coincidence that the U.S. attorney decided to arrest the two professors and precipitate this situation so publicly, precisely at the crucial moment of the appeals process of the Cuban Five in which the same U.S. attorney’s office is the prosecution.
The U.S. prosecutors have committed many errors and abuses of power in the case of the Cuban Five, and this could be one more.
The U.S. attorney’s public position in the case of Álvarez and Prieto reaffirms the argument of the Cuban Five’s defense attorneys and is the basis of the 11th Circuit Appeals Court’s decision last August revoking the Five’s trial and convictions:
Given the conduct of the federal prosecutors, the press and the climate of general adversity, it is impossible for an impartial jury trial to be realized in Miami—as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution—when it comes to issues related to Cuba.
Articles may be reprinted with credit to Socialism and Liberation magazine.
