Babaloo's Waterloos: The Miami Herald Speaks for Henry Gómez on Posada

After hiding under a woodpile for years on the Posada Corrales case, Babalú's Henry Gómez has finally defined himself on this issue — beat the drums! — Henry will let The Miami Herald speak for him. The creator of Herald Watch, to monitor and report bias and malfeasance there, now jumps on The Herald's bandwagon by endorsing its editorial on Posada without reservations or qualifications, which he equates to "hell freezing over" or the "approach of the Apocalypse," the editorial, that is, not necessarily his agreement with it.

The Herald editorial takes the position that Posada's release on bail after an illegal detention of 2 years constitutes some kind of vindication of "U.S. democracy [where] the law is supreme." I think they mean the Rule of Law, but no matter. One way or another the proposition is risible on its face. Nowhere in the world is the law more manipulated by public or private interests than it is in this country. In Cuba, there is no Rule of Law. Here it is in the discretion to prosecute or not that the greatest injustices are committed under the cover of the Rule of Law. If the "preventive detention" of Posada Corrales doesn't show this, then nothing does.

The editorial acknowledges that Posada has never been convicted of a terrorist crime — never. That kind of statement makes an apology necessary for the hundreds of times that The Herald has so referred to him with or without qualifiers, such as "suspected terrorist" (suspected by whom? The Herald, of course).

It concludes with a call for due process for Posada (wow, I guess we must all fall over ourselves about that, right Henry?), while asserting that The Miami Herald objects to Posada's views (which The Herald defines as "advocat[ing] overthrowing Cuba's dictatorship by any means necessary, including violence against civilians"). Personally, I would prefer to let Posada define his own views. He has never, to the best of my knowledge, advocated violence on the civilian population of Cuba. In fact, he has always repudiated such violence and did so, unequivocably, last year.

And what about Henry and Babalú? Does Henry also object to Posada's views and his methods? He must, of course, since he endorsed The Herald editorial not substantially but completely.

Not everyone agrees with Henry at Babalú, however. Ziva does not and has made it quite clear in the comments section that Henry does not speak for her on this matter. It is not for naught that we have called Ziva the conscience of Babalú. Ziva asks Henry point blank: "Henry, do you also object to the U.S. bombing of Germany & Japan during WWII?" She means, of course, the bombing of civilian targets such as Dresden and Hiroshima. If Posada were guilty of all the crimes imputed to him, the toll of his victims would not even reach 100, not millions of civilians killed by both the Axis and the Allies in World War II.

Yet, according to Henry, "times have changed." No, times have not changed; the only thing that has changed is that Americans were fighting in World War II an enemy that everybody knew then and now was indeed an enemy, and Posada and other Cuban patriots are fighting an enemy no less ruthless than Hitler but whom many in the government and media regard not unfavorably. Henry makes the distinction: Hitler was pure evil and we were justified in using any and all means to defeat him. Henry, obviously, does not regard Castro the same way, and so would impose on those who still fight him new rules of engagement, which, in effect, would leave Castro untouched and his regime firmly in place for another 50 years.


POSTSCRIPT:

It only gets worse:

Thanks Henry, I’m just trying to clarify hypothetically what could be done to bring down an illegitimate government like the castro regime in our current politically correct world. Exiles don’t have access to smart bombs. Is there an acceptable way for someone like Posada to wage war against castro?
Posted by: Ziva at April 25, 2007 01:59 PM

Unfortunately our government has made it illegal to plan an armed attack on Cuba. So the answer is no, but there should be.
Posted by: Henry "Conductor" Gomez at April 25, 2007 02:02 PM

So it is now "illegal to plan an armed attack on Cuba" because the U.S. government says so! But, of course, this is "unfortunate" and Henry wishes there were another means of toppling Castro, maybe sprinkling violet water on him or saying "please go away, pretty please with sugar on it."

In 1895, under the same neutrality laws, it was also illegal to plan an armed attack on Cuba, which didn't stop Martí and the other Cuban patriots. I guess that back then Henry Gómez would have supported the treasonous position that Cuba could only be liberated with the permission and by the gracious concession of the United States.

Henry is proud, and rightly so, of his mambisa great-grandmother who hid rifles under her skirts for the rebels. But would his great-grandmother have been proud of a descendant who required the permission of the United States to fight for Cuba's freedom? Would she have consented to hide her pacífico great-grandson under her skirts while he awaited word from the U.S. consul as to whether he would be allowed to fight for Cuba's freedom? I do not think so. Her answer would surely have been the same as that of the mother of the Maceos.

More repudiation of Henry and Robert's pacifist position from their peers at Babalu, as well as a well-connected jab from Ziva to Robert for despicably suggesting that Cuban exiles condone blowing up airplanes:

I don't want to sound a discordant note here, but ... Marti did not ask anyone for permission to organize armed revolts against the tyranny of Spain. In fact, history shows that many Cubans ran afoul of US laws in the 1890's with illegal expeditions and shipments of arms that were sent to Cuba and many were confiscated by the US authorities at that time. So this is nothing new, only the characters and names have changed. Cubans cannot expect freedom to come down from the hand of anyone as a gift. We have to do it ourselves, regardless of who we offend or who tries to interfere with our cause. Our cause is just and deserves our best efforts and if our friends want to stand with us,that is fine. If they want to interfere, then we should cast them aside and ignore them.
Posted by: Cubamoto at April 25, 2007 04:48 PM

Robert I agree with that, and I don't know anyone who would condone blowing up civilian aircraft. The current political climate plays right into the regimes hands as far as men like Posada are concerned. He’s been tried and convicted in the world press. So far, I haven’t read anything that makes me believe that Posada is guilty. In fact, I think he’s being badly mistreated by the country he well served. I do believe that being in a state of war with the castro regime is legitimate, whether or not any official government sanctions that war. I don’t see how it can be otherwise unless you’re willing to cede to dictators the right to own and plunder a nation and its people however, they see fit. I cannot accept that.
Posted by: Ziva at April 25, 2007 05:13 PM

¡VIVA LA ZIVA! Hers is the voice of María Grajales and Marta Abreu (Note to Val & Henry: Ask Ziva who these women were).

As always Henry continues to dig himself into an even bigger hole: After 11 years in a Venezuelan prison awaiting trial, and having been acquitted by both a civil court and a court martial there, Posada should ideally be retried again — in Venezuela, according to Henry, who laments that Venezuela is an ally of Castro's because it means that the U.S. can't deport Posada to be tried there a third, fourth or fifth time for a crime he has already repeatedly been acquitted of. Henry believes that "there is smoke" (from the explosion of the plane?) although he concedes that there may not necessarily be fire. Oh sure there is a fire; it is the one that Henry, Robert and Oscar Corral are trying to light under Posada, as Val laments that I correctly predicted they would.