Families: We Never Paid For Smuggling

The Coast Guard says their family members were smuggled out of Cuba in a trip that turned deadly.

But these family members say they did not pay anyone to bring their relatives from Cuba this weekend. Amay Machado Gonzalez, 24, was apparently killed by being battered around on the boat when the Coast Guard gave chase to the suspected smuggling vessel.

I interviewed some of the family members Monday afternoon. Here's what they said:

   Rebeca Croes, the twin sister of one of the passengers, Morelia Croes, said her sister and several friends made a makeshift boat and tried to leave Cuba on it. But it started sinking outside Cuban waters. She said the men who are accused of smuggling happened to see the sinking boat and rescued them.

  "They did the work of the Coast Guard," Croes said of the accused smugglers. She said her family did not pay for her sister to get smuggled

out. "I don't even have furniture in my living room," Croes said in Spanish. "I sleep in the same bed as my daughter. It's not as like if I had enough money to pay someone."

  Croes' half sister, Laura Hernandez, also said no money exchanged hands. "No one was paid," she said.

   For Arturo Conde, news of the smuggling operation was terrifying at first. He said his daughter, Odalys Conde, was on the boat. When news broke of the smuggling, he heard an unidentified woman had been killed, but had to wait until much later in the day to learn the woman's name from news reports. It was not his daughter.

   "She's been wanting to leave Cuba for a long time," he said of his daughter, Odalys, 40, who he said was with her own two daughters on the boat. "If they send them back to Cuba, Fidel Castro will take her daughters away from her."

  Other relatives said the people who were aboard the smuggling boat were all friends and family and had been trying to leave Cuba for a long time.

   Laura Hernandez said she visited her sister, Morelia, in Cuba two months ago, and said she was desperate to get out. "When I came from Cuba, she said that they couldn't stand it any more," she said.

   Photograph by Herald Photographer Carl Juste. From left to right, Ovilio Conde, America Lau, Migdalia Ramos Conde, Alex Conde, Elsa Conde, Arturo Conde, Alfredo Conde, Rebeca Croes, Laura Hernandez

Comments

[John Longfellow aka Lou Dobbs]

This is why the Cuban-American community has no credibility. If Clinton's coast guard were purposely/accidently killing Cubans attempting to flee Castro, you would call him a commie bastard.

When its Bush's coast guard doing the killing, not a word. A life is a life, no matter who is in the oval office.

You Cubans never hold the conservative base accountable. I said it before, and i will say it again. The Cuban-Americans are the cheap Spanish prostitute for the conservative base.

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

When the U.S. Coast Guard kills Cuban refugees in cold blood, as they did in this instance, it is customary for them to blame so-called "smugglers" just as the slaveholders blamed the abolitionists whenever one of their captives escaped on the underground railroad.

It is a miracle that more Cubans were not killed in this incident because the Coast Guard were firing indiscriminately at them in order to disable the boat's engine. Of course, in the past the Coast Guard has been known to capsize refugee boats and let the survivors drown while they gleefully congratulated themselves on their "catch."

When Cuba is free, these men should be indicted for crimes against humanity along with Clinton and Bush.

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

Jon Juan:

Good to see that you are not patting the Coast Guard on the back and wanting to buy them a drink (or let them buy you a drink).

Although I'm sure that by the end of this thread you'll be congratulating them on their "catch." One less Cuban in Miami? Isn't this what you are about?

[John Longfellow aka Lou Dobbs]

I bet anyone it was a conservative republican behind the trigger. And not a liberal democrat. Its just my guess. Most coast guard men talk bad about Cuban refugees. They often laugh about how the pretty girls smell like shit, when they are captured at sea.

The one or two liberal coast guard men i have talked to never speak negatively like that. Liberals tend to be more humanist i.e., Jimmy Carter and MLK.

Yet, Cubans will continue to vote these conservative republicans into office.

If they only knew the conversations that take place over beers, when no Cuban immigrants are not around.

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

Jon Juan:

Yes, you and the Coast Guard should form a club: "The He-Men Cuban Haters Club."

[nonee moose]

louJIF:

i never heard you call Cubans "cheap Spanish prostitute"... that's new...

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

John:

Thank-you. You alone among the contributors to Miami's Cuban Connection emphasized with me when this thread was removed without explanation yesterday (along with our exchange). But more than that--and that would have been enough--you attempted to allay my fears about this blog having gone the way of Babalú by stressing that Oscar Corral is not Val Prieto; counseled me to withhold judgment for the moment; and even expressed a genuine concern about me leaving this blog.

I repeat, you were the only one.

Although Pancho did not support me personally, he at least expressed an interest in having this thread restored.

What can I say?

For me, loyalty is the highest attribute in life; it is the distillation of all other virtues. And John showed it, and no one else.

[a thought...]

I didn't know this thread was removed. I can tell you that when I would log on to the Herald, the corner where all the blogs are listed was not there. I had to go into the blog through the article about the newly-arrived Cubans. I didn't know what Manuel was writing about yesterday about anything being gone.

Anyway, firing on helpless people at sea (who are probably weak and fatigued) is cowardly. I don't care if the boat is coming from Cuba, Haiti or anywhere else. If you're trying to turn them around to send them back, there has to be a better way then shooting at them.

[nonee moose]

Where is the Herald coverage, the article? First time I see this thread, as well. Firing on the vessel, even to disable the engines, is poor judgement to say the least. That practice, if it is indeed sanctioned by the USCG, needs to reviewed and changed before more people get hurt.

But, "indiscriminate"? Without an investigation, or at least more facts, that word sounds "incendiary" to me. Sorry.

[gansibele]

The guard shot at the engine, twice, at close range with a special shotgun ammo that doesn't disperse. There was almost no chance of casualties unless someone stepped into the line of fire (which one of the boat occupants tried to do in order to shield the engine).

I'm not sympathetic to shooting at unharmed people either, but the Coast Guard is law enforcement and they were refusing to stop. Flee the police in your car and they'll ram you off the road or throw spikes or even in some states shoot the tires. Flee on foot and they'll Taser you. All of this may theoretically cause a fatality but whose fault it is? BTW, it seems that the woman susain her injuries by being thrown around in a speeding boat on choppy seas. If that's the case, then whoever was at the wheel and didn't stop following a lawful order is to blame.

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

Nonee:

When you fire in the direction of a moving target (in this case a boat filled with people) you cannot take dead aim, and if you do hit your intended target, it will be by accident rather than marksmanship. That kind of shooting is of necessity indiscriminate, and there is nothing "incendiary" about saying so.

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

"I'm not sympathetic to shooting at unarmed people either..." gansibele

But still you justify it.

[gansibele]

One thing is to shoot a water cannon to people in the water as the Coast Guard did once before and another thing is to disable an engine in a fleeing smuggler's boat who is disobeying a lawful order.

When law enforcement asks me to do something, I go out of my way to be extra compliant. If I don't the consequences are on me, plain and simple.

Do you justify the smuggler's actions?

[usambcuba]

Gansibele's point follows the rule of law and common sense.

The smuggler's actions created the conditions that led to the death of the woman.

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

Gansibele:

The pregnant woman did not just "sustain injuries." She was killed with her baby because the U.S. Coast Guard gave chase to their boat within 4 miles of land.

In the past, the Coast Guard has rammed and overturned boats and then stood-by and let the refugees drown. It has even used clubs to beat refugees back into the water who had already reached the beach. Of course, they don't do that anymore after they were caught on film. But what other horrors do they commit when no one is watching?

The same arguments that you make to justify the U.S. Coast Guard's brutality could also be made to justify the Cuban Coast Guard's, which pioneered all these methods.

The U.S. and Cuban Coast Guards are in contant communication, by the way, since they are both doing the same job. Isn't it "wonderful" how well Americans and Castroites "cooperate" over the dead bodies of Cuban refugees?

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

"Do you justify the smuggler's actions?" — gansibele

First of all, it has not been proven that smugglers were involved. Read Corral's story.

As I said previously:

When the U.S. Coast Guard kills Cuban refugees in cold blood, as they did in this instance, it is customary for them to blame so-called "smugglers" just as the slaveholders blamed the abolitionists whenever one of their captives escaped on the underground railroad.

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

I knew you would be here soon, usambcuba. I am surprised you haven't joined the Coast Guard yourself, since it would allow you to serve Castro while claiming that you are only acting in America's best interest, as you do when you shill for the repeal of the trade embargo.

[gansibele]

OK, first of all, the woman who died of head injuries was not the pregnant one who had an arm injury. Read all the original reporting. The Coast Guard did not "kill in cold blood" anybody. Now THAT is incendiary. That poor woman died because a smuggler or whoever was at the wheel was reckless enough to speed in choppy seas. He was more concerned about being caught than for the physical safety of people in the boat.

Second; I'm not justifying "brutality" just law enforcement actions. I clearly said it's not the same thing as "shooting a water cannon to people in the water". You don't need to give me a lecture on police brutality. I have no doubts that the Coast Guard is not the gentlest when handling refugees, Cuban or otherwise. But in this case, they were doing what they were supposed to do, period. Argue with the law.

Third, Corral's story, if you are referring to the intervews with the family members, of course they are going to say they were not smugglers. That's what they have to say to protect themselves, especially now that a fatality has happened. They are accesory to smuggling and now accidental manslaughter. Do you really believe the owners of the boat were just bystanders, happily fishing around close to Cuban waters when they happened to pass by a sinking boat? And if that was the case, why then they tried to outrun the Coast Guard? They were going to put their property and liberty at risk by disobeying a lwaful order just to get some strangers to land?

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

Gansibele:

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

[nonee moose]

Manuel:

There is no question in mind but that these events are unfortunate...in their entirety, as in when they left port. But either you enforce the laws, in their entirety, or you don't. Es un arma de doble filo.

In my heart would I rather they weren't stopped, that the Coast Guard turned a blind eye? Yes. But the law is what it is, and laws are there to be enforced without selectivity. I am confident that, at least on a policy level, avoiding unecessary loss of life is paramount to any law enforcement agency, and that those times where loss of life cannot be avoided goes into the failure column on the books. If there are personal behaviors which are excessive and indiscriminate, then there are laws against that which should also be enforced.

But we must be careful of tagging what may well be a directed and appropriate use of force, not necessarily deadly force, in the enforcement of our laws as "indiscriminate" or any other subjective term that compromises the moral platform on which other parts of the Cuba policy stand (the embargo, though so many disagree, is also the law).

[nonee moose]

Manuel, no matter their motivations, I regret to tell you that as soon as those men rescued the human cargo at sea and knowingly headed for the US shore despite warnings from law enforcement, they became smugglers.

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

A.T.:

Why this disinclination--indeed, refusal--to believe the refugees' story?

What I don't believe is the Coast Guard's assertion that the refugee boat was "ramming" the Coast Guard vessel.

There is still nobility and altruism in this world, A.T., don't let yourself become disillusioned. Surely, the man who put his body between the Coast Guard's bullets and the ship's engine proved it. It is a miracle that the bullets didn't ignite the gas and blow up the ship.

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

Sorry, A.T. My last post was meant for gansibele.

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

Nonee:

The "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy is NOT a law. It was instituted by presidential fiat and could be undone today if Bush issued a counter-directive.

Of course, the U.S. Coast Guard is only "following orders." The real criminals are Clinton (who instituted this policy) and Bush (who has kept it in place longer than Clinton).

[a thought...]

No worries, Manuel.

This is a sad topic all around and proves just how desperate people are to leave the island. I don't know if those men were fishing or whatever and then saw that sinking boat. I just know that it would be very difficult for me to be on a boat, watch someone else's vessel start to sink and just sit there and watch. Yes, I would be apprehensive about bringing them on board, but I also could not let people die just because I was unsure of the laws.

[a different thought]

The Wet/Dry Foot policy is just the legal justification for selection of a few and the slaughter of innocents.....

As A.T. stated, "[t]his is a sad topic all around and proves just how desperate people are to leave the island."

And, I'm sorry Manuel, although I agree with a lot of what you've said on this topic, the Embargo has to go...if nothing else, some goods may trickle down to the mases and less will be willing to throw all caution to the wind and throw themsleves to the seas.

It all doesn't make sense.

[a different thought]

The Wet/Dry Foot policy is just the legal justification for the indiscriminate selection of a few, and slaughter of innocents.....

As A.T. stated, "[t]his is a sad topic all around and proves just how desperate people are to leave the island."

And, I'm sorry Manuel, although I agree with a lot of what you've said on this topic, the Embargo has to go...if nothing else, some goods may trickle down to the mases and less will be willing to throw all caution to the wind and throw themsleves to the seas.

It all doesn't make sense.

[a different thought]

The Wet/Dry Foot policy is just the legal justification for selection of a few and the slaughter of innocents.....

As A.T. stated, "[t]his is a sad topic all around and proves just how desperate people are to leave the island."

And, I'm sorry Manuel, although I agree with a lot of what you've said on this topic, the Embargo has to go...if nothing else, some goods may trickle down to the mases and less will be willing to throw all caution to the wind and throw themsleves to the seas.

It all doesn't make sense.

[J. J. GARCIA]

ENOUGH ALL READY OF CUBANS WHINING AND BELLYACHING THAT "ALL" CUBANS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ENTER FREELY INTO MY COUNTRY OF BIRTH, BECAUSE OF SO-CALL REPRESSION IN THE ISLAND. IF THERE IS REPRESSION, SO WHY THE HELL ARE YOU RUNNING AWAY FROM THE PROBLEM, INSTEAD OF CONFRONTING IT. NO HUEVOS? I LEARNED AS AN 18-OLD MARINE IN SOUTHEAST ASIA THAT "FREEDOM IS NOT FREE, ONE HAS TO FIGHT FOR IT". YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN SOUTH TEXAS IN THE 50'S AND 60'S TO SEE REAL REPRESSION AND DISCRIMINATION AGAISNT CHICANOS AND BLACKS WHERE THE GRINGOS CALLED US "SPICS" AND "NIGGERS" AND THE COPS WOULD ARREST US FOR THE MOST PATTY CRAP AND NOT THE GRINGOS.
I HAVE BEEN TO CUBA THREE TIMES, AND CUBA IN COMPARISON TO EL SALVADOR, GUATEMALA, HONDURAS, MEXICO AND NICARAGUA, CUBA IS A PARADISE. IF YOU MADE IT TO THE U.S., WELCOME AND I HOPE YOU MAKE A LOT OF MONEY BECAUSE THAT'S WHY YOU CAME HERE. SO SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT REPRESSION AND THAT CASTRO IS GOING TO PERSECUTE YOU IF YOU ARE SENT BACK TO THE ISLAND BECAUSE YOU KNOW WELL, THAT AS SOON AS YOU COMPLETE YOUR ONE YEAR REFUGEE STATUS, THE FIRST THING YOU ARE GOING TO DO IS TAKE A FLIGHT TO MEXICO CITY AND FROM THERE A FLIGHT TO LA HABANA. SO AFTER ALL THE BULL AND LIES YOU TOLD THE AUTHORITIES IN PREPARATION OF YOUR I-589 APPLICATION FOR ASYLUM, YOU ARE GOING BACK FOR A VISIT TO CUBA WITH YOUR POCKETS FULL OF "GREEN" AND WITHOUT FEAR OF PERSECUTION LIKE YOU LIED TO HOMELAND SECURITY WHEN APPLYING FOR REFUGEE STATUS, FORM I-587.
CUBANOS! BASTA CON LAS MENTIRAS.

[nonee moose]

JJ:

Have a Coke and a smile... and shut the fuck up.

[gansibele]

JJ = John Juan?

The conspiracy continues!

[reality]

Right you are J.J.
This is why the Cubans are so hated by most other Hispanics!

[gansibele]

But seriously JJ, thanks for opening my eyes con la gritadera esa. That's what we Cubans need, a good talking to from a former Marine with huevos the size of small ostriches who faced real discrimination when a gringo cop arrested him for cruising too slow in his boattail Riviera. I'm ordering my rifle and my boat as we speak and returning my I-589 (or is it I-587?) and writing a thousand times "I should not lie to la migra". THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!

[a thought...]

Wow!

JJ wrote: IF YOU MADE IT TO THE U.S., WELCOME AND I HOPE YOU MAKE A LOT OF MONEY BECAUSE THAT'S WHY YOU CAME HERE. SO SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT REPRESSION AND THAT CASTRO IS GOING TO PERSECUTE YOU IF YOU ARE SENT BACK TO THE ISLAND BECAUSE YOU KNOW WELL, THAT AS SOON AS YOU COMPLETE YOUR ONE YEAR REFUGEE STATUS, THE FIRST THING YOU ARE GOING TO DO IS TAKE A FLIGHT TO MEXICO CITY AND FROM THERE A FLIGHT TO LA HABANA.

I hate to say it, but he has a valid point. We all know people that the first thing they've done after a year is up is head straight back to La Isla. Granted, I know it's usually to help out their family, but, (again) we all know people that view these actions with a smirk on their face. "Oh, yeah, you just got here and there you go, running right back. But this time with American dollars."

I wonder if people from other countries have these discussions, i.e., a person who has fled Haiti, Nicaragua, Colombia, etc., for example, going back periodically with money.

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

Still, the "lost" posts for July 12 have not been restored. Technical glitch or not, I will address this subject and no other until the missing posts resurface.

At this point, I think I'll just shut down the computer, and type away on the keyboard -- an exercise in futility, granted, but so is writing on this blog if what one writes today will disappear tomorrow.

[Hernandez]

Jorge Hernández Fonseca
www.cubalibredigital.com

From: Ciudadanodesegunda@Cubaquesufre.com.cu
To: Fidel_Castro@Cubaqueoprime.com.cu
Sent: Jueves, 13 de Julio de 2006
Subject: “¿Largando el piojo?”

Comandante:

¡Que bandidos lo´jamericanos esos! Mira que hacer un informe
amenazando nada menos que con democracia a nuestro aguerrido y
sacrificado pueblo trabajador. Y lo que más rabia me da de to’esto, es
que haya sido un exiliado metí’o a secretario de estado, el que se
jactara de anunciar con bombos y platillos el informe junto a
Condoleezza.

Lo que no saben ellos es que ya tenemos amarrada la sucesión mediante
un triunvirato de jefazos (sobre todo ahora, que se dice Ud. está
largando el piojo). Lógico, primero habrá que pedirle permiso a Raúl,
que es el encargado –en ausencia suya-- de interpretar la voluntad del
partido, único heredero de su legado, según repite diariamente el
Granma.

Me gustó mucho como enseguida saltó el cabecilla (que diga, el
cabezota) del triunvirato Ricardo Alarcón, criticando el informe de
Condoleezza, porque según él, era ‘ingerencista’ y tenía una cláusula
secreta, que dice Alarcón es una clave pa’matarlo a Ud. Tenga cuida’o,
con ese río revuelto, que muy bien puede ser un pretexto d’el
pa’liquidarlo.

Otra cosa que no me gustó fue el fraude electoral que el imperialismo
acaba de hacer en México. Ahora Comandante, las gentes de López
Obrador están “guai”. Mira que presentar videos que resultaron
mentirosos, y después declarar que sus representantes en las salas
estaban ‘vendidos al oro yanki’. Con esa gente no se gana ¡ni a las
escupías!

Póngase duro ahora pa’las elecciones de Nicaragua. Chávez está
ayudando de lo lindo y ha dejado sus milloncitos correr por allá. Pero
mucho cuidada’o, mire que cuando se habla de dinero, los sandinistas
se ponen ‘como que locos’ y creen que regresaron a la piñata de los 80
y ahora con Alemán de aliado no van a dejar ¡ni donde amarrar la chiva!

Pero bueno, hubo también cosas reconfortantes. Vi que Alarcón
condecoró con medallas de honor a los puertorriqueños que asaltaron a
tiros nada menos que el Congreso de los EUA. No es que ellos fueran
terroristas, ¡no! Asaltar el Capitolio no puede ser considerado como
terrorismo. Terroristas son lo’jamericanos, que matan a
los “combatientes” en Irak.

Leí también que una pil’e disidentes no les había gusta’o que Bush
hubiera hecho un plan de transición democrático pa’Cuba. Ellos están
claros. La única democracia es la suya, (que puede hacer lo que le da
la gana) sobre todo ahora, que ya planificamos pa’l año que viene
solucionar el problema de la comida (el desayuno y el almuerzo es más
pa’frente).

Ahora Comandante, tenga cuida’o con la Mafia de Miami y el Plan Bush,
porque no es lo mismo “parte de la disidencia critica al oportunista
Plan Bush de democracia pa’Cuba, pa’que Ud. pueda morir tranquilo”
que “Bush dará democracia pa’Cuba y critica la parte oportunista de la
disidencia, pa’que Ud. no pueda morir tranquilo”

Su víctima.
Ciudadano de Segunda.

[Juan (Pancho) Valquez]

You guys are dumbasses. If you were to believe the immigrants story then the whole thing would have to go down like this.

1.) A bunch of Cubans build a makeshift raft.

2.) An American in a speed boat rigged with high powered engines, a couple of miles from Cuba happened to see the sinking immigrants.

What an American is doing in a speedboat a couple of miles off of the coast we'll never know.

3.) Instead of taking them back to land a few miles away he decides to take them across the Florida straits to America. Helping someone enter the U.S. or doing so yourself is a felony act by the way.

4.) He gets caught by the Coast Guard and instead of stopping and explaining to them what happened and turning over the immigrants to U.S. custody he runs.

5.) One of the immigrants dies from getting beat around in 7 foot swells on an overcrowded speed boat going 70 mpg.

6.) The coast guard fires disabling fire, takes the immigrants into custody, and puts the dead one in the morgue.

It doesn't sound very plausible that this guy wasn't a paid smuggler to me and that he just happened to be chilling off of the Coast of Cuba. The illegals’ should be repatriated back to Cuba after serving their 5 year Felony sentences and the smuggler should be charged with man slaughter and the applicable smuggling laws.

Nothing the Coast Guard did was out of line. The girl died because the smuggler ran instead of gave up.

If you rob a bank and lead police on a while goose chase while endangering the lives of yourself and others expect them to chase you and stop you by any means necessary. The same goes for a chase on the water.

Disabling fire is only used after it is clear that the person on the speed boat isn't going to give up and has been running from you for quite some time.

How do I know? I use to help run drug interdiction operations. It's the same thing but instead of smuggling people the smugglers are moving cocaine or meth.

If you want to blame someone for this girls death blame the smuggler. She died because she got battered to death in an overcrowded unsafe boat when the smuggler wouldn't stop and surrender.

[nonee moose]

Pancho, aside from the total lack of sensitivity on a very tragic event, I have to agree with you. Even if you buy the serendipitous encounter theory, the go-fasters became smugglers when they ignored a lawful order of the USCG.

If there was a reckless application of interdiction techniques, let the incident be investigated and if there was wrongdoing on that count, let the chips fall where they may. But even that fact should not undermine the lawful enforcement of US immigration policy. We can agree with it or not, but it is the law. And frankly, to disagree with the lawful enforcement of that policy, weakens the legal platform upon which other portions of US-Cuba policy stand. Again, I say this understanding that reasonable people disagree with the overall merits of the current state of the policy.

[Juan (Pancho) Valquez]

I wouldn't say I'm insensitive, I just: call 'em how I see 'em. The people on speedboats trying to illegally help immigrants enter our countries were by definition smugglers. The immigrants where by definition illegal immigrants. All I'm saying is I think the law should be enforced. There is nothing insensitive about that.

I also didn't see anything that the Coast Guard did that wasn't by the book. Usually every opportunity is given to the smugglers to allow them to surrender. Most of the time we just let them run and follow them with a helicopter until they run out of fuel or track them on radar and wait for their fuel to run out.

They may be able to outrun some of the larger ships but the can't outrun the 'copters or the radar. And disabling fire is only used when they are about to arrive at their destination or cross a political boundary which we can't follow them across. If a Coast Guard cutter was following them then they don’t have the option of using a helicopter.

I'm all for an investigation. If the coasties' did something wrong then they should be held accountable. But as far as I can see they didn't do anything out of the ordinary. And when they opened up with disabling fire they didn't hit anything except the engine which was their intended target. The woman was killed by the smugglers recklessness not by the Coast Guard.

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

GOOD NEWS IN OUR TIME:

The "lost" posts of July 12 appeared to have been restored (for now at least) and we can all rejoice that the continuity of this blog has not been disrupted. Nevertheless, having twice learned my lesson, I have copied everything in case that this problem recurs.

The other writers on this blog do not lie when they say that some of their best work is contained in the July 12 posts, and I am pleased, for their sake and mine, that these have been rescued from the void.

Thanks are due to Oscar Corral for following up on this matter. It shows moreover that he does read his own blog after all.

[gansibele]

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

More likely for the love of money, 10k a head.

"Why this disinclination--indeed, refusal--to believe the refugees' story?"

Because I can't tell you how many times I have been approached with entreaties to smuggle my relatives out of Cuba. Because earlier some of the families were saying that the owners of the boat were distant relatives of the rescued people and now they changed their tune, after meeting with attorneys and people from the Democracia movement. And because it doesn't add up that total strangers will be around with a 33-foot boat tens of miles away from shore, not fishing (where are the fishing supplies, etc), conveniently on the area where a boat will sink and then will risk liberty and property to get refugees to shore.

I can also believe that OJ got on that Bronco and headed for the Mexican border with a bag of cash and a gun because he was perfectly innocent and the cops were out to frame him. But I'm not that naive.

AT, I'm not saying they should have let them die, of course people should be rescued. But why did they ran away from the Coast Guard?

[nonee moose]

I had a professor once who liked to say, "You buys your ticket and you takes your chances..."

None of this should detract from the real confirmation all of these incidents, successful or not, seem to provide: What could possibly cause so many to take such risks?

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

UPDATE ON MISSING "JULY 12" POSTS:

As I said moments ago, don't hold your collective breath that the rescued posts will stay rescued. Upon further scrutiny I have found that while the July 12 posts have been restored to the thread dealing with Smuggling Cubans, the other threads are still bereft of blogging activity for July 12. However, if the "lost" July 12 posts can be restored to one thread, there is no reason that they can't also be restored to the others.

I already have a headache. I am fighting this battle for all of you.

[usambcuba]

Nonee - you asked -

What could possibly cause so many to take such risks?

A confluence of factors that all together, aggravate and provoke these situations -

1) Castro authoritarian rule.
2) U.S. Embargo depriving Cubans access to basic goods and services that become inaccessible or unaffordable.
3) Cuban Adjustment Act creating a magnetized and insulated pathway to immigrate to the United States, regardless if you followed regular immigration laws and procedures. Just be Cuban and reach U.S. land and say you want to stay, you pretty much can. No other immigrant group can claim such status.
4) Wet Foot Dry Foot Policy - it is a race to the land now.
5) Basic human desire to seek out a better life for oneself.

I would very much like to see this all change and what we can change in this set of item is change our policies. We have made a bad situation, worse with our policies, and not changed a damn thing.

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

Gansibele and Nonee:

I am deeply disappointed in both of you. For shame! Making excuses for the brutalization of your own people whose only "crime" is to have wanted the same things that you did when you came to this country. But isn't that how it always is in America? One generation of immigrants turns on another. I thought that because Cubans were also refugees this would not hold for them. But I was wrong. I guess this kind of "beat back the barbarians" mentality is a requisite of becoming a "real American." I wouldn't know since I am still a Cuban.

Under the terms of the Cuban Adjustment Act (1965), the so-called "illegal immigrants" are actually refugees who are entitled to asylum in this country, and the so-called "smugglers" are actually their rescuers, who acted in accordance with U.S. law and international conventions in coming to their assistance.

It was the odious Clinton who rewrote the law by presidential fiat and turned what had formerly been an humanitarian rescue operation into a search and destroy mission.

The Congress in 1965 did not intend the Coast Guard to pursue, harrass, endanger, hunt down and kill refugees on the high seas. What it did intend was for the Coast Guard to rescue the Cubans and bring them to the U.S. This was indeed the official U.S. policy for nearly 30 years.

The Cuban Adjustment Act has never been rescinded or altered by Congress, and it remains the law of the land.

Clinton's directive to ignore the spirit of the law and established precedent, violate its provisions, curtail its guarantees and hamper its enforcement, is the real crime here.

But the no less odious Bush II is as guilty as Clinton for maintaining in force the presidential directive that turned the Cuban Adjustment Act into a seahunt for Cubans. In fact, Bush II is guiltier than Clinton, for he has sustained Clinton's directive longer than did Clinton.

All that it would take to end the "Dry Foot/Wet Foot Policy" is for Bush to say the word. The law supporting the Cubans' right to asylum is still in place. The only obstacle to the enforcement of that law is Bush himself.

[Juan (Pancho) Valquez]

"None of this should detract from the real confirmation all of these incidents, successful or not, seem to provide: What could possibly cause so many to take such risks?"

We could ask the same think about all of the illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico. All of these people are risking their lives to cross though miles and miles of desert and many of them are dieing of dehydration or heat exaustion.

Or in Florida's case we could apply the question to all of the illegal immigrantion from Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and South America. Many of these groups aren't considered to be suffering under political oppression. Yet come they do, usually on the high seas risking their lives in shanty rafts and more then willing to pay smugglers. It's just the way it goes.

People come here from the third world quite simply because the third world sucks. And they think correctly that they can have a better standard of living in the United States then where ever they are from.

[nonee moose]

Manuel, you keep using those terms like brutalization willy-nilly, and some will take you for a knee-jerk reactionary instead of the well-spoken, considered and opinionated (i mean that in a nice way) person you clearly are. Once again, where is you proof that any policy or practice lawfully in place has been abused or otherwise misapplied? And by proof, Manuel, I don't mean the mere fact that you or I or anyone else may disagree with the policy in question. That is not proof.

The "presidential fiat" was done in reaction to a burgeoning traffic in immigrants which many in the government feared would approximate the Mariel exodus. I think at some point, the number of refugee arrivals counted in a month was over 30,000. Politics aside, from an administrative standpoint, from an economic standpoint, and from any other standpoint you can think of, unfettered immigration from anywhere is not in the national interest. It is the very reason imigration laws exist. Facing a potential imigration crisis, including the regime's encouraging words to exacerbate the situation, and in light of the recent history with mass exodi in Florida, it would have been irresponsible for any president to sit still and allow it to happen. The wet/dry policy, though it has had the practical effects which you have identified, also had the effect of better countering the regime's single most effective weapon to blackmail this country--- the well-worn threat to open Cuba's ports, and the concommitant emptying of his jails. Whether deserved or not, the stigma of Mariel has had a profound effect on how subsequent administrations have eyed US-Cuba relations.

Manuel, don't chastise me. I'm passive aggressive so your self-righteous tone is like mother's milk to me. If you want to debate policy, which you are very skilled at, I have much to learn from your experience. But at least for me, make believe you're a vulcan. De manera fria...

[nonee moose]

by the way everybody... my question was rhetorical. but have at it if you must.

[gansibele]

"Making excuses for the brutalization of your own people whose only "crime" is to have wanted the same things that you did when you came to this country."

What brutalization? The acts of the smuggler caused the death. I will protest brutalization anytime it happens and I have in the past. This is not the case.

You want to believe a high speed boat just happened to be in the area? OK but don't ask me to be that gullible. You want the Coast Guard to escort them to shore? Fine but that's not the law. You want to justify Cubans taking advantage of other Cuban's desperation and charging huge sums of money to bring them here, with no regard for their lives? For shame indeed.

[Manuel A. Tellechea]

Gansibele & Nonee:

Since this has been the "on again off again" thread I understand that you may have missed what I said earlier about the "brutalization of Cubans." This is why it is important to protest any time that posts "disappear" without explanation. Without a fixed record it is impossible to recollect or document what has been said previously:

"It is a miracle that more Cubans were not killed in this incident because the Coast Guard were firing indiscriminately at them in order to disable the boat's engine. Of course, in the past the Coast Guard has been known to capsize refugee boats and let the survivors drown while they gleefully congratulated themselves on their 'catch.'"

And again:

"In the past, the Coast Guard has rammed and overturned boats and then stood-by and let the refugees drown. It has even used clubs to beat refugees back into the water who had already reached the beach. Of course, they don't do that anymore after they were caught on film. But what other horrors do they commit when no one is watching?"

If the Coast Guard had not given chase within four miles of land, no one would have been hurt or killed. There is no "American law" that compels them to do so. It is done because the president ordered it. Not all presidential orders are legal. This one certainly is not because it contravenes American law. The law of the land is the Cuban Adjustment Act as passed by Congress in 1965 and signed by President Johnson (a real friend of the Cuban people). Perhaps our last real friend in the White House.