Written by Miguel Jimenez   

During the last couple of years that I served in the United States Marine Corps, I befriended a Marine who emigrated from Cuba when he was an adolescent. Although I recall having numerous discussions with this Marine about a wide range of topics and issues, the discussions that intrigued me the most were related to the Cuban Revolution (1953-1959) and contemporary life in Cuba. My interest in Cuba began about a year prior to meeting my friend, and it developed as a direct result of reading two of Che Guevara’s biographies. Since my friend experienced life in Cuba, I made a constant effort to understand his primary account. This often caused us to have in-depth discussions about the Cuban government in which we often disagreed; however, one thing we did agree on—this was due to the fact that we were ordered to fight a war (Iraq) that we both found unjust—was that the U.S. government did not have any moral authority over Cuba; it also utilizes fear to “legitimize” human rights violations.

For people who sympathize with the Cuban government or with the Cuban Revolution’s triumph against U.S. imperialism, there is one thing that cannot be denied—human rights violations are evident in Cuba. For example, Amnesty International reported in 2010 that a “climate of fear” existed among political activists and dissident journalists living in Cuba. A 2010 U.S. Department of State report also found similar findings where it was apparent that Cuban prisoners are often beaten and live in horrible prison conditions, and political opponents encounter systemic oppression. According to CNN journalist, David Ariostoso, this is to be expected since the “Cuban government has traditionally viewed dissidents as mercenaries in pay of foreign governments.” Unfortunately, this is the reality that dissidents often face in Cuba, and Saul Landau agrees that it is a serious problem, but he also expresses a level of sympathy for the Cuban government in which he is aware “that [Cuba] has real enemies who have attacked it violently for years.” If human rights violations in Cuba are indeed attributed to the government’s fear of potential enemy attacks, then it seems that its northern neighbor has also used similar, if not identical, levels of repression to prevent another terrorist attack.

The 9/11 attacks served to “legitimize” human rights violations committed by the U.S.; the most notorious, the invasion of Iraq—a sovereign nation that never posed any threat to the U.S. Nevertheless, the “war on terror” has affected the lives of innocent Muslims, has denied habeas corpus and due process to many, and has violated the First Amendment Right’s of Americans. For instance, David Rose, the author of Guantánamo: America’s War on Human Rights, stated, “The evidence suggest that large numbers of the Gitmo prisoners, running into the hundreds, were absolutely innocent of the least involvement in anything that could reasonably be described as terrorist activity.” And the abuses committed against Muslim men, according to Chris Hedges, have occurred not only in Gitmo, but in U.S. “black sites” located around the world where it has been estimated that about 100 detainees have lost their lives, as a result of torture, and “[t]ens of thousands [...] have passed through our clandestine detention centers without due process.” Many of these Muslims have been victims of what has become known as extraordinary rendition or proxy detention.

In a 2009 confirmation hearing, former CIA Director Nominee and current Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, described extraordinary rendition as the practice where “we send someone for the purpose of torture or actions by another country that violates our human values.” Although the overwhelming majority of Muslims detained by these means have been foreigners, Nick Baumann stated on Democracy Now! that there have been several cases where Americans have been detained, and often, abused by foreign security forces. Unfortunately, the aforementioned detainees have not been the only Americans who have had their rights violated because political activists in the U.S. have also been targeted.

In 2010 the FBI conducted multiple raids throughout several U.S. states in an effort to crack down on anti-war protesters suspected of affiliating themselves with suspected terrorists’ organizations in Latin America and Palestine. According to Tim Burke of Fight Back News!, the government’s attacks on anti-war protesters are designed to intimidate those who oppose “U.S. wars and occupations.” In conducting these raids, they are seeking to “suppress dissent and free speech [...] and to pave the way for more U.S. military intervention in the Middle East and Latin America.” Furthermore, the attack on dissidents has become more apparent when examining the trumped-up gun charge that was utilize to arrest long time Chicano and anti-war activist, Carlos Montes. In an interview with Chris Hedges, Montes stated, “The gun issue was clearly a pretext to investigate my political activities, [...] it is about my anti-war activities and my links to the RNC demonstrations. It is also about my activism denouncing the U.S. policy of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, their support for Israel.” Montes’ reasoning for his arrest is warranted because Fight Back News! reported that an FBI agent, soon after his arrest, asked him, not about his gun purchase or prior arrests, “but about his political activism and his relationship with the Freedom Road Socialist Organization.”

The Obama administration has claimed that actions such as the FBI raids committed against political activists are justifiable because they are implementing every means necessary to prevent a terrorist attack. This type of reasoning is also attributed to the CIA’s assassination of a U.S citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was never convicted nor charged with a crime. Furthermore, if Obama does not veto the most controversial aspect of the defense authorization bill, the U.S. military will soon have the authority to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens suspected of terrorist activities. Clearly, the U.S. government has taken controversial measures to protect the country. If fear of a potential enemy threat has permitted the U.S. to commit human rights violations and ignore the constitution, then it can be argued that Cuba’s record of human rights violations, are not acceptable, but probably understandable. After all, the island nation has experienced a failed Bay of Pigs invasion, countless terrorist attacks against its people, and numerous assassination attempts against its former leader, Fidel Castro.

In considering that the U.S. has taken some drastic measures to prevent another terrorist attack from occurring on its soil, Cuba has implemented similar procedures to protect itself from what has proven to be its biggest threat since the Cuban revolution’s triumph—the U.S. It should be taken into consideration that the Bay of Pigs invasion and numerous assassination attempts against Fidel Castro were orchestrated by the CIA. Another serious issue that should be considered is that there have been Cuban Americans who have conducted terrorist attacks against Cuba. Unfortunately, because of the actions the U.S. has taken against Cuba, the notion that the Cuban government violates its citizen’s human rights to protect its sovereignty, is arguably legitimized, or at the very least, should serve to prevent the U.S. government from making hypocritical statements about Cuba, especially, when the former has utilized the “war on terror” as a pretext to commit human rights violations throughout the world. Whether you agree or disagree with the tactics that both governments employ to achieve their objective, Cuba, as is evident with the U.S., can also make the argument that it is merely seeking to prevent the enemy from breaching its gates.