The panel [Appellate Court] found there were unproven claims that Labañino, Guerrero and Fernando González were leaders of the spy network, collected or transmitted top secret information or took part in a drug-trafficking operation.
The decade-old case was steeped in controversy because prosecutors argued the Wasp spy network was linked to the Cuban government's 1996 shoot-down of two Brothers to the Rescue planes over the Florida Straits.

In a 2-1 vote, the panel upheld the central conviction and life sentence of the one defendant implicated by the Miami federal jury in that murder conspiracy, Gerardo Hernández. He was held responsible for the deaths of three Cuban Americans and a Cuban exile who were killed on Feb. 24, 1996, when Cuban fighter jets shot down two of their planes over international waters.

"Hernandez argues that his conviction should be reversed because the government failed to prove he intended the murder to occur within the jurisdiction of the United States, failed to prove that he knew of the object of the conspiracy, and failed to prove that he acted with malice aforethought,'' wrote appellate judge William H. Pryor Jr. in the 99-page ruling.

"Each of these arguments fails."
In Guerrero's case, the panel found that he deserved a new sentence because there was no evidence that top secret information was ``gathered and transmitted.''
In the United States, the San Francisco-based National Committee to Free the Cuba Five, which has called for their release, issued an angry response to the court's upholding of the convictions.

"This is a total outrage," said the committee's coordinator, Gloria La Riva. "That a terrorist like Luis Posada Carriles, who is being protected by the Bush administration, is allowed to walk the streets of Miami and these men kept in jails is incomprehensible.

"They should be freed immediately. They should have never been arrested. They were working to protect the Cuban and American people from terrorist attacks."

'Cuban 5' fail in appeal of spy case
An appellate court in Atlanta ruled that the 2001 espionage convictions of five Cuban men must stand, but three of their sentences must be reconsidered.
Posted on Thu, Jun. 05, 2008

They were unregistered agents of a foreign government. Technically, that's illegal under the mundane U.S. law. As for Gerardo Hernández specifically, it must be said that that's the risk he ran when he decided to enter the U.S. under technically illegal terms. Nevertheless, the sentencing is wholly hypocritical to say the least when one looks at the case of Luis Posada Carriles who is a known terrorist and is walking the streets of the U.S. a totally free man and having never served time in the U.S. for his heinous crimes. I'm not advocating for punishing people mind you. I'm simply pointing out the imbalance in the ostensible neutral U.S. justice system. It's a farce.

Luis Posada Carriles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Luis Clemente Faustino Posada Carriles (born February 15, 1928) is a Cuban-born Venezuelan anti-Castro terrorist. A former CIA operative, Posada has been convicted in absentia of involvement in various terrorist attacks and plots in the Western hemisphere, including involvement in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner that killed seventy-three people[1][2] and has admitted to his involvement in other terrorist plots including a string of bombings in 1997 targeting fashionable Cuban hotels and nightspots.[3][4][5] In addition, he was jailed under accusations related to an assassination attempt on Fidel Castro in Panama in 2000, although he was later pardoned by Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso in the final days of her term.[6][7]


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Thank you Alice for the trackback, but due to comment spam, I turned off trackbacks and pingbacks just yesterday.

      As for the "Individualist, Anarchist, Barbies" aspect of your comment about us, I'm not an Individualist without also being a Collectivist at the same time. They are completely reconcilable. Perhaps you already realized that. Real Christianity is also the fulfillment of Anarchism/Communism absent all hypocrisy (giving and sharing all but no violence or sexual harm). Heaven is governed by Love that is always harmless and always beneficent. As for being a Barbie, well I don't qualify for that. Anyway, her legs are too long for her body, not that I'm against long legs mind you.

      It's just that real girls shouldn't be given such exaggerated, unrealistic expectations. Setting up girls to fret about body shape actually makes their body shape worse in the end.

      God bless you, Alice.

      Tom Usher