Sen. Torricelli Played Key Role in Closing Down CIA Ops

WASHINGTON - Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., led congressional efforts in the mid-1990s that handcuffed the CIA's abilities to recruit spies - a key policy that helped allow the attacks of Sept. 11 to take place with no intelligence warnings. Current and former CIA operatives say that Clinton administration policies, which forbade the CIA from recruiting known terrorists and other criminals, left the U.S. government bereft of all intelligence about such terrorist groups.

In 1995, then-Rep. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., made secrets public at the behest of left-wing activist Bianca Jagger, his girlfriend at the time, according to Newark Star-Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine in the January/February issue of Heterodoxy.

The secrets suggested that the CIA had on its payroll one or more unsavory characters who had been involved in murder.

Torricelli gave away secrets he obtained through his membership on the House Intelligence Committee.

This so outraged then-Speaker Newt Gingrich that he tried to have the New Jersey Democrat kicked off the panel.

Later, Torricelli was criticized in a committee report for having compromised American intelligence-gathering abilities around the world, adding that numerous CIA sources had decided to stop giving information for fear they would be outed by a congressman.

At the time, Torricelli's activities and leaks against the CIA garnered a large amount of press attention.

Mulshine’s article showed how Torricelli’s action in giving away the name of a CIA source in Guatemala was based not on fact, but on a conspiracy theory of "the loony left,” as Heterodoxy later characterized it.

The lawmaker was accused of having leaped to a number of inaccurate conclusions about the CIA’s role in the deaths of an American hotel owner named Michael DeVine and a Guatemalan guerilla named Efrain Bamaca Velazquez.

In its 1997 report, the House Intelligence Committee had this to say about the antics of Torricelli, by then a senator:

"None of the allegations raised by Rep. Torricelli in the March 22, 1995 letter to the president [Clinton] or subsequent public statements concerning the involvement of the CIA in the DeVine and Bamaca deaths in Guatemala have proved true.”

Still, Torricelli efforts paid off with the Clinton administration, which moved to ban the use of spies or the recruitment of spies that had any involvement with criminals or terrorists.

This looks interesting, worth clipping.

From Google cache of cubavsbloqueo.cu

The Torricelli Law is sanctioned

(Excerpts of the book written by the uruguayan lawyer, Alberto Caymares)

The project or projects were introduced at the U.S. Congress 102 Session, by Robert Torricelli, New Jersey's representative, and senator Bob Graham.

The first version definitively differs from the one approved. In some cases the difference is purely semantic, in others, it's profound; and in this last situation, the difference lays either on the open concealment of intentions, or on the sanctions to the new dispositions, which shows the same toughness but look less rude in its political formulation.

The project's whereabouts and its result will be explained in order to present a more reliable history of its sanctioning and to achieve a better understanding of the Law's political intention.

It's sanctioning: On October 23, 1992, the Torricelli Law , sanctioned at the U.S. Congress, was enacted by ex- president George Bush in the middle of an electoral campaign, with the intention, among others, to gain Florida's vote.

According to Buenos Aires newspaper, "Página 12" (10/24/94), Bill Clinton, a presidential candidate, did not remain behind. He said to feel himself "proud" of passing the Bill; and declared it was an important date to the Cuban democracy cause.

The project had an introductory explanation of itself: "To promote a pacific transition to Democracy in Cuba" by means of the "application of appropriate pressures to the Cuban Government and the support to the Cuban people".

The year(1991) in which the project appeared, deserves a particular analysis; it was the year in which the Soviet Union was disintegrated, and the hope for the Cuban Government collapse was strong.

In this way saw it Andrés Oppenheimer in his book "The final hours of Fidel Castro", whose edition(1992) had the subtitle: "The secret story behind the falling of Comunism in Cuba"; which was changed in the 1993 edition into "The secret story behind the gradual collapse of Comunism in Cuba".

The discovery was made by the Argentine magazine "Humor" (Prisma, January-February, 1994), that emphasized the difference between both editions. And it is clear, in 1993 the imperial euphoria had already passed, although the Torricelli-Graham (Bob) Law was functioning with all the democratic and republican support.

Robert Torricelli expressed, with no amazement, in Section 2, part six of his project law: " The fall of communism in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the now universal recognition in Latin America and the Caribbean that Cuba provides a failed model of government and development, and the evident inability of Cuba's economy to survive current trends, provide the United States and the international democratic community with an unprecedented opportunity to promote a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba."

LEGISLATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TORRICELLI LAW

This Law was contained in a much more extensive law: Authorization and National Defense Law for fiscal year 1992, or as it was definitively denominate: Authorization of National Defense Law for fiscal year 1993.

It's in Title XVII, Section 1701 of the main Law, that it begins to be treated:

Title XVII, Section 1701:

Title: Cuban Democracy Act of 1992

The original text said: "Cuban Democracy Law of 1991". As it can be seen, there is no other difference than the syntactic one.

Democracy in Cuba. Reference to democracy, reproduced in Helms-Burton Law, which can be found in every declaration made by the U.S. President and U.S foreign policy government employees, is another aspect worthy of being highlighted

It is possible to set down that for the United States the terms of democracy and capitalism goes together, meaning that the shape of the political democracy is equivalent to the capitalist economic system.

This must be the reason why the U.S. government supported all the 70´s military dictatorships, and also conspired to overthrow Salvador Allende in Chile, just because he constituted a route to socialism within the classic bourgeois democracy form.

What interests U.S. in relation to these countries it's the conservation of their highly dependant capitalist fashion under its area of influence. In any way, according to the International Law, each country must choose the political regime it determines without interference from abroad.

LEGAL ORIGIN OF TORRICELLI LAW

The "Democracy in Cuba Act", came up from a U.S. state branch: the United States Congress, reason why, the attempt to regulate the political life of any other sovereign state, lacks absolute validity. It is as if the National Assembly of People's Power of Cuba, could sanction a norm pertaining to Miami, the state of Florida or to any other U.S city .

On this aspect Cuban lawyer Jose Peraza Chapeaux, expressed:

"With no caution, the norm values a foreign government, and assess its internal acts to the detriment of the sovereignty principle, that is the cornerstone of the contemporary International Law, without which it is unthinkable the existence of the international community, because the regulator of this community, because the International Law is, by its own nature, a right of coordination and not of subordination".

There is no other opinion on this matter; we do not know if there is any defending the extraterritoriality right of certain state's sanctioned legal norm to rule another country without its approval. The resolutions condemning the blockade, which were approved in the UN General Assembly, destroy any existing doubt".

SECTION 1704. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

"Cuban Trading Partners. The President should encourage governments of countries that conduct trade with Cuba to restrict their trade and credit relations with this country in a manner consistent with the purposes of this title."

The original text had the following subtitle: "Negotiations with other countries"; while now it goes directly to Cuba's commercial partners, meaning absolutely all countries negotiating with Cuba.

This disposition violates the Letter of the United Nations, GATT of 1947 and 1994 and that of the WTO of equal date.

On the other hand, there is an attempt to grant extraterritorial reach to a US internal law.

"Sanctions against countries assisting Cuba"

Sanctions. The President may apply the following sanctions to any country that provides assistance to Cuba: (A) The government of such country shall not be eligible for assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or for assistance or sales under the Arms Export Control Act.

Such country shall not be eligible, under any program, for forgiveness or reduction of debt owed to the United States Government."

"Definition of assistance".

For purposes of paragraph (1), the term "assistance to Cuba" means assistance to or for the benefit of the Government of Cuba that is provided by grant, concessional sale, guaranty, or insurance, or by any other means on terms more favorable than that generally available in the applicable market, whether in the form of a loan, lease, credit, or otherwise, and such term includes subsidies for exports to Cuba and favorable tariff treatment of articles that are the growth, product, or manufacture of Cuba; and (B) does not include -

v donations of food to nongovernmental organizations or
individuals in Cuba, or
v exports of medicines or medical supplies, instruments, or equipment that would be permitted under section 1705(c).

Applicability of section. This section, and any sanctions imposed pursuant to this section, shall cease to apply at such time as the President makes and reports to the Congress a determination under section 1708(a).

The sanctions

After threats and prohibitions come the sanctions for those States that do not accept the Law's extraterritoriality in terms of "cooperation", as it express it. Those are words with a police content. Those who do not "cooperate" with the international gendarme shall receive the corresponding sanctions.

The interference in third countries internal affairs is evident and, of course, this is condemned explicitly by the International Law

On the other hand, the Law defines meticulously what must be understood for assistance, so that nothing could escape of its control. Regarding this, we'll see an increase meticulousness in Helms Burton Law.

The exceptions

This control and its exceptions, say the Torricelli, will not be applied in case of donations of food, but listen! they must go to nongovernmental organizations (surely the so called dissident groups) or physical people who wont be other than those cooperating with the blockade.

It is well known that, from the blockade's very beginning, medicines, medical equipments, etc originated in the U.S. cannot enter Cuba nor any other country in transit to Cuba; but at present these are possible under the conditions we will see.

In order to demonstrate this hypocrisy, is enough to remind the three hundred computers seized by the U.S. Government to "Pastors for Peace", whose destiny were no other than some Cuban health care centres.

SECTION 1705. SUPPORT FOR THE CUBAN PEOPLE

All former aspects were related with the state of Cuba.

This section treats the "assistance" for the Cuban people. It is indicated in the text:

Provisions of Law Affected. The provisions of this section apply notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 620(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and notwithstanding the exercise of authorities, before the enactment of this Act, under section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or the Export Administration Act of 1979.

This section is applied despite any other law or previous transaction, which implies an extreme inflexibility that is also directed to food donations or medical equipment sales which purpose is to benefit the blockade policy. Let us see:

"Donations of Food. Nothing in this or any other Act shall prohibit donations of food to nongovernmental organizations or individuals in Cuba."

"(c) Exports of Medicines and Medical Supplies. Exports of medicines or medical supplies, instruments, or equipment to Cuba as stated in Section 1705 (c)".

However, in this aspect of food and medicines donations, four exceptions are indicated. These are:

"except to the extent such restrictions would be permitted under section 5(m) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 or section 203(b)(2) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act

"except in a case in which there is a reasonable likelihood that the item to be exported will be used for purposes of torture or other human rights abuses;

"except in a case in which there is a reasonable likelihood that the item to be exported will be reexported; and

"except in a case in which the item to be exported could be used in the production of any biotechnological product."

But there is another important restriction in this aspect regarding the "assistance" for the Cuban people and it's the following:

Onsite verifications. (A) Subject to subparagraph (B), an export may be made under subsection (c) only if the President determines that the United States Government is able to verify, by onsite inspections and other appropriate means, that the exported item is to be used for the purposes for which it was intended and only for the use and benefit of the Cuban people.

And again there appears another exception:

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to donations to nongovernmental organizations in Cuba of medicines for humanitarian purposes.

Everything is easy to understand, reason why the readers should get their own conclusions. We would like to stop in one item: torture in Cuba.

The Law states that those medical instruments that could be used to torture, could not be exported and this conduct to reframe the human rights subject.

It is well known that Cubans that fought against Batista never tortured a prisoner.

And after 1959 they didn't do it against the mercenaries or dissidents.

That illegal and cruel practice was taught in Latin American countries by the U.S. through military training institutions, mainly as a result of the "North American experience" in Viet- Nam.

So, we can not recognize the U.S. moral authority to proclaim itself a bastion of human rights.

Let us see the licenses theme in order to go on with the other aspects of the Law, related with the "assistance" for the Cuban people.

Licenses. "Exports permitted under subsection (c) shall be made pursuant to specific licenses issued by the United States Government.

It means that in addition to all the exceptions, and the inspection in situ, it is necessary to ask for the respective licenses.

On the other hand, and with the purpose of not giving the least chance, all these specifications are present in the Law's original text.

It recommences the old project with:

(1) Telecommunications services between the United States and Cuba.

(2) Telecommunications facilities. Telecommunications facilities are authorized in such quantity and of such quality as may be necessary to provide efficient and adequate telecommunications services between the United States and Cuba.

(3) Licensing of payments to Cuba. (A) The President may provide for the issuance of licenses for the full or partial payment to Cuba of amounts due Cuba as a result of the provision of telecommunications services authorized by this subsection, in a manner that is consistent with the public interest and the purposes of this title, except that this paragraph shall not require any withdrawal from any account blocked pursuant to regulations issued under section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act.

(B) If only partial payments are made to Cuba under subparagraph (A), the amounts withheld from Cuba shall be deposited in an account in a banking institution in the United States. Such account shall be blocked in the same manner as any other account containing funds in which Cuba has any interest, pursuant to regulations issued under section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act.

In addition to the economic damages, there are also others, certified by UNESCO, in the sense that "the blockade decreed by the U.S.A. against Cuba seriously injures the education, science, culture and the communications causing with it severe damages to the spirituality of the Cubans". (6)

The Torricelli-Graham project was less severe, because it admitted the payments although with a certain ceiling (2), (a) and (B).

A paragraph no contained in this one, was added in the definitive sanction:

(g) Assistance To Support Democracy in Cuba. The United States Government may provide assistance, through appropriate nongovernmental organizations, for the support of individuals and organizations to promote nonviolent democratic change in Cuba

This apparently innocent paragraph replaces the original's long dispositions, in which appears a series of measures aiming to undermine the Cuban Government integrity. It contained referring sections to educational, scientific and cultural exchanges, specifying, in addition, the pursued aims:

A) "to promote a greater respect to the human rights".
B) "To promote practical and democratic values".
C) "To stimulate pluralism and the diversity of political points of view within Cuba".
D) "To promote the opposition pacific activities and the recognition of these".
Another section took care of the expenses of the "travellers" and another one, simply of "Attendance for Dissidents and Organizations of Dissidents in Cuba..."

1) "monetary Support to dissidents with no means to support themselves and their relatives";
2) "Support to print writing works made by dissidents in the U.S. and their distribution in Cuba.
3) "Provide with provision of paper and other means..."
4) "Delivery of radios and facsimiles..."
And then, (h), News Buroes. "the President shall permit the opening of buroes in the United States....."

Also from Google cache of cubavsbloqueo.cu

Tracking the Torricelli Bill

After months of redrafting the “Cuban Democracy Act of 1992,” Rep. Robert Torricelli ( D-NJ) introduced the proposed legislation on February 5, 1992 at a press conference where he shared the limelight with Jorge Mas Canosa, president of the Cuban American National Foundation, who participated in the April 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion.

As chair of the Western Hemisphere subcommittee, Torricelli issued a challenge to the Republican White House to update its Cuba policy.

Cuba bashing became a recurrent theme in the election year, principally to undermine Bush’s perceived foreign policy achievements and vie for contributions from the wealthy wing of the Cuban-American community.

The Torricelli bill seeks to extend and tighten the U.S. imposed embargo against Cuba. Among its many features, the bill includes:

_ the language of the Mack Amendment, which would end U.S. corporate subsidiary trade with Cuba ( 70 % of which is in foods and medicines );

_ calling on the president to pressure Western allies to enforce the embargo;

_sanctioning the Latin American countries that trade with Cuba.

_Stopping any ship that trades at a Cuban port from trading at a U.S. port for the following six months.

_U.S. government funding and supplying of opposition groups on and off the island.

The bill is further complicated by the inclusion of items which would seem to improve phone and mail service between Cuba and the United States. Since the bill does not address some of the outstanding issues between the two countries on these points _ namely authorizing AT&T to settle its 80 million debt with the Havana phone company _ observers believe that the language was put there more for marketing purposes within the United States.

Once introduced, the bill was quickly sent to six committees of the House of Representatives: Foreing Affaires, Energy and Commerce; Merchant Marines and Fisheries; Ways and Means; Post Office and Civil Service; and, Banking, Finance and Urban Affaires.

Upon learning that senior lawmakers on Banking planned to squash the initiative, Torricelli scratched a number of clauses that removed it from their jurisdiction.

On march 18; the House Foreign Affairs Committee convened the first of what would be three public hearings on the “Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 “. In perhaps one of the most telling moments in this whole process, the proceedings were delayed several hours when Mas Canosa’s private jet from Florida was late arriving. He, along with elected officials and State Department representatives, gave testimony at that first hearing.

According to information on record with the Federal Election Commission, Torricelli’s largest financial backer is the “Free Cuba” Political Action Committee, which is directly tied to Mas Canosa and the Cuban American National Foundation.

With his hands in one of the biggest campaigns chests in the House of Representatives, Torricelli denies any connection between donations from right- wing Cuban-Americans and his decision to introduce its embargo-tightening bill. Yet in the four years before Torricelli took over the Western Hemisphere subcommittee he received less than $2,000 from the “Free Cuba” PAC.

Soon after that figure jumped to the maximum $10,000 contribution, Rep. Torricelli introduced his bill. He was also handed an additional $16,750 from individual wealthy Cuban-Americans such as Mas Canosa and his wife.

On may 21, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House met to vote on the bill, having completed his hearings. Before the final verdict was in, Rep. Ted Weiss (D-NY) introduced an amendment exempting medicines, medical supplies and equipment from the U.S.embargo. Surprising everyone, the amendment passed (11 to 10). Reading the writing on the wall, Torricelli quickly adjourned the meeting and reconvened it two weeks later when ready with the ammunition.

Torricelli opened the June 4 session with a new clause to undercut Weiss’ humanitarian gesture, knowing that any country would soundly reject what he would be demanding of the Cubans. Tagged on is the mandate that a U.S.government official is to accompany every shipment of a U.S. medicine sale to the island in order to oversee the distribution of those goods.

After the amendment passed, Weiss tried once more to exempt food from the embargo.This time, with the cards stacked in Torricelli’s favor, that gesture was defeated and within 24 hours the Committee has approved the entire Act.

Over the next few months, without even bothering to hold hearings on the bill, the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, Energy and Commerce, and Post Office and Civil Service affixed their seals of approval to the bill, with the last two committees waving their jurisdiction over the legislation.

On September 10, the Act cleared the hurdle of the Trade subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, sending it to the full finance body.

The real blockade action came from the Senate side of the Congress. As controversial propositions sometimes do, the Torricelli Bill snuck to the oval office through a back door. First, Senator Bob Graham unveiled the bill in his chamber at the same time that Torricelli did so in the House.

The Committee on Foreign Relations waited until august before its Western Hemisphere subcommittee held a hearing and did little else until two weeks before the senators adjourned to hit the campaign trail.

At that time Graham made the entire bill a footnote to the Defense Appropriations Act _, which had already been approved by the House minus the blockade- tightening measures.

Without ever holding a full debate in the House, Torricelli and his Florida ally managed to shoot the bill straight to the president’s desk. It should be noted that in the 10 month legislative process, Torricelli repeatedly refused to meet with voters from his district opposed to the Act and his friendship with the Cuban American National Foundation.

Taken from: Cruel & Unusual. Punishment. The U.S. blockade against Cuba. Mary Murray, Ocean Press, 1992.

Cuba-Related Legislation

The first major piece of legislation of interest to the Cuban-American community between 1979 and 2000 was the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act of 1983. This bill allowed for the creation of Radio Marti, the Voice of America radio broadcasting system used to transmit news, music, and feature programming to the Cuban people in a non-censored format. The intention was to subtly undermine Castro's authority through a flow of free information to Cubans who wouldn't otherwise hear it. Although Castro immediately jammed the signal after its initial broadcast, the formation of Radio Marti was considered by CANF and Mas Canosa to be their greatest achievement to that point. The primary sponsor of what would become Public Law 98-111 was then-Senator Paula Hawkins (R-Fla.). Senator Hawkins received more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from the Cuban-American community (both individuals and PACs) during her term in office from 1980 to 1986, putting her among the top ten individual recipients of Cuban-American donations since 1979.

The second major congressional bill involving Cuban interests was related to the first. In 1989, Senator Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.) and Representative William Broomfield (R-Mich.) introduced the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act. It was passed into law in February of 1990 as part of a larger appropriations bill sponsored by Representative Dante Fascell (D-Fla.), but Hollings and Broomfield were equally instrumental in bringing it to fruition. The legislation was similar to the 1983 radio act, creating TV Marti. The new broadcasts had even more trouble than Radio Marti in getting through to Cuban citizens, but it was nonetheless important to the Anti-Castro movement, if more as a symbol than a practical tool. Senator Hollings, who has been in office since 1966, has received more than $94,000 from Cuban-American donors since 1979, putting him just below the top ten political recipients. Representative Broomfield, who served in the House from 1956 to 1992, received no identifiable money from the Cuban-American community. Representative Fascell, who served Florida from 1954 to 1992, received approximately $97,000 over those years.

The next two pieces of legislation are the two most important bills relating to Cuba since 1962. The Cuban Democracy Act was introduced to Congress in 1992 as "A bill to promote a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba through the application of appropriate pressures on the Cuban Government and support for the Cuban people." It was the pet project of then-Representative Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), and was sponsored in the Senate by Bob Graham (D-Fla.). When it was signed into law, the Cuban Democracy Act represented the first significant change in American policy with regard to the embargo since President Kennedy's adjustments following the Bay of Pigs. Like Kennedy's changes, the Torricelli bill dramatically tightened the economic restrictions on Cuba. It was designed to further isolate Castro in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union by prohibiting any foreign-based subsidiaries of U.S. companies from trading with Cuba. Additionally, family remittances to Cuba were outlawed, and U.S. citizens were banned from travelling to Cuba. Torricelli's goal was to cripple the Cuban economy to such an extent that it would bring down Castro "within weeks," as he stated at the time.

Although that did not happen, Torricelli has nonetheless received $255,000 from the Cuban-American community while serving in New Jersey as a Representative from 1982 to 1996 and a Senator from 1997 through 2000. Overall, Torricelli ranks as the second biggest recipient of Cuban-American funding. According to 1990 Census Bureau data, New Jersey had the second largest population of Cuban-Americans in the country, although it and all other states combined were dwarfed by Florida's total. The only metro area with a significant concentration of Cuban-Americans other than Miami is the region of New Jersey in and around Union City, which lies in Torricelli's old congressional district. Florida was the source of 78 percent of the total money contributed by individuals and the home of 71 percent of the donors. By contrast, New Jersey was tied with Puerto Rico for the second greatest number of the donors, and was fourth in total dollars. (The state with the second largest total donations from Cuban-Americans is Georgia, however all of that money came from just two families. Although not a state, Puerto Rico was the third largest source of campaign money from Cuban-Americans.) As a longtime New Jersey politician, Torricelli is clearly aware of what an important constituency the Cuban-Americans are, both in terms of voting power and campaign money. His legislative initiatives, voting record, and outspoken stands against Castro reflect that understanding.

Torricelli's partner on the Cuban Democracy Act, Senator Bob Graham, hails from Florida. Graham, who has served in Florida both as its Governor (1978-1986), and as a Senator from 1987 through 2000, is the sixth-biggest recipient of Cuban-American giving, taking in over $139,000 in his Senate campaigns.

The second of the two most significant pieces of legislation was 1996's Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act, better known as the Helms-Burton Act. Introduced in 1995 by South Carolina Senator Jesse Helms (R) and Indiana Representative Dan Burton (R), Helms-Burton was something of a retaliatory action. The Cuban military had shot down two unarmed U.S. civilian aircraft, alleging they had violated Cuban airspace. This event re-ignited anti-Castro fervor, and motivated lawmakers to once again make an effort to hasten his downfall. This for a second time translated into a tightening of the embargo, which Helms-Burton did to a degree that went beyond what the rest of the world was willing to tolerate. The act was designed to punish foreign companies doing business with Cuba by allowing U.S. citizens to sue international investors who make use of American property seized by Castro's government. Furthermore, any such foreign investors were to be denied entry visas to the U.S. This proved to be more than the international community could accept. Other nations saw it as an infringement upon their sovereignty and trading rights. Helms-Burton was criticized as a violation of both GATT and of WTO rules, and under threats of economic retaliation from the rest of the world President Clinton suspended enforcement of the most offensive provisions of the Libertad Act every year since it was passed into law.

Nonetheless, it was a crowning achievement for CANF and the anti-Castro movement to get the legislation through Congress. Helms and Burton are both staunch conservatives and friendly to anti-communist sentiments. Helms is the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee while Burton sits on the House Committee on International Relations. The pattern of Cuban-American giving to their respective campaigns dramatically reflects their sudden involvement in the issue. Burton, who has been in Congress since 1982, has received more than $61,000 from Cuban-American individuals and PACs, but nothing before 1990. After mid-1996, the flow reverted to only a trickle of contributions. Helms, who has been a Senator since 1972, has received more than $86,000 from the Cuban-American community over the period examined in this report. Fully 74 percent of that funding came in 1995-96 _ while Helms was running for reelection and the Helms-Burton Act was before Congress. Since early 1997, Helms has not received a single contribution from an identified Cuban-American. In recent years, Helms has softened his stance substantially on Castro and has shown some support for at least humanitarian aid to Cubans suffering under the embargo.

Aside from the politicians involved with the above-mentioned legislation, three other Representatives played important roles. They are the three Cuban-Americans currently in Congress, who generally represent not only their geographic constituents but the national Cuban-American community as well. Without question they are the staunchest of the Anti-Castro/pro-embargo politicians. Along with Torricelli, they are the top four recipients of Cuban-American campaign donations, and all four in the group tower above all others in dollars received. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R) of Florida has served in the House since 1992 and is the fourth-ranked recipient of funding with over $204,000. Robert Menendez (D) of New Jersey has also served since 1992 and comes in third with $240,000 in contributions. Finally there is Florida's Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R), who despite serving in Congress only since 1989 still ranks as the top individual recipient of Cuban-American money since 1979, having drawn in over $289,000. Collectively, the three Cuban-American Representatives have introduced many smaller Cuba-related bills over the years. Some of these have been symbolic statements against Castro and the situation in Cuba, while others have been larger, more stringent policy moves against the Castro regime which were too extreme to garner broad support in Congress. In all cases, these three have been dedicated supporters of the legislation outlined above and co-sponsors of those acts introduced since their elections to Congress.

The following charts illustrate the voting patterns in Congress with respect to recipients of Cuban-American political donations. The Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Helms-Burton Act of 1996 are shown in detail because of their contentious nature in Congress. The TV Marti act of 1990 was unanimously approved in both the House and Senate, and therefore no vote correlation is possible. The Radio Marti act of 1983 was approved by voice vote in the Senate, and although it was debated in the House and passed 302-109, the money involved in 1983 proved insignificant.

Comparing those legislators who voted to approve the Cuban Democracy Act and the Helms-Burton Act with those who did not, it's clear that those who voted `yes' received much more money from the Cuban-American community on average. However, the most striking detail is that those law-makers who received no money at all voted in the same pattern as those who did. This calls into question whether the campaign money had any influence on the eventual result.

In the case of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, House members with contributions from Cuban-American individuals or the Free Cuba PAC voted 5:1 in favor of the bill. Those who received no money supported it by a 3:1 margin. The correlation was stronger among Democrats; Republicans were only slightly more likely to vote for the bill after receiving contributions. In the Senate the money made no difference, as the bill passed by unanimous consent.

Four years later, when the Helms-Burton Act came up for a vote, the money appeared to have virtually no effect in either house of Congress. The bill passed by a 4:1 margin in the House and by nearly as wide a margin in the Senate. While Democrats were less likely to support the bill than Republicans, the fact that they received campaign contributions from Cuban-Americans made virtually no difference in how they voted.

THE CUBA OBSESSION

by Jane Franklin

[Published in The Progressive, July 1993]

Two days before the inauguration of President Bill Clinton, The Miami Herald reported that prominent Cuban American attorney Mario Baeza, partner in the prestigious Manhattan firm Debevoise & Plimpton, was about to be nominated to the post of Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs. The next day, Baeza's name was crossed off the list of State Department nominees sent to Congress. Why? Because he had been zapped by the political machine of Jorge Mas Canosa, chair of the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF).

Word from Mas was enough to send three influential Democrats--New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley, Florida Senator Bob Graham, and New Jersey Representative Robert Torricelli--scurrying to President-elect Clinton, who obediently canceled the nomination. Although the pretense persisted for weeks that Mas Canosa's word was not absolute and the nomination was simply "on hold," María Echaveste, deputy director of personnel for Clinton's transition team, said on the day Baeza's name was stricken that he was definitely not going to get the job.

Who is this Jorge Mas Canosa with the influence to veto the President's first choice for the State Department's top Latin American post? How did he get the power to reshape the budding Administration's foreign policy?

In March, the Scripps-Howard Foundation gave its Service to the First Amendment award to David Lawrence Jr., publisher of The Miami Herald, for a series of columns he wrote after Mas launched a campaign against the Herald and its sister publication, El Nuevo Herald, in January 1992. Lawrence had editorialized against the so-called Cuban Democracy Act. Designed by CANF, the legislation to tighten the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba was about to be introduced by Torricelli and Graham. Mas denounced the Herald as a tool of Fidel Castro. Death threats and bomb threats followed against Lawrence and other Herald executives. Newspaper vending machines were smeared with feces. Recognizing that it takes courage to disagree with Mas Canosa, the Scripps-Howard Foundation praised Lawrence's "brave, balanced reaction in the face of threats both to his life and to his profession."

Last August, Americas Watch and the Fund for Free Expression issued a report about abuse of human rights in Miami, documenting a campaign of intimidation and terror and criticizing U.S. Government "encouragement, primarily through funding, of groups that have been closely identified with efforts to restrict freedom of expression." The "principal example," says the report, is money granted to such groups as the Cuban American National Foundation, led by Jorge Mas Canosa.

Why do Democratic political leaders like Bradley, Graham, Torricelli and even the President do the bidding of this man? Some people answer that Mas is a multimillionaire power broker whose organization donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians. For example, in April 1992, with his Presidential campaign grasping for money, Governor Clinton, in what The Boston Globe called "a Faustian bargain," attended a CANF-sponsored fund-raiser in Miami's Little Havana and announced to cheers, "I have read the Torricelli-Graham bill and I like it." He also declared that the Bush Administration "has missed a big opportunity to put the hammer down on Fidel Castro and Cuba." Clinton was rewarded with $125,000 and received an additional $150,000 at another CANF-sponsored event the same day in Coral Gables. Just before a key vote on the bill last September, Presidential candidate Clinton issued a press statement urging Congress to vote for it. Clinton's fee of $275,000 was cheap, merely half the $550,000 given by Cuban Americans to President Bush on October 23, the day he went to south Florida to sign the Cuban Democracy Act into law.

But there's more to this story than greed. Mas is just another in a long line of nefarious characters enlisted by Washington to overthrow Fidel Castro. In 1960, while Mas was a mere underling in the CIA plan for the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Eisenhower Administration was recruiting assassins from the top of organized crime to kill Prime Minister Castro. Evidently figuring that crime bosses were its best bet since they had lost Havana to revolutionaries and would be eager to resurrect the Playground of the Western World there, the U.S. Government hired Sam Giancana, John Roselli and Santo Trafficante Jr. to plot assassination upon assassination.

This matrix of machination was teaching a young Jorge Mas Canosa his lessons about democracy. Arriving from Cuba in 1960, he quickly became an expendable member of Brigade 2506, trained by the CIA to recapture Cuba. He was aboard one of the launches headed for the Bay of Pigs in April 1961. It never landed.

Perhaps Mas's first lesson in how to manipulate Washington came when President Kennedy, to placate Bay of Pigs prisoners released by Cuba, offered military commissions to Brigade 2506. Mas accepted the offer but soon chose to resume covert operations. As a commentator on CIA's Radio Swan, one of E. Howard Hunt's projects, he broadcast propaganda to Cuba, a profession he still pursues. Mas boasts that he "ran commando operations" against Cuba until 1968.

At that time, he used his acquired skills to change his status. With close ties to the CIA and other underworld outfits, Mas was ready for rapid inroads into Florida's corporate world. Acquiring ownership of Iglesias y Torres, an engineering and subcontracting firm he anglicized to Church & Tower, Mas rapidly became a multimillionaire, profiting especially from contracts with Southern Bell.

He cultivated such Florida Democrats as Senators Richard Stone and Lawton Chiles (who is now governor) and Miami House members Claude Pepper and Dante Fascell. But Mas has been a Republican stalwart since even before he became a citizen in 1981. When Stone lost his seat to Republican Paula Hawkins in the 1980 Reagan landslide, Mas was one of her main supporters. According to Raúl Masvidal, a CANF founder who later left the organization, Mas then "parked himself" in her Senate office.

The nexus of CIA, business, and politics made Mas a valuable instrument for the Reagan Administration when it took over the White House in 1981. Reagan's first National Security Adviser, Richard Allen, recognized right-wing Cuban Americans as natural allies in the escalating global war against communism. Allen was instrumental in creating the Cuban American National Foundation, a tax-exempt organization that provided Mas his springboard to national and international politics. Other founders fell away as Mas shaped CANF to fit the White House agenda. In return, the Reagan-Bush regime anointed him virtual president of the Cuban exile community, designating him the liberator who would "return democracy" to Cuba.

Assisted by the late Bernard Barnett, a major force in the Israeli lobby--the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or AIPAC--CANF set up its own PAC, Free Cuba, and the Cuban American Foundation, a lobbying arm for dispensing information and money. With White House support and his friendship with then-Vice President Bush's son Jeb, a Dade County resident, Mas could persuade Cuban Americans that he was their best voice in Washington. He could then parlay that role into more influence in Washington for a policy of continuing economic and political war against Cuba. CANF opposes all negotiations or indeed any contact with Cuba.

What about Cuban Americans who want to travel to Cuba, trade with Cuba, negotiate with Cuba, or establish diplomatic relations? If CANF is to be the one true voice of the exile community, other voices must be drowned out or reduced to static.

Already an influential radio commentator on two Spanish-language stations in Miami, Radio Mambí and Radio WQBA, Mas sought more avenues for his ideas. In September 1981, Allen and Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Enders announced plans for Radio Martí. One of Mas's pet ventures, this would involve the U.S. Government in broadcasting to Cuba at taxpayer expense. Congress approved the plan in 1983, and Radio Martí went on the air two years later.

In December 1987, Congress allocated the first money for TV Martí when Senator Chiles sponsored a feasibility study. Soon Congress was voting millions of dollars for this enterprise that began trying to broadcast to Cuba in 1990. As with all of Mas Canosa's exploits, these stations are models of self-promotion, linking the U.S. Government ever more closely to himself. The Presidential advisory board for both Radio Martí and TV Martí has had, since its inception, only one head--Mas Canosa.

Not that some voices haven't objected. Ernesto Betancourt is a prominent example. Appointed the first director of Radio Martí and militantly anti-Castro, he turned out not to favor tightening the trade embargo. He also opposed TV Martí because it violates international agreements. Fundamentally, he objected to use of Radio Martí as the voice of Mas. Betancourt was "reassigned" (and then resigned) in 1990.

CANF owns a radio station called La Voz de la Fundación (The Foundation's Voice), which it uses to attack not only the Cuban Government but also dissidents who favor dialogue with the Cuban Government. A typical message urges Cubans to get out the pans, take to the streets, and demand food, freedom, and the coming of Mas.

Emilio Milián, who used to work with WQBA radio, told CBS's 60 Minutes last fall that Mas demands either "applause or silence." When PBS scheduled a documentary about Mas and the Cuban American National Foundation in October, CANF's president, Francisco J. (Pepe) Hernández, tried to intimidate producer and writer Sandra Dickson. Three weeks later, Bill Clinton welcomed Hernández to a private meeting, along with Mas and a handful of other right-wing Cuban Americans from Florida, in a futile last-minute attempt to win enough votes from Cuban Americans to carry Florida.

When accused of buying influence, Mas responds repeatedly that the practice of U.S. democracy includes having a powerful lobby and being able to give "contributions" to political leaders. Where does CANF get its funds? First, it collects $5,000 to $10,000 (sometimes more) per year from its wealthy members. CANF also collects money from that same Congress to whose members it donates. In 1983, two years after the founding of CANF and at the initiative of the Reagan Administration, Congress created the National Endowment for Democracy to promote "democratic" institutions around the world. NED has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to CANF front groups--the European Coalition for Human Rights in Cuba, for example.

Since 1988, CANF and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service have maintained a unique arrangement, Project Exodus, which allows Cuban exiles from third countries to enter the United States if CANF sponsors them. The project increases the number of CANF supporters in the United States while coincidentally obtaining more grants of Government money.

Mas understands from his own experience that the practice of U.S. democracy involves covert operations, the underside of the law. He uses his underworld network to implement foreign policy against any group or nation allied in any substantive way with Cuba. His relationship with Cuban Americans Félix Rodríguez, Luis Posada, and Orlando Bosch is a case in point. Like Mas, all three were involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion and continued to work with the CIA.

Rodríguez brags about executing Che Guevara after he was wounded and captured in Bolivia by a CIA squad. In 1982 when rodríguez wanted to practice his "helicopter concept" against guerrillas in El Salvador, Mas introduced him to former Senator Stone, Reagan's special envoy to Central America. Rodríguez and Posada were the U.S. agents in charge of illegal aid to the contras in Nicaragua from Ilopango Air Base in El Salvador when Eugene Hasenfus's plane was shot down in 1987, exposing the operation and leading to the contra part of the Iran-contra scandal.

Posada and Bosch were involved in blowing up a Cubana passenger plane in 1976, killing all seventy-three people aboard. Bosch has also been convicted of such terrorist acts as a 1968 bazooka attack on a Polish ship in Miami and of sending death threats to the heads of France, Spain, and Italy for trading with Cuba. In 1983, Mas became a leader in a committee to intercede for the release of Bosch from a Venezuelan jail.

Did championing a convicted terrorist damage Mas's reputation? Not in Miami, which proclaimed "Orlando Bosch Day."

After Bosch was released in 1988, the U.S. Justice Department ordered his deportation, citing reports from the CIA and FBI about the enormity of his terrorism. At the time, CANF was supporting Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for Congress to succeed the late Claude Pepper in his Miami seat in Congress. With Jeb Bush as her campaign manager and President Bush appearing on her behalf, she won and took the campaign for Bosch to Washington. Jeb Bush and Senator Connie Mack, Florida Republican, also campaigned for his release.

Bosch was freed from detention in 1990 by the Bush Administration. Bush was CIA director in 1976 when Bosch, at the time a CIA agent, founded Commanders of the United Revolutionary organizations (CORU) to attack Cuban targets globally.

Former Miami city commissioner Joe Carollo, defeated for re-election after he crossed Mas, called CANF "a little clique of millionaires who have made a very profitable business out of combating communism but who really want to take control of the city of Miami." Miami, however, is only the beginning.

Jorge Mas Canosa's imprint can be found in every area of U.S. foreign policy that has any relation to Cuba.

In June 1991, eight of Dade County's ten Cuban American state legislators held a news conference to urge President Bush to demand that the Soviet Union jump through three hoops in exchange for U.S. aid: suspend aid to Cuba, remove troops from Cuba, and help "eliminate" Fidel Castro. CANF paid for a 1989 visit to Miami by Boris Yeltsin and later opened an office in Moscow.

During the 1980s, Mas mobilized against Nicaragua's Sandinista government in the Cuban American community. Oliver North's diary refers to Mas Canosa's secretary, Inés Díaz, and to Jorge Mas next to a notation for $80,000.

In 1986, CANF sponsored U.S. appearances by Jonas Savimbi, head of the rebel group backed by South Africa and the United States in the Angolan civil war, where Cuban troops were fighting on the side of the government forces and against South African troops who were invading Angola and occupying Namibia.

In April 1990, African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela called Cuba an inspiration and praised its love for human rights and liberty. When Mandela visited Miami two months later, tens of thousands greeted him at an anti-apartheid rally, but local politicians retaliated for his praise of Cuba by refusing any official welcome, leading to a Black-led tourism boycott of Dade County that lasted three years.

For more than a decade, Mas has been able to control local officials in south Florida. One of his power tools is Miami Mayor Xavier Suárez, a CANF ally who has sat in the mayor's chair since 1985. CANF's politics dominate the City Commission. As one of Mas's associates told The Miami Herald, "I can't believe it. You sit there and watch him deal with commissioners and he treats them like chauffeurs." Then he added, "If I am quoted, I will be destroyed."

On the level of state government, Mas is chair of the Free Cuba Commission, which advises Florida's governor on policy toward Cuba. Every official understands the consequences of not agreeing with the commission's advice.

Both senators, Republican Mack and Democrat Graham, follow the dictates of CANF. After Ileana Ros-Lehtinen became the first Cuban American in Congress, CANF last November helped elect a second one from Florida, Republican Lincoln Díaz-Balart.

CANF's influence in Congress is not confined to the Florida delegation. In 1988, for example, CANF helped right-wing Democrat Joseph Lieberman unseat then-Republican Senator Lowell Weicker of Connecticut. Weicker wanted to improve relations with Cuba. Lieberman, on the other hand, has joined Graham, Mack and Fascell on CANF's Blue Ribbon Commission for the Economic Reconstruction of Cuba, of which Malcolm Forbes Jr. is honorary chair.

Mas pays special attention to the two congressional committees with the most direct influence on policy toward Cuba: the foreign-relations panels of each house. Dante Fascell, who chaired the house committee until he retired last year, has been in Mas's pocket consistently.

In November 1988, Democratic Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island, chair of the Senate committee, and Torricelli, chair of the House subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs, separately visited Cuba. Upon his return, Pell called for "a more rational and normalized relationship with Cuba," and promoted dialogue. But in 1990, facing a tough re-election campaign, Pell met with CANF members and came out in support of tightening the trade embargo.

He specifically endorsed a proposal by Senator Mack to outlaw trade with Cuba by subsidiaries of U.S. companies operating in third countries (now part of the Cuban Democracy Act).

For his part, Torricelli told reporters after returning from Cuba that "living standards are not high, but the homelessness, hunger and disease that is witnessed in much of Latin America does not appear evident." Yet, by 1991, Torricelli was working with Mas to overthrow the Cuban Government.

After Florida, New Jersey has the largest number of Cuban Americans in the United States. CANF has built a Democratic political machine there with Torricelli as its key operative. Although he benefits from CANF's largesse, those contributions cannot be Torricelli's sole motivation. He is known for ambition, so speculation ranges from CANF's promise of help in any campaign for statewide or national office to the possibility of riches if CANF takes over Havana. Torricelli calls Mas his "good friend" who will go down in history as liberator of Cuba.

Torricelli collaborated with Mas to draft the Cuban Democracy Act with the goal of strangling the Cuban economy, including its exemplary health and educational systems, to bring about the downfall of Fidel Castro. Torricelli introduced this bill in February 1992 and made its passage his "highest priority." He refused to meet with constituents who opposed the legislation, though their position--shared with editorials in The Miami Herald, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, and many other papers--was hardly that of a lunatic fringe.

When Senator Graham introduced the bill in the Senate, New Jersey's Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg shocked many constituents by immediately becoming a sponsor. Democratic Senator Bradley soon jumped on board as well, and has continued to serve Mas. After rushing to Clinton with Mas's objection to Mario Baeza's nomination, Bradley was undoubtedly surprised by an outpouring of support for Baeza, including endorsement by Cuban exiles. He backed off after the damage was done, insisting that he had not torpedoed Baeza but merely put forward his own nominee. Who was his nominee? Bradley's penchant for secrecy prevented an answer, but an aide told me that "she's from Peru."

Last November, Mas added another Congressional supporter from New Jersey when Robert Menéndez won a House seat. With Mas and Torricelli sharing the platform at a rally last year, Menéndez, supposedly a liberal Democrat, bellowed that while the Government "may allow Cuban publications into the country, we in Union City will not allow them in our schools and libraries!" Rapidly emerging as CANF's point man, Menéndez has now joined Torricelli on the House Foreign Relations Committee. With Senator Bradley singing his praises, he is also one of five newcomers who have been designated as Democratic whips, in charge of mobilizing other lawmakers behind the party's positions.

In January of this year, another key Democrat in New Jersey "wooed" (to quote The Jersey Journal) CANF. At an affair arranged by Torricelli, Governor Jim Florio, facing a difficult re-election bid, met with some 35 leading New Jersey CANF members to win their support.

Yet even as some politicians rush to join his political machine, Jorge Mas Canosa is running into trouble. The Bush Administration at first opposed Torricelli's bill, the Cuban Democracy Act, because it outlaws trade with Cuba by U.S. subsidiaries in third countries--a provision certain to offend allies such as Great Britain, France and Canada. Bush approved the legislation only after Clinton forced his hand by supporting it. In November, the U.N. General Assembly delivered an unprecedented blow to U.S. policy by voting 59 to 3 (Israel and Romania joined the United States) for a Cuban resolution calling for a repeal not only of the Cuban Democracy Act but of the entire U.S. trade embargo which has lasted three decades.

The controversy swirling around the Baeza nomination amounts to another setback for Mas Canosa. A specialist in privatization, hardly a left-wing activity, Baeza has years of experience in dealing with Latin American trade and economic issues. Mas suspected Baeza would be soft on Cuba because he has visited the island twice. In addition, Baeza is an Afro-Cuban and is not a CANF follower.

Mas's triumph in this arena alerted many people, including the Congressional Black Caucus, to his power to implement right-wing policies that hurt not only Cubans but people here in the United states. Addressing Bill Clinton directly, New York Democratic Representative Charles Rangel wrote in The Miami Herald on January 26, "Mr. President, do not let yourself be intimidated by the bullying tactics of a pressure group motivated by racism." He urged sending "a clear message that right-wing, racist pressure tactics will not be allowed to determine whom the president chooses to advise him on a vital area of foreign and economic policy."

In another open letter to President Clinton in February, Rangel pointed out that as "a compassionate nation, we should not be associated with the denial of humanitarian goods, such as food and medicine, to the Cuban people." Clinton replied that he believes "the Cuban Democracy Act is a step in the right direction," his standard reaction.

Rangel responded by introducing the "Free Trade with Cuba Act," legislation that would end the U.S. trade embargo. He is urging Congress "to change our Cuba policy to reflect the new world political realities as well as our own domestic economic priorities."

However, the Clintons themselves have a family connection to right-wing Cuban Americans. Hillary Rodham Clinton's brother Hugh is married to María Victoria Arias, a Republican who mobilized for Clinton in Florida with groups such as Cuban American Women for Clinton. Hugh Rodham and Hillary's other brother, Tony, also worked for Clinton among Republican Cubans. They expect more Cubans to switch parties now that Clinton has the Presidency.

But the worsening economic situation in Cuba is forcing a change in the Cuban exile community that will have far-reaching effects. Previously, the Cuban people had plenty of food and medicine; their health-care system has been internationally recognized as the best in the Third World. Now, however, many Cuban Americans are deeply concerned about their relatives' and friends' suffering under the U.S. embargo promoted by CANF. A popular sign carried in demonstrations against the embargo asks, TORRICELLI, DO YOU HAVE FAMILY IN CUBA?

These demonstrations are part of a movement in open defiance of Jorge Mas Canosa and the bullying tactics of CANF. Despite a snowstorm last February 26, hundreds of Cuban Americans gathered in Washington to protest the embargo. Andrés Gómez, head of the Antonio Maceo Brigade, presented a petition against the embargo signed by 35,000 Cuban Americans from Miami. As Patricia Duarte wrote in New York Newsday on February 9, "If Baeza does favor opening up a relationship with Cuba, he's not alone. I suspect many Cubans of my generation feel the same way--though they may remain silent for fear of retribution from CANF. And that is a tragedy."

CANF's tactics have even alienated one of Mas Canosa's closest colleagues, Armando Valladares. After months of simmering conflict, a definitive split occurred when CANF scheduled a night of prayer for the people of Cuba on May 24 of this year, the same night the Valladares Foundation was hosting a fund-raising concert at the Kennedy Center in Washington. In April, Valladares resigned from CANF's Blue Ribbon Commission and sent this message to CANF: "Please do not use my name as a member of the committee for any reception or activity affiliated to the Cuban American National Foundation."

Mas continues preparations for taking his brand of democracy to Cuba. CANF has founded Misión Martí, its version of the Peace Corps, with missioners trained in a semester-long course on how to manage post-Castro Cuba for capitalism. Cuban Americans have graduated from sessions in Florida, New York and New Jersey, and are ready to serve when activated.

Mas is a master of pulling strings, a puppeteer who parlays money into influence and influence into money and power. In a current money-raising, power-grabbing gambit, he is collecting $25,000 each from businesspeople who want to be on the first ship to Havana "after the fall of Castro." Backers include the huge investment banking company of Lazard Freres headed by Felix Rohatyn (a major contributor to the Clinton Presidential campaign), Citibank, Bell South, General Cigar, Hyatt Hotels, and the Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, all looking forward to "returning democracy to Cuba."

When did Cuba have this democracy which can be returned? In 1898, when the United States intervened in the Cuban War of Independence to turn Cuba into a neo-colony? In 1901, when a U.S.-arranged election was won by a counterpart Mas often cites, Tomás Estrada Palma, who soon had to call for U.S. military intervention? In 1952, when the United States supported a coup by General Fulgencio Batista just in time to stop elections?

A right-wing multimillionaire at the head of Cuba's government would of course please U.S. financiers. But on the island,

few--even among the dissidents--want Jorge Mas Canosa for president. It was, after all, the reign of men like Mas that drove the Cuban people to revolution.

AL QUEDA BENEFITS FROM 2 DEMOCRATS

Congressional Oversight and the Crippling of the CIA
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Liberal Democrat Joseph Biden voted in 1974 to ban all covert operations
Liberal Democrat Senator Robert Torricelli led the charge to prevent the CIA from hiring unsavory spies.
Those two are the first to criticize,and the last to accept responsibility, for their actions that caused failed U. S. policies and practices.

One utterly predictable response to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington were calls by members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to “shake-up” the Central Intelligence Agency. Some committee members want to see CIA Director George Tenet replaced, others are demanding radical changes in both the analytical and operational divisions of the agency. It would be shortsighted for the intelligence committees to place the blame for this latest intelligence failure exclusively on the CIA’s management. If the committees are interested in genuine reform, they would do well to begin by acknowledging their own culpability in crippling the agency. Under both Democratic and Republican chairmen, the intelligence committees have transformed the CIA into the functional equivalent of the Department of Agriculture, preventing the agency from acting in a shrewd and, as is sometimes necessary, ruthless manner. Any “reform” is doomed to fail if Congress continues to play its role as a partner, if not outright “owner,” in the management of the CIA.

The story of how the executive branch lost its control over the CIA is well known, but deserves a retelling, since it is often presented incompletely. In the aftermath of Vietnam, Watergate, and revelations of CIA assassination plots and domestic spying, Congress moved in the mid-1970s to “reassert” its role in shaping American foreign policy, including the most controversial tool of that policy, covert action. Secrecy was seen as antithetical to the American way, and there was widespread agreement that “rogue” agencies such as the CIA were a threat to liberty. Proponents of congressional intelligence oversight argued that openness and accountability were the cornerstone of a legitimate foreign policy, and it was believed that Congress, due to its diversity of opinion, possessed greater wisdom than the executive branch. Spurred on by the sensational revelations of the Church Committee hearings in the Senate and the Pike Committee in the House, both bodies established permanent intelligence committees.

It is still widely believed that the Church and Pike reforms were an attempt to cure a “cancerous” growth on the Constitution that had developed during the Cold War, an era which witnessed an increasing reliance on executive secrecy and the creation of a “private army” for the president in the form of the CIA. Senator Frank Church and his allies claimed that an assertive legislative role would bring the United States “back to the genius of the Founding Fathers.” This assertion was made despite the fact that American presidents from 1789 to 1974 were given wide latitude to conduct clandestine operations they believed were in the national interest. President Washington, in his first annual message to Congress in 1790, requested a Contingency Fund, or “secret service” fund, as one member of Congress described it. Washington was given this fund, in the amount of $40,000, a sizable sum in the early 1790s. The president was not required to report how he spent this money, he merely had to divulge the amount of money spent, without revealing to whom or for what reasons it had been spent. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln, all authorized clandestine operations out of this fund, and did not report the details to Congress. This pattern persisted until the mid-1970s with little or no change, other than the increasing size and bureaucratization of the nation’s intelligence apparatus in the twentieth century. The real aberration occurred in the mid-1970s when the United States granted its legislative branch the greatest control over intelligence matters of any Western nation, and overturned the system which had prevailed in the United States since the Founding.

The damage done to the CIA by this congressional oversight regime is quite extensive. The committees increased the number of CIA officials subject to Senate confirmation, condemned the agency for its contacts with unscrupulous characters, prohibited any further contact with these bad characters, insisted that the United States not engage or assist in any coup which may harm a foreign leader, and overwhelmed the agency with interminable requests for briefings (some 600 alone in 1996). The committees exercised line by line authority over the CIA’s budget and established an Inspector General’s office within the agency, requiring this official to share his information with them, causing the agency to refrain from operations with the slightest potential for controversy. The CIA was also a victim of the renowned congressional practice of pork barrel politics. The intelligence committees forced the agency to accept high priced technology that just happened to be manufactured in a committee member’s district.

On some occasions, members of Congress threatened to leak information in order to derail covert operations they found personally repugnant. Leaks are a recurring problem, as some member of Congress, or some staff member, demonstrated in the aftermath of the September 11th attack. President Bush’s criticism of members of Congress was fully justified, despite the protests from Capitol Hill. Leaks have occurred repeatedly since the mid-1970s, and in very few cases has the offending party been disciplined. One of the Founding Fathers of the new oversight regime, former Representative Leo Ryan, held that leaks were an important tool in checking the “secret government.”

In the wake of the September 11th terror attack, some legislators are now proclaiming their commitment to unleashing the CIA and rebuilding its human “assets.” Just a short while ago these same legislators were leading the charge to curtail the agency. One such convert is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden. The Delaware Democrat was one of seventeen Senators who voted in 1974 to ban all covert operations, and proudly noted during his 1988 campaign for president that he had threatened to “go public” with covert action plans by the Reagan administration, causing them to cancel the operations. Hopefully Senator Biden, and other congressional converts, are undergoing a genuine epiphany. Perhaps they now realize, as Henry Kissinger once observed about the Church Committee, that it is an illusion that “tranquility can be achieved by an abstract purity of motive for which history offers no example.” It is precisely this illusion which has prevailed in congressional circles since the heyday of Frank Church and Otis Pike. As Church himself once argued, the United States should not “fight fire with fire . . . evil with evil.”

Another convert is Senator Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, who led the charge in the mid-1990s to prevent the CIA from hiring unsavory characters. Torricelli rallied to the defense of State Department employee Robert Nuccio, who leaked classified material dealing with CIA operations in Guatemala to Torricelli, who in turn held a press conference and revealed the information to the media. It was these revelations that led to congressional restrictions on the ability of agents in the field to deal with “bad people.” Torricelli is now calling for a “thorough inquiry” into what he calls the intelligence community’s “stunning failure.”

There is almost universal agreement that the CIA remains overly reliant on technological tools in gathering information on very human, very political, problems. Yet Congress is partly responsible for this, for the intelligence committees (with the support of some in the executive branch, particularly in the Carter and Clinton administrations) were determined to keep America’s hands clean. Technology was safer -- it kept us at a distance from the “dirty stuff.” The sad reality is that a CIA operative with any hope of infiltrating a terrorist cell would need to demonstrate his bona fides in any number of reprehensible ways. These are unpleasant thoughts to contemplate, and they certainly do not fit our conception of the way the world ought to work. But America cannot have it both ways -- it cannot expect to deter an Osama bin Laden and keep its hands clean at the same time. Presidents need options short of war to handle this type of threat.

While the old CIA may have been noted for the “cowboy” swagger of its personnel, the new CIA is, in the words of one critic, composed of “cautious bureaucrats who avoid the risks that come with taking action, who fill out every form in triplicate” and put “the emphasis on audit rather than action.” Congressional meddling is primarily responsible for this new CIA ethos, transforming it from an agency willing to take risks, and act at times in a Machiavellian manner, into just another sclerotic Washington bureaucracy. This cautious, legalistic attitude has crippled the agency’s effectiveness and will not change unless the oversight committees of Congress acknowledge the uniquely executive character of intelligence and covert operations, and start to dismantle the cumbersome oversight apparatus erected during the last twenty five years.

Ultimately, the CIA’s ineffectiveness stems from the fact that it is, as its former Director Robert Gates observed, “in a remarkable position, involuntarily poised nearly equidistant between the executive and legislative branches.” In becoming a partner (if not outright owner) of the CIA, Congress has put itself in the uncomfortable position of having to approve of objectionable measures. This most democratic branch of government is simply not designed to make the tough and often distasteful decisions that are required of nations competing in the international arena.

The response to the disaster of September 11th starkly reveals that members of Congress are quite adept at invoking “plausible deniability.” They are often the first to criticize, and the last to accept responsibility, for failed U. S. policies and practices. Oddly enough, a restoration of executive control of intelligence could increase the potential that the president, or his immediate deputies, would be held responsible for the successes and failures of the intelligence community. But this is a secondary consideration, for only by restoring the executive branch’s power to move with “secrecy and dispatch,” and to control the “business of intelligence,” as Alexander Hamilton and John Jay put it in The Federalist, will the nation be able to deter and defeat its enemies.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.