II segundo caso Casos de auto agresión en la prisión cubana II
CENTRO ANTICOMUNISTA
Subject: Casos de auto agresión en la prisión cubana II
--
Casos de auto agresión en la prisión
cubana II
3
diciembre de 2005 / PayoLibre
El 24 de julio de 2005, el prisionero Oscar Luis Fernández Hernández “General”, se hace una herida en la barriga con una cuchilla y luego se introduce un alambre por la herida. Al día siguiente (25), el jefe de orden interior Tidier Fundora Pérez y el jefe del grupo Eddy Nelson Domenech lo amarran fuertemente por manos y pies. Este prisionero, hijo de Moisés Alfonso Hernández Ledesma y Juana Hernández Suárez y con domicilio en Calle 11 Este, #8, Siguaney, Sancti Spiritus, se auto agrede en reclamo de sus beneficios y en reclamo de suspensión de su destierro.
El 27 de julio de 2005, se inyecta petróleo en ambos brazos el prisionero de Camagüey, Gervis Castellano Sánchez, y luego se corta en el brazo derecho porque le niegan la asistencia médica en el hospital, por no poder soportar el atroz dolor. El día siguiente (28), el preso político Leoncio Rodríguez Ponce ve abundante sangre en la galera, enterándose así como del hecho y verificándolo con el mismo Castellano Suárez.
El 9 de agosto de 2005, se auto agrede en un brazo el prisionero natural de Camagüey Ernesto Estrada Rosa. Las autoridades no le brindan asistencia médica.
Denuncia
desde la prisión Kilo 8, Camagüey, Leoncio Rodríguez
Ponce.
Reportó
Marielis Castro Fernández-Rubio, delegada del PD-30-N Frank País, provincia de
Guantánamo.
Otros titulares en www.PayoLibre.com
Santa Clara
amanece con un nuevo cartel
antigubernamental, por Alain Ramón Gómez Ramos
Santa Clara –
www.PayoLibre.com – La
ciudad de Santa Clara amaneció el pasado lunes con la presencia de un nuevo
cartel antigubernamental que manifiesta el descontento con su presidente
Fidel Castro.
Agredido y
lesionado abogado independiente
santaclareño, por Benito Key
Santa Clara – www.PayoLibre.com – El
abogado independiente Regino Vázquez Vega, fue
agredido con un madero en áreas aledañas al estadio beisbolero santaclareño Augusto César Sandino, el pasado 28 de
noviembre.
Céntrico parque
santaclareño se encuentra en abandono, por
Alain Ramón Gómez Ramos
Santa Clara –
www.PayoLibre.com – El
céntrico parque santaclareño “Los mártires”, se
encuentra en abandono tras el paso del tiempo y la negligencia de los
encargados del lugar.
Sin transporte
urbano barrio santaclareño, por Julio Sánchez
Hernández
Santa Clara – www.PayoLibre.com – Más
de 6 mil personas quedaron sin transporte urbano por falta de ómnibus y
combustible el pasado 28 de noviembre en el reparto “José Martí” de Santa
Clara.
Devuelto reo de
conciencia hacia prisión camagüeyana, por
Guillermo Fariñas
Santa Clara – www.PayoLibre.com – El
afamado reo de conciencia Jorge Luis García
Pérez (Antúnez), fue devuelto a una prisión camagüeyana al no ser aceptado
por las autoridades penitenciarias de la provincia Villa Clara, el 27 de
noviembre último.
CAMPAÑA CUBANA POR LA LIBERTAD DE
LOS PRISIONEROS POLÍTICOS
"Acuérdate de los
presos como si tú también lo estuvieras".
Hebreos 13-3
Si no desea recibir correos de esta dirección haga “REPLY” con las palabras DAR BAJA escrita en Asunto (Subject) y su cuenta será eliminada de esta base de datos.
Super User For Ever
> Y Bolivar dijo eso de verdad???....
In 1819 Simon Bolivar observed that, "The USA appears destined by fate
to plague America with misery in the name of democracy."
Published on Friday, December 16, 2005 by the CommonDreams.org
Misery in the Name of Democracy: The US Works Elections in Iraq,
Venezuela, Bolivia, and Haiti
by Yifat Susskind
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1216-21.htm
The Bush Administration is touting Iraq's December 15 election as a
giant leap forward for freedom guaranteed to ignite fervor for democracy
across the entire Middle East. But closer to home, the Administration
has discovered that democracy has created a monster and that the monster
is democracy. In Latin America and the Caribbean, popular movements are
demanding that the United States' "gift to the world" make good on its
promise of majority rule. That would likely disrupt a system-otherwise
known as "free-market democracy"-that has benefited a small elite and
worsened poverty for most people. The possibility has so alarmed CIA
Director Porter Goss that he recently labeled the spate of upcoming
elections in Latin America as a "potential area of instability."
The Bush Administration is fighting back, stepping up USAID's "democracy
promotion" program to ensure that those who have long had a monopoly on
wealth continue to exercise a monopoly on government. The program's main
targets in this hemisphere are Venezuela, Bolivia, and Haiti. National
elections in these countries-all occurring within just one month of the
Iraqi ballot-provide a flashpoint for how hard the Bush Administration
is working to keep democracy out of the wrong hands, both in this
hemisphere and in Iraq.
Venezuela
On December 4, Venezuela's main opposition parties chose to boycott
congressional elections rather than face certain defeat at the polls. In
2002, these same pro-business parties-financed directly by the US
National Endowment for Democracy to the tune of about six million
dollars a year-resorted to a military coup to oust Hugo Chavez from the
presidency. The coup failed in less than two days because millions of
Venezuelans (including the lower ranks of the army) rallied to Chavez's
defense. Most Venezuelans continue to defend-and vote for-Chavez and his
brand of participatory, bottom-up democracy, which has mobilized
millions of citizens in national dialogues on governance, produced the
region's most democratic constitution (written in gender-inclusive
language recognizing women's unpaid work and guaranteeing a pension to
housewives), launched an ambitious land-reform program, and improved
rates of illiteracy, hunger, and infant mortality.
At last month's Summit of the Americas in Argentina, Chavez was a
lightning rod for widespread opposition to US-driven economic policies
that have further impoverished most Latin Americans. Afterwards, Bush
accused him of trying to "roll back democratic progress." Yet, most of
the world seems quite impressed with Venezuela's democratic progress,
even by the rather narrow standard of elections. Indeed, all eight
elections held in Venezuela under Chavez have been declared free and
fair by independent observers, including Jimmy Carter.
This is precisely the problem: despite the opposition's extensive US
backing, it can't beat Chavez at the polls. Democracy just isn't working
(says the only US president to be appointed by the Supreme Court after
losing the popular vote). For decades, Venezuela was controlled by two
alternating elite parties, both allied with US business interests (sound
familiar?). Most of the population was effectively disenfranchised and
elections could be counted on to confer legitimacy on a compliant
leadership. Now, Venezuela's poor majority has seized on the rhetoric
and procedures of democracy to win control of the state. This is what
the Bush Administration calls a crisis of democracy.
Bolivia
Bolivia is suffering from a similar crisis. When Bolivians go to the
polls on December 18, they are likely to elect Evo Morales to be their
first Indigenous President. Morales is a social democrat whom the Bush
Administration vilifies as a radical leftist and the US Ambassador
compared to Osama bin Laden. But Morales' platform is extreme only if
you consider policies that guarantee mass poverty and vast inequality to
be moderate. His platform reflects the Bolivian social movements' demand
for increased government regulation of natural resources and the
formation of a popular Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution
that would make government more inclusive.
Apparently incredulous that Indigenous peasants could be strategic and
organized enough to overthrow two presidents in two years (Gonzalo
Sanchez in 2003 and Carlos Mesa in 2005), Donald Rumsfeld says that Hugo
Chavez must be pulling the strings in Bolivia. Yet, it is the Bush
Administration that has meddled openly in Bolivian politics since the
Indigenous movement rose to prominence in 2002. That year, the
Administration publicly threatened to cut off economic aid if Bolivians
elected Morales. Since then, the US has steadily expanded its "democracy
promotion" efforts in Bolivia, pouring millions of tax dollars into
building a parallel, pro-US Indigenous movement and turning out public
relations campaigns for a series of doomed, US-friendly governments.
As in Venezuela, US "democracy promotion" in Bolivia supports a limited
notion of representative government enacted by pro-business elites over
more direct participation in government by the poor majority. The big
headache for the Administration is that Bolivia's Indigenous-based
social movement is playing by the rules, working within the system to
gain more legitimate representation within government.
Haiti
Two weeks ago, Haiti postponed its presidential election for the fourth
time in five months. With the vote now set for January 8, the Interim
Government (installed by the US after it helped overthrow Haiti's
democratically-elected President, Jean Bertrand Aristide, in February
2004) will hold on to power past its February 2006 deadline (just
imagine if Hugo Chavez tried that). Regardless of when elections are
held, conditions in Haiti make a mockery of democratic process. Yet the
Bush Administration has demanded that elections go forth.
Secretary of State Rice has hailed Haiti's election as "a precious step
on the road to democracy." But look closely. Haitians are being denied
the right to vote: only a few hundred registration and polling sites
have been created to serve eight million people (compared with 10,000
provided by the deposed Aristide government) and some large, poor
neighborhoods-with few government supporters-have no registration sites
at all. Haitians are being denied the right to campaign: the
government's potential challengers have been jailed on false charges or
no charges. And Haitians are being denied the right to organize: in
September, the government outlawed political demonstrations in violation
of Haiti's constitution; and anti-government protesters have been
repeatedly attacked by the Haitian National Police. The Bush
Administration fueled this repression by sending $1.9 million worth of
guns and police equipment to Haiti just in time for election season.
In fact, repression is the Haitian government's primary campaign
strategy. Since 1990, every internationally-validated election in Haiti
has produced a landslide victory for the Lavalas Party. Once the
standard-bearer of Haiti's pro-democracy movement, Lavalas-like its
exiled leader, Aristide-is a casualty of US "democracy promotion." After
US-backed forces ousted Aristide, the party splintered into factions,
including unaccountable and violent groups. Despite its flawed human
rights record, Lavalas would no doubt win again in January if its
candidates were allowed to run. The reason is simple: Lavalas is the
party of the poor and most Haitians are poor.
Far from supporting constitutional democracy in Haiti, the US has twice
helped to overthrow Aristide, who resisted Washington's prescriptions
for Haiti's economy by insisting on social spending for the poor. The
first time, back in 1991, "regime change" was still a covert business.
The US had to deny that it was sponsoring the military thugs that took
over Haiti and killed thousands of Aristide supporters (and poor people
in general, just for good measure). By last year, when Aristide was
ousted for the second time, things had changed. A Pentagon plane flew
him into exile. The US warmly welcomed the "new" government, including
remnants of the 1991 coup who are poised to win next month's sham
election.
Democracy in Iraq: The Freedom to Do What We Tell You
The first fact of Iraq's election is that it will take place under the
distorting influence of military occupation, precluding a free and fair
vote from the start. Iraq's "march toward liberty" has been marred by US
intervention at every step, starting with Paul Bremmer's 2003 decision
to appoint reactionary clerics to the Iraqi Governing Council. That move
has helped Islamists dominate Iraq's interim government and roll back
the democratic rights of Iraqi women-a majority of the population.
In fact, the Bush Administration has no intention of allowing a majority
of Iraqis to determine key policies. The Administration has tried to
avoid holding direct (one person, one vote) elections in Iraq, giving in
only because of pressure from Ayatollah Ali Sistani, a Shiite cleric who
wants Iraq to be an Islamic state. And Bush's two most important
objectives in Iraq-creating an extreme free-market state and maintaining
a long-term military presence-have been placed well beyond the reach of
Iraqi voters.
As in Haiti, democracy in Iraq is to be mainly a procedural matter,
demonstrated by periodic elections regardless of political chaos and
widespread violence against candidates and voters alike. And as in
Venezuela and Bolivia, the government that is produced by the elections
will be entitled to the label "democracy" only as long as it follows a
US policy script.
In 1819 Simon Bolivar observed that, "The USA appears destined by fate
to plague America with misery in the name of democracy." The Bush
Administration is intent on extending this destiny to Iraq and the whole
Middle East. Iraqis may be having an election this week, but the Bush
Administration is no more interested in genuine democracy in Iraq than
it is in Latin America and the Caribbean.
######################
Yifat Susskind is the Communications Director of MADRE, an international
women's human rights organization based in New York. She can be reached
at ma...@madre.org.