Congressional Proposal for Extradition of U.S. Fugitives in Cuba 

On December 13 U.S. Representative Peter King (Rep., NY) and eight cosponsors filed a proposed House resolution calling for the extradition of U.S. citizens in Cuba who are fugitives from the U.S. That proposal will be summarized and analyzed below.

Contents of the Proposed Resolution[1]

The preamble of the proposed resolution, which was referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, recited that  “more than 70 fugitives from the United States, charged with offenses ranging from hijacking to kidnapping to drug offenses to murder, are believed to be receiving safe harbor in Cuba,” including William Morales and Joanne Chesimard. It also mentioned that the U.S. and Cuba have a bilateral extradition treaty from 1905 and 1926 and that “it is imperative that Cuba abide by its extradition treaty with the United States and immediately extradite or render to the United States those legally indicted or convicted of serious criminal offenses in the United States.”

Therefore, the proposed resolution called for the following:

  • “the immediate extradition or rendering to the United States of convicted felon William Morales and all other fugitives from justice who are receiving safe harbor in Cuba in order to escape prosecution or confinement for criminal offenses committed in the United States;”
  • the U.S. urging “the international community to continue to press for the immediate extradition or rendering of all fugitives from justice that are receiving safe harbor in Cuba;” and
  • “the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to continue to press for the immediate extradition or rendering of all fugitives from United States justice so that they may be tried and, if convicted, serve out their sentences.”

Analysis of the Proposed Resolution

The resolution may make for good publicity for these representatives, but it is a waste of time because the terms of the U.S.-Cuba extradition treaty bar such extraditions, because the U.S. repeatedly has called for Cuba to make these extraditions and because Cuba repeatedly has denied such requests under the very terms of the extradition treaties recited in this resolution.

  1. The Legalities of Extradition[2]

First, extradition is the legal process “by which one country (the requesting country) may seek from another country (the requested country) the surrender of a person who is wanted for prosecution, or to serve a sentence following conviction, for a criminal offense.

In the U.S., international extradition is treaty-based, meaning that the U.S. must have an extradition treaty with the requested country in order for the latter to consider the request for extradition. U.S. extradition practice is based almost entirely on individually negotiated bilateral treaties, which the U.S. brings into force following Senate advice and consent to ratification. The U.S. is currently a party to 109 such treaties. While most of these treaties currently in force have been negotiated in the last 30-40 years, many of the treaties still in force are quite old, in some cases dating back to the 19th Century.

For many reasons, however, not every request for extradition results in a fugitive being delivered to the requesting country. Sometimes the requesting state doesn’t know where a fugitive is located and makes multiple contingency requests for provisional arrest and extradition. In other cases, fugitives learn they are being sought and flee or go into hiding. Even following a fugitive’s arrest, court proceedings and appeals can last a very long time and can be delayed by fugitives’ exercising all possible rights to challenge extradition.

In addition, most such treaties provide specific bases on which extraditions can be delayed or denied. The obligation to extradite under a bilateral extradition treaty is not absolute and protections are included in the treaty to accommodate both U.S. and foreign interests. While the exact terms of such treaties result from country-specific negotiations and thus vary somewhat among the treaties, there are the following typical types of qualifications on the obligation to extradite:

  • An almost universal treaty exception, known in international extradition law as the “non bis in idem” doctrine, is similar to the double jeopardy doctrine under U.S. domestic law. It provides that extradition will be denied when the person has already been either acquitted or convicted for the same offense in the country from which extradition is requested, or, in some instances, in a third country.
  • A similarly widely adopted exception is where the crime at issue is a “political offense” (a term which can cover treason, sedition or other crime against the state without the elements of any ordinary crime, or which under U.S. law can cover ordinary crimes committed incidental to or in furtherance of a violent political uprising such as a war, revolution or rebellion, especially when such crimes do not target civilian victims) or a “military offense” (a crime subject to military law that is not criminalized under normal penal law).
  • U.S. treaties also typically provide that extradition may be denied if the request is found to be politically motivated. Some of our treaties provide that extradition may be denied if the request was made for the primary purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person sought on account of race, religion, nationality or political opinion.
  • Perhaps the highest profile exceptions to the obligation to extradite are bars or limitations in some countries on the extradition of their own nationals.   The U.S., however, makes no distinction between extraditing its own nationals and those of other countries and advocates that all countries adopt the U.S. policy due to the ease of flight and the increasingly transnational nature of crime.
  • Some U.S. treaties provide that if the offense for which surrender is sought is punishable by death under the laws in the country requesting extradition but not in the country holding the fugitive, extradition may be refused unless the requesting country provides assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out. Sometimes these provisions are included in the treaty at the insistence of our treaty partner, because many countries in Europe and elsewhere oppose the death penalty. Sometimes the U.S. insists on such provisions in order to retain sufficient flexibility to ensure that the U.S. is not obliged to surrender persons for execution for relatively less serious crimes.

Older U.S. treaties that were negotiated before the late 1970’s contained a list of offenses that would be covered. In newer U.S. treaties, however, this list approach has been replaced by the concept of “dual criminality,” usually providing that offenses covered by the treaty include all those made punishable under the laws of both parties by imprisonment or other form of detention for more than one year, or by a more severe penalty (such as capital punishment). Such a formulation obviates the need to renegotiate the treaty to provide coverage for new offenses, strikingly exemplified by the currently evolving area of cyber-crime. Indeed, to avoid having the dual criminality analysis applied too narrowly, most treaties provide further guidance, including that an offense is extraditable whether or not the laws in the two countries place the offense within the same category or describe it by the same terminology. A major goal in the U.S. current ambitious treaty-negotiating program is to negotiate new, modern treaties that eliminate the “list” approach in favor of dual criminality treaties.

U.S.-Cuba Extradition Treaties[3]

The issues posed by the new proposed House resolution are governed by the “Treaty between the United States and Cuba for the mutual extradition of fugitives from justice,” which entered into force on March 2, 1905. Under this treaty, as amended, each country shall grant extradition of persons covered by Article I for crimes covered by Article II, as amended and expanded by Articles I and II of the Additional Extradition Treaty between the parties, which entered into force on June 18, 1926 (44 Stat. 2392; TS 737).

The persons covered by Article I are “persons who, having been charged as principals, accomplices or accessories with or convicted of any crimes or offenses specified in the following article, and committed within the jurisdiction of one of the high contracting parties, shall seek an asylum or be found within the territories of the other: Provided that this shall only be done upon such evidence of criminality as, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged shall be found, would justify his or her apprehension and commitment for trial if the crime or offense had been there committed.”   However, under Article V of the treaty, “Neither of the contracting parties shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens under the stipulations of this Treaty.”

The long list of crimes covered by Article II, as amended, includes the following: (1) “Murder, comprehending the offenses expressed in the Penal Code of Cuba as assassination, parricide, infanticide and poisoning; manslaughter, when voluntary; the attempt to commit any of these crimes.” (2) “Arson.” and (3) “Robbery, defined to be the act of feloniously and forcibly taking from the person of another money, goods, documents, or other property, by violence or putting him in fear; burglary; housebreaking and shopbreaking.”

Under Article VI of the original treaty, however, the requested country is not obligated to extradite someone when the offense is of “a political character.” The exact language of this provision states, “A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if the offense in respect of which his surrender is demanded be of a political character, or if it is proved that the requisition for his surrender has, in fact, been made with a view to try or punish him for an offense of a political character.” (Emphasis added.)

The only limitation on this exception is in Article VI itself, which states, “An attempt against the life of the head of a foreign government or against that of any member of his family when such attempt comprises the act either of murder, assassination, or poisoning, shall not be considered a political offense or an act connected with such an offense.” (Emphasis added.)

Moreover, Article VI states, “If any question shall arise as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this article [VI], the decision of the authorities of the government on which the demand for surrender is made, or which may have granted the extradition shall be final. (emphasis added.) [3]

To have a better understanding of this treaty, it would be useful to see all documents regarding (a) the negotiation of the treaty in 1904-1905 and its amendment in 1926; and  (c) previous U.S. and Cuban requests for extradition.

U.S. Fugitives In Cuba

According to U.S. Department of State annual reports purportedly justifying the previous designations of Cuba as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism,” there have been or still are over 70 individuals living in Cuba who are fugitives from criminal charges in U.S. relating to violent acts in the 1970’s purportedly committed to advance political causes. Pursuant to a 2005 Cuban government statement, however, these U.S. reports also say no additional U.S. fugitives have been permitted on the island and in a few instances Cuba has extradited such fugitives to the U.S.

However, a U.S. newspaper recently asserted, “The U.S. has no idea how many fugitives Cuba’s harboring,” And on January 23, 2015, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (Rep., FL) and two other Republican Senators (David Vitter (LA) and Ted Cruz (TX)) asked the F.B.I. to submit a complete list of such fugitives with copies of their U.S. indictments, but a FBI response to this request has not been located.

In any event, one of the most notable U.S. fugitives still on the island is JoAnne Chesimard (a/k/a Assata Shakur), a political radical and former member of the Black Panther Party and the militant Black Liberation Army, who in 1979 broke out of a New Jersey state prison where she was serving a life sentence for assault, armed robbery and aiding and abetting the murder of a New Jersey state trooper. After hiding in the New York area, she fled to Cuba in 1984, where she was granted political asylum that same year and has lived ever since. According to her U.S. attorney, she “has maintained from the time she was arrested that she was a victim of a counter intelligence program by the FBI and that she was stopped on the New Jersey turnpike as result of her being targeted by FBI.” In May 2013 the FBI added her name to its “Most Wanted” list.

Cuba, however, before the December 2014 rapprochement had rejected U.S. requests for her extradition on the ground that Cuba had determined she was being sought on “political” grounds and, therefore, had decided to grant her asylum. In addition, there are also some indications that Chesimard/Shakur has been granted Cuban citizenship, which would provide Cuba with another reason under the treaty to deny a U.S. request for her extradition. It would be useful to know the details of all prior U.S. requests for her extradition.

After the announcement of  rapprochement, the two countries have discussed various extradition issues, including at least some of the U.S. nationals in Cuba who are mentioned in the new proposed resolution in the House of Representatives, including Chesimard/Shakur.[4]

However, after a bilateral negotiation session in Washington, D.C. in February 2015 Josefina Vidal, Cuba’s lead diplomat for these negotiations, said the issue of extraditing people between Cuba and the U.S. had been discussed many times in the past and that the two countries had signed a treaty on the topic in 1906 which has a clause such that it would not apply in cases involving political activities. “Therefore, Cuba has legitimately given political asylum to a small group of U.S. citizens, because we have reason to believe that they deserve this and that is how far we’ve gone. And when one grants political asylum, then you cannot get into these types of discussions.” She added that after the Cuban Revolution of 1959 the U.S. had not honored the treaty when Cuba asked the U.S. to extradite “members of the Cuban dictatorship who were responsible for terrible crimes.”

In June 2016, the two countries held another negotiating session in Havana focused on counterterrorism cooperation Afterwards the State Department merely stated that the U.S. “continues to seek the return by Cuba of fugitives from US justice” and that the Department “brings out the cases of fugitives to the Cuban Government to be settled and will continue to do so at every appropriate opportunity.”

Conclusion

As a result, the new proposed Resolution does not deserve to be adopted, and if adopted, it will not have any practical effect.

=============================

[1]  H.Res. 664, Calling for the immediate extradition or rendering to the United States of convicted felons William Morales, Joanne Chesimard, and all other fugitives from justice who are receiving safe harbor in Cuba in order to escape prosecution or confinement for criminal offenses committed in the United States (115th Cong. (Dec. 13, 2017). The co-sponsors are Representatives Leonard Lance (Rep., NJ), Bill Pascrell (Dem., NJ), Frank LoBiondo (Rep., NJ), Ron De Santis (Rep., FL), Albio Sires (Dem., NJ), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Rep., FL), Mario Diaz-Balart (Rep., FL) and Carlos Curbelo (Rep., FL).

[2] Extradition Has Become a Hot Topic for the United States, dwkcommentaries.com (July 26, 2016).

[3]  Issues Regarding Cuba and U.S. Extradition of the Other’s Fugitives, dwkcommentaries.com (Feb. 24, 2015).

[4] Criticism of U.S.-Cuba Law Enforcement Agreement, dwkcommentaries.com (Jan. 21, 2017).

 

U.S. and Cuba Hold Discussions About Human Trafficking and Migration Fraud     

Despite the significant cooling of relations, the U.S. and Cuba held discussions about human trafficking and immigration fraud at the State Department in Washington, D.C. on December 12.[1] This was the day after they held their biannual meeting about migration.[2]

The Cuban statement about the later meeting was short.  It said the two countries “reviewed the bilateral cooperation actions carried out in the period, updated on the trends of illicit trafficking of migrants and immigration fraud in the current bilateral situation and identified new actions that will favor operational cooperation in the future.” They a;so “agreed to advance in the prevention and confrontation of this scourge with the aim of continuing to reduce their negative impact on migration relations between the two countries, something that the authorities of both parties have been seeing since the adoption of the Joint Declaration of January 12, 2017.”[3]

According to Cuba,“this meeting is part of the dialogue on the application and enforcement of the law that both parties have to coordinate the confrontation of transnational scourges that affect the two countries. The meeting took place in a climate of respect and professionalism” and “both parties agreed on the usefulness of the meeting and agreed to hold the talks in the future.”

Surprisingly there has been no public notice of this meeting from the U.S. State Department or the U.S. media.

=====================================

[1] Cuba Foreign Ministry, Cuba and the USA Celebrate Meeting on the Illegal Trafficking of Migrants and Immigration Fraud (Dec. 13, 2017)

[2] U.S. and Cuba Hold Biannual Migration Talks, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 12, 2017).

[3] U.S.-Cuba Joint Statement (Jan. 12, 2017). This Joint Statement or Declaration was issued in the last days of the Obama Administration. See these posts to dwkcommentaries.com: U.S. Ends Special Immigration Benefit for Cubans and Meets with Cubans To Discuss Claims (Jan. 13, 2017);  Additional Reactions to End of U.S. Immigration Benefits to Cubans (Jan. 14, 2017).

 

U.S. and Cuba Hold Biannual Migration Talks 

Despite the significant recent cooling of relations, the U.S. and Cuba held their biannual discussion of migration issues, this time at the State Department in Washington, D.C. on December 11.

Migration Discussions[1]

According to the Department, the two countries “discussed the significant reduction in irregular migration from Cuba to the [U.S.] since the implementation of the January 2017 Joint Statement [during the last days of the Obama Administration [2]]. Apprehensions of Cuban migrants at U.S. ports of entry decreased by 64 percent from fiscal year 2016 to 2017, and maritime interdictions of Cuban migrants decreased by 71 percent. The [U.S.] confirmed it met its annual commitment in fiscal year 2017 to facilitate legal migration by issuing a minimum of 20,000 documents under the Migration Accords to Cubans to immigrate to the [U.S.] The U.S. delegation also raised the need for increased Cuban cooperation in the return of Cubans with final orders of removal from the [U.S.]”

The Department added, “A strong migration policy is vital to the [U.S.] national security. The Migration Talks, which began in 1995, provide a forum for the [U.S.] and Cuba to review and coordinate efforts to ensure safe, legal, and orderly migration between Cuba and the [U.S.]. The talks were last held in April 2017 [in the Trump Administration].”

The Cuban statement provided greater details on the substance of these discussions. It said “Cuba urged the [U.S.] to fulfill its obligation to issue no less than 20,000 travel documents annually to Cuban citizens to emigrate to that country. “Cuba also questioned the “validity of the U.S. Cuban Adjustment Act, which continues to be a stimulus to irregular migration and whose repeal will be essential to achieve normal migratory relations between the two countries.”[3] Another impediment to cooperation on migration, said Cuba, was the U.S. cancellation of “trips of official delegations from the [U.S.] to Cuba, which has led to the postponement of previously scheduled exchanges of mutual interest, which , if maintained,  could deepen the effects on exchanges in this and other areas.”

The Cuban statement also said that Cuba  had “expressed its deepest concern about the negative consequences that [U.S.] unilateral, unfounded and politically motivated decisions [in September and October 2017] have on immigration relations between both countries.”[4]

Furthermore, Cuba “warned . . .about the negative impact of the suspension of the granting of visas in the [U.S.] Consulate in Havana [due to the U.S. reduced staffing], which, by paralyzing the procedures of Cuban citizens to visit or emigrate to that country, seriously hampers family relations and exchanges of all kinds between both peoples.” Cuba reiterated its objection to the U.S.”arbitrary expulsion of a significant group of officials from [Cuba’s] Embassy in Washington, which has significantly affected the functioning of the diplomatic mission, . . . [especially] the services it provides to Cubans residing in the[U.S.]. . . . and] to American citizens who are interested in traveling to our country.”[5]

On a more positive note, Cuba observed that both side recognized “the positive impact of the Joint Declaration signed on January 12, 2017 [during the last days of the Obama Administration] and, specifically, the elimination of the “dry feet-wet feet” policy and the “Parole Program for Cuban Medical Professionals” in the decrease of irregular emigration from Cuba to the [U.S.]”[6]

In addition, both countries” agreed on the usefulness of the exchange between Coast Guard Troops and the Coast Guard Service held in July [2017]and the technical meeting on human trafficking and immigration fraud carried out in September [2017] which will continue on December 12. Cuba reaffirmed its willingness to give continuity to the rounds of conversations on migration issues.”

Conclusion

As an advocate for normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations, it is good to know that the two countries still manage to hold respectful meetings to discuss issues of mutual concern even though they do not agree on all such issues and even though this blog disapproves of the Trump Administration’s recent changes to U.S. regulations on travel to Cuba and trade with Cuba.

This blog was also pleased to read the U.S. implicit positive endorsement of the Obama Administration’s January 12, 2017, Joint Declaration with Cuba about the latter’s migration to the U.S.

On the other hand, this blog disagrees with the U.S. reduction of the staffing of its Embassy in Havana and the expulsion of Cuban diplomats from its Embassy in Washington and supports Cuba’s complaint about the negative consequences of those decisions.

========================

[1] U.S. State Dep’t, United States and Cuba Hold Biannual Migration Talks in Washington, D.C. (Dec. 11, 2017); Washington’s unilateral actions hamper relations with Cuba, Granma (Dec. 11, 2017)

[2] See these posts to dwkcommentaries.com: U.S. Ends Special Immigration Benefit for Cubans and Meets with Cubans To Discuss Claims (Jan. 13, 2017); Additional Reactions to End of U.S. Immigration Benefits to Cubans (Jan. 14, 2017); Reuters, Cuba Tells U.S. Suspension of Visas Is Hurting Families, N.Y. Times (Dec. 12, 2017).

[3] Cuban Adjustment Act, Wikipedia.

[4]  See these posts to dwkcommentaries.com: A New Travel Warning for Americans Traveling to Cuba (Sept. 19, 2017); Medical “Incidents” Affecting U.S. Diplomats in Cuba Prompt U.S. To Reduce Staff at Havana Embassy and Urge Americans Not to Travel to Cuba (Sept. 30, 2017); U.S. Orders Cuba To Remove 15 Cuban Diplomats (Oct. 4, 2017); U.S. Embassy in Cuba Issues “Hotel Restrictions” Security Message (Oct. 7, 2017).

[5] See n.4.

[6] See these posts to dwkcommentaries.com: U.S. Ends Special Immigration Benefit for Cubans and Meets with Cubans To Discuss Claims (Jan. 13, 2017); Additional Reactions to End of U.S. Immigration Benefits to Cubans (Jan. 14, 2017).

 

Cuban Scientists’ Assessment of Medical Problems of U.S. Diplomats         

                                                                                  Science, a journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, on December 5 published an article about the results of a Cuban scientific committee’s  study of the medical problems of 24 U.S. diplomats who had served at the U.S. Embassy in Havana. The Cuban committee’s 20 members are physicians, neurologists, acoustic scientists, physicists and psychologists.[1]

The Cuban study concluded that the diplomats probably suffered a “collective psychogenic  disorder” [disorder having a psychological cause, not a physical cause] and not a deliberate ‘health attack.’” Stanley Fahn, a neurologist at Columbia University, who has seen a summary of Cuba’s report, agrees that “it could certainly be all psychogenic.“

Another U.S. neurologist, Alberto Espay of the University of Cincinnati, who has read the Cuban report, said,  “The combination of sudden onset of hearing loss, tinnitus, headaches, vertigo, nausea, insomnia, anxiety, and memory problems would have to be related to multiple lesions in both brain hemispheres.” This comment coincides with the nearly simultaneous report of U.S. physicians who had treated some of the diplomats that their patients had abnormalities in the brain’s white matter tracts that normally let different parts of the brain communicate with one another.[2]

The committee lamentably was unable to obtain detailed medical data from the U.S. But it conducted audiometric tests on neighbors and domestic workers in the diplomats homes, examined environmental sounds and insecticides near the homes and recordings of certain sounds that were provided by the U.S.

One of the Cuban committee’s members emphasized that the findings were “provisional. If any evidence were available, they will  be willing to revise their conclusions and they are eager to team up with U.S. scientists.

==================================

[1] Stone, Stressful conditions, not ‘sonic weapon,’ sickened U.S. diplomats, Cuba panel asserts, Science (Dec. 5, 2017)  Many previous posts to this blog have discussed the issues raised by the medical problems of some U.S. diplomats; they are listed in the “U.S. Diplomats Medical Problems in Cuba, 2017” section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: Cuba.

[2]  Identification of Brain Abnormalities in U.S. Diplomats in Havana with Medical Damage, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 6, 2017).

Discovery of Brain Abnormalities in U.S. Diplomats in Havana with Medical Damage

A forthcoming article in the Journal of the American Medical Association describes brain abnormalities in U.S. diplomats who had been stationed at the U.S. Embassy in Havana Cuba and who have been suffering hearing, vision, balance and memory damage. The article is written by physicians at the University of Miami and the University of Pennsylvania who have treated the diplomats with input from the State Department’s medical unit and other government doctors.[1]

The abnormalities are in the brain’s white matter tracts that let different parts of the brain communicate with one another. But doctors still do not know how patients ended up with the white matter changes or how exactly those changes might relate to their symptoms.

U.S. officials also will not say whether the changes were found in all 24 patients. Most patients have fully recovered, some after rehabilitation and other treatment, officials said. Many are back at work. About one-quarter had symptoms that persisted for long periods or remain to this day.

U.S. officials have told the Associated Press that investigators have now determined:

  • The most frequently reported sound patients heard was a high-pitched chirp or grating metal. Fewer recalled a low-pitched noise, like a hum.
  • Some were asleep and awakened by the sound, even as others sleeping in the same bed or room heard nothing.
  • Vibrations sometimes accompanied the sound. Victims told investigators these felt similar to the rapid flutter of air when windows of a car are partially rolled down.
  • Those worst off knew right away something was affecting their bodies. Some developed visual symptoms within 24 hours, including trouble focusing on a computer screen.

Physicians are treating the symptoms like a new, never-seen-before illness. After extensive testing and trial therapies, they are developing the first protocols to screen cases and identify the best treatments.

Doctors still don’t know the long-term medical consequences and expect that epidemiologists, who track disease patterns in populations, will monitor the 24 Americans for life. Consultations with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are underway.

According to Elisa Konofagou, a biomedical engineering professor at Columbia University who is not involved in the government’s investigation, acoustic waves never have been shown to alter the brain’s white matter tracts.”I would be very surprised. We never see white matter tract problems” even though ultrasound in the brain is used frequently in modern medicine.

Apparently unconnected with this AP report, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson responded to a journalist’s question on this issue at a press conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium on December 6.[2] The Secretary said the following:

  • “We are convinced these were targeted attacks. We have shared some information with the Cubans, and there are two restrictions I’ve placed on sharing information. One is respect for the privacy of individuals and their medical conditions, and the second is not to provide whoever was orchestrating these attacks with information that’s useful to how effective they were. What we’ve said to the Cubans is a small island, you got a sophisticated security apparatus, you probably know who’s doing it, you can stop it. It’s as simple as that. So that’s what we’ve asked the Cubans. We understand the Cubans don’t like the actions we’ve taken. We don’t like our diplomats being targeted.”

Conclusion

This medical report should at least eliminate Cuba’s recent assertion that the U.S. was lying about medical problems being experienced by some U.S. diplomats. The report also casts doubt on the notion that the cause was some kind of sonic attack. But the report leaves open the broader question of the cause and the perpetrator.

Secretary Tillerson’s comments are not very helpful. The reported U.S. physicians’ conclusion of observable brain abnormalities for at least some of the diplomats apparently was reached only recently and leaves other issues unresolved. Therefore, even if Cuba has a “sophisticated security apparatus,” it should not be surprising that Cuba has not uncovered a cause or a perpetrator.

===================================

[1]  Assoc. Press, Doctors Identify Brain Abnormalities in Cuba Attack Patients, N.Y. Times (Dec. 6, 2017)  Many previous posts to this blog have discussed the issues raised by the medical problems of some U.S. diplomats; they are listed in the “U.S. Diplomats Medical Problems in Cuba, 2017” section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: Cuba.

[2]  U.S. State Dep’t, Press Conference at NATO, (Dec. 6, 2017); Harris, Tillerson Suggests Cuba Could Have Stopped ‘Targeted Attacks’ on U.S. Diplomats, N.Y. Times (Dec. 6, 2017); Assoc. Press, The Latest: Tillerson says diplomatic people were ‘targeted,’ Wash. Post (Dec. 6, 2017).

Former Salvadoran Military Officer Extradited from U.S. to Spain for Trial in Jesuits Murder Case 

On November 29 Inocente Orlando Montano Morales, a former Salvadoran military officer, was extradited from the U.S. to Spain to face trial in the 1989 murders of five Jesuit priests in El Salvador.[1]

On November 30 Montano appeared before Judge Manuel Garcia Castellón of Spain’s National Court, who sent the Salvadoran to prison for pre-trial detention because the Spanish probe showed Montano had taken an “active part in the decision and design of the assassinations” and because there was a risk he would flee the jurisdiction. (Montano arrived at the court by ambulance and entered the court in a wheelchair.) [2]

Montano is to return to the court next week for testimony in the case.

================================

[1] Reuters, U.S. Deports Ex-Salvadoran Officer to Face Trial on Massacre of Priests, N.Y. Times (Nov. 29, 2017); Faus, The United States extradites to Spain the Salvadoran colonel implicated in the murder of Ellacuría, El Pais (Nov. 30, 2017). Many previous posts in this blog have discussed the murders of the Jesuits and legal proceedings regarding this horrendous crime, including Spain’s case under the principle of universal jurisdiction and the U.S. proceedings for extradition of Montano; they may be found in “The Jesuit Priests” section of List of Posts to dwkcommentaries—Topical: EL SALVADOR.

[2] Reuters, Spanish Court Orders Prison for Ex-Salvadoran Officer Over Priests’ Massacre, N.Y. Times (Nov. 30, 2017); Assoc. Press, Salvadoran Official Jailed Pending Trial for Jesuits’ Death, N.Y. Times (Nov. 30, 2017); Pérez, Prison for a Salvadoran ex-military for the murder of the Jesuits in 1989, El Pais (Nov. 30, 2017).

Trump’s Despicable Anti-Muslim Tweeting Undercuts Islamic Allies 

U.S. and U.K. media have had full coverage of President Trump’s despicable recent re-tweeting  of anti-Muslim images and comments and his justified rebuking by U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May. [1]

Most of this coverage has focused on the source of the three videos that Trump re-tweeted (a far-right British political group) and the specifics of those videos: a fake Muslim attack on a Dutch boy; an extremist Muslim cleric’s  destroying a statue of the Virgin Mary; and a 2013 Egyptian political clash.

Surprisingly, however, another reason why this latest example of Trump’s outrageous ignorance and ineptitude should be condemned has not been mentioned. It undercuts the efforts of Islamic allies of the U.S. to combat the misuse of Islam by extremists.

As discussed in two recent posts to this blog, Saudi Arabia, a Muslim-nation and U.S. ally,  is leading a 41-member coalition of Muslim nations to do just that (Islamic Military Counter-Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC)). At the November 26 conference of this group, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said, “The biggest danger of this terrorism and extremism is the tarnishing of the reputation of our beloved religion… We will not allow this to happen. Today, we start the pursuit of terrorism and we see its defeat in many facets around the world especially in Muslim countries… We will continue to fight it until we see its defeat.”

Another speaker at that conference, Dr. Mohammad bin Abdul Karim Al-Issa, Secretary General of the Muslim World League, said, “This meeting confirms the resolve of an Islamic consensus, one that takes its true meaning from the Islamic values of peace, tolerance and moderation.”[2]

This coalition’s efforts were preceded by the similar efforts of one of its members and another U.S. Muslim-nation ally, Morocco. In 2016 Morocco was the leader and the host of another conference that created the Declaration of Marrakesh. [3]

That Declaration recognized that “several predominantly Muslim countries [in recent years] have witnessed brutal atrocities inflicted upon longstanding religious minorities. These minorities have been victims of murder, enslavement, forced exile, intimidation, starvation, and other affronts to their basic human dignity. Such heinous actions have absolutely no relation whatsoever to the noble religion of Islam, regardless of the claims of the perpetrators who have used Islam’s name to justify their actions: any such aggression is a slander against God and His Messenger of Mercy as well as a betrayal of the faith of over one billion Muslims.”

===================================

[1] E.g., Specia, The Stories Behind Three Anti-Muslim Videos Shared by Trump, N.Y. Times (Nov. 29, 2017); Sparrow, Theresa May says Trump retweeting Britain First was ‘wrong thing to do’—Politics live, Guardian (Nov. 30, 2017) (video of Prime Minister’s comments); Baker & Sullivan, Trump Shares Inflammatory Anti-Muslim Videos, and Britain’s Leader Condemns Them, N.Y. Times (Nov. 29, 2017); Bilefsky & Castle, British Far-Right Group Exults Over Attention From Trump, N.Y. Times (Nov. 29, 2017).

[2] MUSLIM NATIONS LEAD ACTION AGAINST TERRORISM, dwkcommentaries.com (Nov. 25, 2017); Muslim Nations Embrace Counter-Terrorism Coalition, dwkcommentaries.com (Nov. 27, 2017).

[3] Morocco Promotes Moderate Islam with the Declaration of Marrakesh, dwkcommentaries.com (May 21, 2017).