Jump to content
The Education Forum

A list of Castro agents ?


Recommended Posts

I thought forum members might find the following interesting. The news story is curious in itself but the associated list of Castro agents (which is referred to in the story) makes for some fascinating reading. One name in particular will jump off the page.

I present this not as an opinion but as a point of discussion. Interesting to note that several of the men listed were a part of the dialogue with Castro so strongly supported by Alfredo Duran resulting in him being asked to leave the Association of Brigade 2506 members.

James

********************

Miami News

January 31, 1980

Man Who Boosted Castro Talks Now Calls Him a ‘Beast’

Ana Veciana

Miami News Reporter

The controversial Hialeah minister who paved the way for the 1978 talks between Fidel Castro and Cuban exiles has done “a 180-degree turn” and is now denouncing the talks and calling the Cuban leader “an unscrupulous beast.”

The Rev. Manuel Espinosa, pastor of the Christian Evangelical Reformed Church, also said more than 6,000 Cubans have been imprisoned for political reasons since 1978 – almost twice the number of political prisoners who were to be released as a result of the “dialogue.”

Demanding Castro’s resignation, Espinosa called the exiles’ trips to Cuba “a farce of the Cuban government” and said he had names of several Cuban agents in diplomatic circles and working for Havanatur, the Panamanian-based travel agency which sells trips to Cuba.

Espinosa, who once advocated normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba, would not identify the Castro agents until a press conference scheduled at the Columbus Hotel today “for security reasons.”

Asked what caused his change of mind, the minister said, “It is not a change of mid. It is my true position. It has always been. Before, I had to disguise my true feelings in order to get close to the Cuban government and to get the freedom of political prisoners.”

In September 1978, Castro said Espinosa had influenced him to try to bridge the gap with Cuban exiles. A month later, the historic “dialogue” between exiles and Castro took place in Havana and both parties agreed on the release of political prisoners, the reunification of families and trips to the island.

Espinosa and other participants in the dialogue have continuously defended the dialogue from accusations by anti-Castro leaders that it is a farce. Dialogue participants have said the 3,600 political prisoners Castro promised to release were most of the political prisoners held in Cuban jails, while others say thousands of prisoners remain there.

The minister’s turnabout surprised the Latin community. Fellow dialoguistas of the Committee of 75 – the group implementing the agreements of the dialogue – said they could not explain the change.

“I’m shocked,” said The Rev. Jose Reyes, president of the Committee. “I don’t know how one day he can advocate and participate in our activities and then do a 180-degree turn and say something else. At this point, I’m speechless. I don’t know where he’s coming from. He never told me or any member of the committee about this. This is ridiculous.”

Another member of the committee, who asked that his name not be used, told The News, “I wonder what he is up to now. I heard the news on the radio and that’s how I think most other members heard about it. He hasn’t even had the courtesy of telling the committee.”

Anti-Castro leaders who have opposed the dialogue from its beginning in the fall of 1978 are looking at Espinosa’s turnaround skeptically.

“Is this some kind of joke?” asked Fico Rojas, press secretary for Brigade 2506, the Bay of Pigs Veterans. “I don’t believe a word that man is saying. He is speculating and banking on the emotions of the Cuban community. He wants the exiles to believe him but how can we when he has been hollering about the normalization of relations with Cuba since 1976?”

**************************************

92 Castro agents and colaborators publicly denounced by Rev. Manuel Espinosa

Aguilar Rodríguez, Raúl *

Aldereguía Ors, Salvador A.

Alemán, Orestes

Alfonso González, Carlos

Alvarez, Miguel “El Bizco”

Alvarez, Rafael

Alvarez, Ubaldo

Arrastía, Cecilio *

Barrera, Manuel

Benavides, Alberto

Benes Baikowitz, Bernardo *

Betancourt Abio, Rafael Juan * **

Bonich, Juan Luis

Capestany, Ada

Casal Valdés, Lourdes * **

Casanova Prats, Raquel

Castro, Manuel

Castro Lima, Roy

Concepcion, Rev. Raimundo O. * **

Contreras Bell, Miria “La Payita”

Contreras, Rafael

Correa de Arce, Marcos Raúl *

Costales Meunier, Antonio R. *

Dascal, Jorge Charles

Debasa, Jorge

De Dios Unanue, Manuel A. *

de Zayas, Rev. Eduardo

Delgado, Domingo *

Díaz Gómez, José Antonio

Dopico, Lourdes (Rey) **

Dopico Lernes, Vicente * **

Estivil, Osvaldo *

Estrada, Carlos

Fernández, Carmen

Fernández Cevallos, Raúl

Fojón, Armando

Fuentes Cobas, Fernando

Garcés, Antonio

Garcia Rubio, Rev. Ernesto *

García, Orlando

Gómez, Andrés **

Gómez, Francisco

Gómez Caínos, Manuel * **

González, Emérito

González Aruca, Francisco M. * **

González Muñiz, Francisco J. *

González Pando, Miguel *

Hemming, Gerald “Jerry” Patrick

Hernández Vázquez, José Luis

Hernández Noa, Juan Antonio

Herrera Fernández, María Cristiana *

Iñiguez, Ernesto

Lesnik Menéndez, Max Edgardo

Llagostera, Regino

Maceda, Gilberto

Martín, Esteban

Menéndez Suárez, José Ramón *

Minier, Oscar

Miranda, Juan

Montañéz Caballero, Michael Roger

Morejón Carrillo, Tomás *

Moreno, Rosario

Moreno, Walfrido *

Ojeda, Eduardo

Paredes, Joe

Pérez-Stable Díaz, Marífeli* **

Prieto, Elsa **

Pulido, Juana Caridad

Redondo, Roger

Reyes Aguiar, Rev. Andrés J. *

Reyes Caballero, Rev. José *

Roblejo Lorie, Jorge Raúl *

Rodríguez Pineda, Juan Manuel *

Rolán, Oscar *

Romeo Marín, Hildo *

Rueda, Eduardo *

Ruíz Salazar, Albor *

Sánchez, Eugenio

Sánchez, Rev. Rafael Gregory

Santos, Armando

Soto Novo, Mario

Suárez, Rev. José

Toledo, Juan

Trimiño, Carmen

Urda, José Enrique

Valdés, Nelson P. * **

Vázquez, José

Vázquez, Víctor

Vega, Antonio

Vera Ramos, Eddie

Viera Bernal, Rev. Manuel *

Vilaboa de Llerena, José Napoleón *

*Participated in the “dialogue” with Fidel Castro in 1978.

** Member of the Brigada Antonio Maceo

Edited by James Richards
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi James,

Very interesting to see Hemming's name on this list, I wonder how his name got on this list? Maybe it has something to do with Hall and Aguilar, If I remember correctly wasnt Aguilar working both sides of the fence?

Hi Ryan,

As you know, GPH was with Castro during the late 1950's but so were many individuals who later turned against the Cuban leader. You are indeed correct that Manuel Aguilar was a supposed Castro agent and we do know that there was some animosity between GPH and Hall.

Given that this list appears to have been created in the late 1970's, it makes me wonder if a connection exists back to 1962/63 or if it is relevant. It also makes one wonder about any history Reverend Manuel Espinosa and GPH may have had.

James

Edited by James Richards
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that this list appears to have been created in the late 1970's, it makes me wonder if a connection exists back to 1962/63 or if it is relevant. It also makes one wonder about any history Reverend Manuel Espinosa and GPH may have had.

I suspect that is the main reason for GPH's inclusion. It has to be remembered that a significant faction in the CIA (including part of its leadership) supported Castro in the late 1950s. A stronger possibility is that GPH was working for the CIA then (and maybe even now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hemming did it and he was in fact a Castro agent, acting on Fidel's behalf.

See, I told you so.

To understand this post one must understand my sometimes wry sense of humor!

I have for a long time thought that you have been winding us up with your Castro and KGB did it theory. However, I have been surprised by the amount of energy you have put into trying to make us laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, no I am not yet dismissing the "Castro did it" scenario (not through Hemming, of course). There are still, in my opinion, items of evidence pointing in his direction that need to be explained. I don't think each and every item can be dismissed as a false story or the creation of the CIA.

On the other hand, I understand that Hemming's identification of an anti-Castro exile as a participant in the assassination would tend to exculpate Fidel. That plus James' information the man was linked to a CIA agent who bears a striking resemblance to a man photographed in Dealey Plaza certainly raises interesting questions.

What ought to be evident is that I would like to run down the evidence wherever it may lead, and I will be glad to adnit I was wrong if the evidence so indicates. But there is insufficient evidence IMO to yet eliminate either pro- or anti- Castro supporters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there is insufficient evidence IMO to yet eliminate either pro- or anti- Castro supporters.

There is of course no reliable evidence that Castro or the KGB were involved either. It is noticeable that those like Joe Trento, Edward Jay Epstein and Jack Anderson who have argued this in the past are not now willing to argue it now. It is of course not just about evidence. It is about political logic. Castro had no political reason to want him dead. In fact, he had good reason to help keep him alive. Maybe that was one of the reasons why Castro's agents infiltrated the plot to assassinate JFK.

The real problem is that for political reasons you want Castro and the KGB to be the ones responsible for the assassination of JFK. It fits into your right-wing political views. It is of course linked to your view that the Iraq War is about democracy and not oil. As D.H. Lawrence once said, "every philosopher ends at his fingertips".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John wrote:

There is of course no reliable evidence that Castro or the KGB were involved either. It is noticeable that those like Joe Trento, Edward Jay Epstein and Jack Anderson who have argued this in the past are not now willing to argue it now.

John, I do not understand these statements. I think you informed us that Anderson has Alzheimer's disease so his failure to do anything is of little signifance, one would presume. With respect to Trento and Epstein, do you have reason to believe they have changed their opinion, or is it just that they are not participating in the Forum? Parenthetically, I note that Larry Hancock quotes extensively from Trento's "The Secret History of the CIA" in the supplement to "Someone Would Have Talked."

John also wrote:

It is of course not just about evidence. It is about political logic. Castro had no political reason to want him dead. In fact, he had good reason to help keep him alive.

I am reluctant to reargue what has already been extensively argued on another thread. Suffice it to say that a high-ranking CIA official told a Cuban who most believe was a Castro agent that RFK personally approved a plan to kill Castro. So why did Castro want to keep JFK alive? So he could enlist JFK's help in talking his brother out of the plot to kill him?

John also wrote:

The real problem is that for political reasons you want Castro and the KGB to be the ones responsible for the assassination of JFK. It fits into your right-wing political views.

John, your argument about an ideological motivation in assigning responsibility to Fidel may have made sense re the right-wingers who said "Fidel did it" in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. But they make no sense now when, if indeed "Fidel did it", his motive was self-preservation. For while one can never condone a political murder, one can at least understand it if it was motivated by self-preservation. Undoubtedly Castro is a bad fellow, but the argument that he killed Kennedy to stop US plots to kill him is not intended to, and does not, advance that proposition.

John also wrote:

It is of course linked to your view that the Iraq War is about democracy and not oil.

John, the real question about the Mid-East is "What is all our oil doing buried under their sand?" But, all kidding aside, even if it was about oil, the cause of democracy in the Mid East was certainly benefited.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that even if Castro wanted JFK dead (and I agree he certainly had grounds for feeling vengeful), he didn't have to do it himself. He had enough spies among the exiles to tell him what was going to happen. If Rose Cheramie could get wind of it, I imagine Castro agents could too.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James,

The news story is curious in itself but the associated list of Castro agents (which is referred to in the story) makes for some fascinating reading.

One person's name I didn't see was Fernando Fernandez.

From Richard Billings' New Orleans Journal

http://www.jfk-online.com/billings2.html

"A spy was found in camp in August, driven to Miami and questioned by Laureano Batista . . . CDP tried to turn spy over to FBI, but Bureau had no jurisdiction . .

Fowler points out there were two camps -- one CDP where the spy, Fernando Fernandez, was caught; another run by ultra conservatives . . . Turns out CDP camp didn't break up when spy was caught (claim they knew he was there all the time and kept him for protection against other infiltrators) . . . "

Also, Rolando Cubela's name isn't on that list either

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is of course linked to your view that the Iraq War is about democracy and not oil.

John, the real question about the Mid-East is "What is all our oil doing buried under their sand?"  But, all kidding aside, even if it was about oil, the cause of democracy in the Mid East was certainly benefited.

How has democracy benefited in the Middle East? True, an election has taken place. However, they are having great difficulty in creating a government. Even when they eventually manage to do this, they will need a large number of American troops to enforce this “democratic government”. As soon as the Americans leave, the government will be overthrown by the Muslim fundamentalists and we will have another dictatorship in place. What is more, it will be fervently anti-American.

Democracy cannot be imposed on anyone. America did not become a democracy as a result of the British occupation. You had to wait until you chucked us out before you could get a democratic system for whites established (the blacks only got their democracy in the 1960s – again they had to fight for it).

The same is true for the whole of Western Europe. People only get democracy after having to fight for it.

The Americans do not have a very good record for bringing democracy to other countries. It is true that after the Second World War you helped establish democracy in Germany and Japan. However, you also did what you could to undermine the will of the people in France, Italy and Greece.

Your record in the underdeveloped world is appalling. The CIA has helped to overthrow several democratically elected governments. They have also supported unpopular military dictatorships and carried out covert operations against those trying to bring about change.

Why is Bush not campaigning for democracy in countries like Saudi Arabia? Bush and previous American administrations have never really been interested in spreading democracy. The concern of American administrations has been to ensure markets for its corporations. This is usually easier to do with corrupt dictators than democratically elected governments. Bush might be able to fool his citizens about his policies but I am afraid most Europeans know too much about history and economics to be fooled by this hogwash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

:rolleyes: There i've saved anybody else the bother.

Tim wrote "Even if it was about the oil the cause of democracy in the mid east

was certainly benefited"

So you now admit that it was'nt about WMD's or Saddam, but as some of us

have said all along,Just about OIL. As for your much trumpeted Democracy

lets just remined ourselves of a few facts.

Iraq will not have "self rule"at any time in the foreseeable future. America

owns Iraq,& its for sale to the highest bidder. Nobody will be allowed to

run Iraq without America's explicit permission.

The American military is'nt pulling out of Iraq.EVER.The USA will have a

huge concentration of troops in Iraq-possibly hundreds of thousands- for

as long as anyone reading this is alive.Their purpose, tokeep Iraq

subjugated.

In Iraq the truth is: American authorities will be providing "guidance"

behind the scenes of any Iraqi so-called"self government"Sovereign!!!!

Iraq's policies will be pre-approved by American officials. & policies that

are not pre-approved willnot be policies Iraqis who hold high-level positions

will be pre-screened by American officials, & Iraqis who dont meet with

American approval will not be permitted to hold high level positions.

Iraqis know all this of course because their not stupid!!!

Iraqis willnot get used to American occupation, any more than Americans

got used to living under British rule. And they wont surrender their weapons

any more than we weould willingly surrender ours if a hostile enemy

occupied our Nations.

America & Britain have invaded & occupied Iraq for lies. The reasons listed

before the war were bogus, The reasons mentioned after the war are bogus.

Tony Blair & George Bush are war criminals ,& both should pay the price of

their egotistical folly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:clapping There i've saved anybody else the bother.

Tim wrote "Even if it was about the oil the cause of democracy in the mid east

was certainly benefited"

So you now admit that it was'nt about WMD's or Saddam, but as some of us

have said all along,Just about OIL. As for your much trumpeted Democracy

lets just remined ourselves of a few facts.

Iraq will not have "self rule"at any time in the foreseeable future. America

owns Iraq,& its for sale to the highest bidder. Nobody will be allowed to

run Iraq without America's explicit permission.

The American military is'nt pulling out of Iraq.EVER.The USA will have a

huge concentration of troops in Iraq-possibly hundreds of thousands- for

as long as anyone reading this is alive.Their purpose, tokeep Iraq

subjugated.

In Iraq the truth is: American authorities will be providing "guidance"

behind the scenes of any Iraqi so-called"self government"Sovereign!!!!

Iraq's policies will be pre-approved by American officials. & policies that

are not pre-approved willnot be policies Iraqis who hold high-level positions

will be pre-screened by American officials, & Iraqis who dont meet with

American approval will not be permitted to hold high level positions.

Iraqis know all this of course because their not stupid!!!

Iraqis willnot get used to American occupation, any more than Americans

got used to living under British rule. And they wont surrender their weapons

any more than we weould willingly surrender ours if a hostile enemy

occupied our Nations.

America & Britain have invaded & occupied Iraq for lies. The reasons listed

before the war were bogus, The reasons mentioned after the war are bogus.

Tony Blair & George Bush are war criminals ,& both should pay the price of

their egotistical folly.

Right on, as we 'former' {in my case life-long} Republican/Conservatives now know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...