The Herald has been reporting lies, half-truths, and offenses against Cuban exiles for nearly fifty years. This in spite the fact that you now have a Cuban American, Jesus Diaz, as CEO of the Herald.

Hate to say this, but De La Cova came across as quite vindictive toward Ana Veciana-Suarez. He made his point to Fiedler - a valid one - but should have stopped while he was ahead. Instead, he brings up how her college education was supposedly funded by drug money, which has absolutely nothing to do with the case being discussed. I can understand why Fiedler reacted the way he did.

Wow..

Great thread. I agree with most Prof De la Cova's posts and general stance.

The core of the Herald's "in house" columnists are very much to the left. Especially Hiassen and Pitts.

I definately see an imbalance there. In relation to Cuba, some of their editorials are quite good, to be fair.

Robert, the fact of the matter is that the Herald is quick to point out any fault in the Cuban American community unless it's one of their own ffellow travelers. Dr. de la Cova was right on point in demonstrating to Fiedler the hypocrisy (and mendaciousness) of his position. If the Herald was a fair arbiter of points-of-view, I'd have a problem with the exchange. But it's not and it's never been...

I think that De La Cova brought up all valid points. Why was Ana Veciana Suarez hidding her father's criminal past in her article other than to cover up any perks she received from it? She is still living in denial today, which is what got her into trouble. How many other times has she lied or twisted the truth in her other articles?

That Ana chick (never heard of her till now) is a piece of work. Why would she lie about something like that? A journo should never lie, absolutely never. It's way easier to just say 'I don't want to say,' or clam up in some way if she is really embarassed. But lying, from someone who is supposed to be truthful, really is bad. I have no respect for his person and will never click on her name with the Herald. I always check the name of the writer first before I click. The Miami Herald has plenty of good people and it's the only newspaper whose site I visit every day. But I definitely don't consider her that league.

It's somewhat ironic that Ana Veciana-Suarez is involved in this mess. She withheld information during jury questioning...which is obviously against the law...and to her credit she hasn't hemmed and hawed and tried to back herself out of it like DeFede and his defenders tried to back in July of last year. Of course, it doesn't help that her father is Antonio Veciana, but that's another post for another day.

The irony lies in that Veciana-Suarez writes about family life and rather mundane, everyday events. She rarely, if ever, delves into politics. I've been reading her articles for many years now and not a single one has raised a red flag in my mind. I actually like her columns, they are a voice of reason in a journalistic world full of sensationalism.

I'm not defending the Herald's decision, one way or the other. I'm just stating my observations regarding Veciana-Suarez.

I don't know why she lied, and I don't know her personally from the man on the moon. But my gut feeling is that she made a mistake, she was embarrassed to admit her father's past in front of strangers. She should be held accountable just as you or I would, not just because she's a journalist or because her father is a controversial figure.

I'm glad Robert took the time to provide some perspective before De la Cova and his echoes in this forum convicted Ana of let's see...the issue for these folk wasn't what she did (or more precisely, didn't do) when questioned in court...it was...what should we call it? Ah yes....the issue is her "peligrosidad" (she works at that Miami Herald) or was it "propaganda enemiga" (after all, she has to be part of the "anti-exile" campaign of her employer).

So....let's let De la Cova use her mistake, which she fessed up to, to do an "acto de repudio" against her.

After all, she's likely a "gusana"...ooops...sorry...it was a "fellow traveler" (it's so easy to confuse the facile terminology of ignorant reactionaries of the left with those of ignorant reactionaries of the right).

Given her apolitical history (which btw, is likely due to her first hand experience, as Antonio Veciana's daughter, with the hurt and damage that extremist politics inflicts on the innocent)...the charge is, actually, fairly funny (not to mention a good indication of the reflexes of the person who uttered it).

Ana Veciana is, basically, a good person who had a small lapse in judgment in a unique circumstance.

To see people try to use it to lynch her in order to score political points against the Herald is repugnant.

And sad.

After 46 years of the Castro dictatorship doing the same shit to good persons for minor transgressions, because of, for example, who their familiy was or whom they associated with, one would think people who are repulsed (or at least so they say) by this kind of shit when "the others" do it would know better.

Specially those like de la Cova, who knows how "the others" have used a not so petty mistake in judgment in his past to impugn him.

Que clase de pendejo(s).

Malanga

"Small lapse in judgement"? Malanga, you are the fool and the pendejo here. If you or I had lied during voir dire in a criminal case, our nuts would be for the taking by the district attorney. So please, cut the crap. The issue was not her or her crime; it was the Herald's lapse in fully disclosing all of the facts that's the issue. Isn't that what a newspaper ought to do? But since Ana was one of theirs, they decided to sweep it under the rug. Would that regular joes like us would be so lucky...

Mr. Moneo..

1) Would you mind providing us with the basis for your assertion that someone other than a Herald employee who committed voir dire would have their nuts removed by a district attorney? For example, could you point to other, similar, voir dire cases and list the penalties sought/gotten and see how many nuts were taken? Just a few...enough to see what your frame of reference (assuming there is one), might be based on.

2) I assume, since you didn't use the term "fellow employee" to refer to Ms. Veciana, that you used "fellow traveller" in the classical sense. As such, would you mind providing us with anything that would back the assertion made that Ana Veciana is a "fellow traveler"? You know, like all the rest of all them there other "commies" at the Herald"? (Just to see if there's something you know about Ms. Veciana's background and/or politics, that no one else seems to know).

3) Would you mind listing these non-disclosed facts about the accusations agains Ms. Veciana, those that the Herald left out, and how they are relevant to reporting that Ana Veciana faces/pled guilty to charges of voir dire? (Just to see if, well, they left out something really relevant, like she once had counter-revolutionary ideas....ooops...sorry, I'm confusing her lynching with Padilla's...I meant "fellow traveler" ideas).

4) The articles about folks (specially "regular joes") who have been accused/pled guilty to voir dire that the Herald has published in the past decade or so have got be a numerous...after all, no one would think that this heinous crime would go unreported in the media. I know you don't read the Herald...but maybe a friend who does can help..if not maybe you can take a swag at how many have appeared in, say, El Diario de las Americas. Care to tell us say, 'bout how many a month have appeared in the local press (you can 'round it off to the nearest hundred or so)? Might put the nail in the coffin as to whether the Herald might have maybe published the article because Ms. Veciana was a "fellow traveller" rather than a "regular joe"....oh...wait...sorry, you're arguing that it's the other way around....never mind.

Finally, a hypothetical that may shed light as to whether this lofty standard of "full disclosure" of background, whether relevant or not, of yours and de la Cova, only applies to newspapers (and not to "regular joes" who pontificate in a blog and/or hurl from behind the title of "Professor" who demand full disclosure of everything related to Ana Veciana's background (her father, her employer, who paid for her college tuition, etc) in order to score political points ):

In New York, an Islamic-American extremist was convicted a few years of planning to bomb a bookstore (caught with explosives, he was). He now is providing commentary on the subject of media handling of Islamic-Americans and the political/other actions of other Islamic-Americans. Should his terrorist background be always "fully disclosed" by him and/or those who provide an echo for his commentary? (After all, who knows, he might be still be a "fellow" something or other).

Malanga the Fool

This controversy will be settled when Ana Veciana-Suarez is sentenced on February 10. We will see if in the next day's Herald they report that she lied because her father had been convicted not only of conspiracy to distribute drugs but also possession of seven kilos of cocaine.
Veciana-Suarez didn't just lie about it this time. She had been living in denial ever since writing about her father's involvement in an apparent drug shooting, which she attributed to anti-Communist patriotic activities.
As De La Cova pointed out, let's see if the Herald keeps on its staff "an admitted liar and convicted perjurer if she does not resign." Fiedler should be drawing up her severance package and writing a complimentary editorial farewell like he did for that obnoxious and underhanded Jim DeFede.

Hmmm...let's see, Alfonso...Antonio Veciana's past conviction is on the public record, isn't it? As is, actually de la Cova's.

Wasn't Antonio Veciana's conviction mentioned by the Herald in the recent article about Ana Veciana with pretty much the same level of detail it gave de la Cova's in another recent article (about the FIU couple accused of spying in Miami)?

I wonder, Alfonso...did you live in Miami in the 70s? Do you know just how much the line between CIA-trained "patriots" engaging in anti-Castro activities and CIA-trained "patriots" engaging in drug trafficking became unclear during that period?
(Not that I'm excusing Antonio Veciana or anyone else who trafficked in drugs, "patriot" or not they should be hung out to dry. The fact of the matter is that then, the harsh reality was that at times it was really hard to tell where one activity ended and the other ended).

Do you think, if de la Cova's child goes to jury duty and under similar circumstances and is too embarrassed to mention her father engaged in terrorism, the amount of explosives, the number of locales bombed, length of his sentence, the terms of his plea, etc. her voir dire violation would be worse than if he had been involved in say one bombing with a few grams of explosives?

Do you think de la Cova's children be "in denial" if they don't go around writing/speaking about "my dad the terrorist"?

Do you think you'd advertise that your father was a terrorist or a drug dealer or would you go into denial?

Would your answers change if you or de la Cova's children worked at the Herald?

Finally...pa' ver si paran de tirar piedras...should a University should have/keep on their payroll a convicted Islamic terrorist who planned on blowing up a bookstore (and participated in a few other similar incidents), got caught with a few kilos of explosives, etc.? Would you be insisting that the University President be drawing up his severance package and writing a farewell like they did to that unconvicted terrorist Sami Al-Arian at USF?

'Course you would.

Just like someone as judgmental and absolute about the transgressions of others, like de la Cova, would.

Heck, I bet he wrote the President of USF urging her to fire Al-Arian's ass.

'Course he did.

Malanga

Mr. "Malanga"

Why all the muddying up of the facts? The issue here is the HERALD choosing not to publish all the facts, such as the omission of significant criminal activity of the father. This is separate from the act of what could be considered something bordering on perjury.

It is a double standard, period. Absolute FACTS are brought up, we are accused of slander and political intimidation without any factual evidence. To top it off, YOU proceed to do the very same that you are accusing the exile community of. Character assasination has been a staple of those trying to smear the exile community by somehow trying steer perception of its behavior to that of Fidel's with absolutely no evidence.
You see routinely in Miami pro-Castro groups such as Alianza Martiana and Antonio Maceo brigade ROUTINELY, openly and FREELY congregating. There are no rapid response brigades available here to imprison them, and the state here enforces their right to congregate. In Cuba the state refuses the right of ANY to do the same.
Please spare us the idiotic comparisons and slander.

Mr. Max...

It's precisely the facts, the relevant facts, that I'm pointing to in my reply to Alfonso. Namely, that:

1) I suggest that articles about voir dire accusations rarely, if ever, make the Miami Herald. Further, I would suggest that it is because Ana Veciana is a Herald staffer that the article(s) appeared at all.

2) If you look, the Herald gave basically the same lineage/level of detail was given to Antonio Veciana's conviction as to de la Cova's. The number of kilos in Veciana's conviction are irrelevant to the charges faced by his daughter. Similarly, the number of bombings de la Cova was associated with/the amount of explosives he got caught with were not needed to make the point in the article in which his actions were mentioned.

3) Ana Veciana's voir dire transgression would have been the same regardless of what crime Antonio Veciana committed. She failed to mention past experience with the court system. It matters not legally whether this past experience was for a drug trafficking conviction or for bombing a Polish freighter or for shackling oneself to the doors of the Herald building. It also, btw, was an action unrelated to her activity at work..a different situation than deFede's.

4) As I mentioned to Moneo, if you have examples of voir dire cases being handled by the Herald in a different fashion because one is or isn't a Cuban exile (which, btw, in case y'all have missed it Ana Veciana certainly is), or a Herald employee, please provide them. In this case, I, again, would suggest that Ana Veciana's foible was published because she is a Herald staffer and not the other way around.

5) If you are concerned about slander and character assassination, maybe you should have jumped in when earlier. As in when Ana Veciana was accused of being a fellow traveller, or when de la Cova was impuning her/trying to get her fired because of what her father did (or more likely, to make points against the Herald), or when folks joined in the lynching because she works at the Herald.

6) If you are accusing me or anyone else of slander, sweeping generalizations don't do it. In my case, I always ask folks to be specific. If have either presented false data, please point it out.

7) Let me suggest that doing the whiny victim/double standard routine is best left to other, less successful communities. We (Cuban-Americans) are amongst the most politically and economically powerful minorities in this country. Everytime I see this shit, I wish the folks doing it would leave the whining about how "the man" treats us to others who, well, can contribute nothing but whines. Get over it, man, you're a *Cuban*-American, remember...self empowered, proud, successful...and powerful.

Finally, what I've been trying to suggest/point out in all this is that, if one is going to engage in a lynching and at the same time complain about what the "other side" does, it helps to have a mirror and not a prism to hold up in front of you, specially when going after fellow exiles like Ana Veciana to score political points.

(Who is, again, a *good* person, by any standard, regardless of what she did recently in court. And what she is has nothing to do with where she works or what her father did.)

Malanga

PS You think de la Cova has a mirror? I bet not.

Malanga apparently works for the Herald, or FIU, or is affiliated with both.

Sure sounds like it...

Ditto to Alfonso and George. This is the kind of biased arguments the Herald always uses. Conozco el pajaro por su cagada.

Mr Malanga:

Now matter how you spin it,that is an awfully long post without really proving/disproving much of anything.

FACT: The Herald did not disclose ALL of the facts relating to her father.. There is a HUGE difference between what the Herald disclosed the father was convicted of compared as to what was published. Whatever their motives are for their blatant failures we can only speculate.

Of course we (exile community) are successful and all that.

However, that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH with our argument here.
That fact that your are implying similarities with our story and our circumstances with how the Cuban government operates is blatant slander and character assasination. We have seen this before and know it all too well. It is very easy to make up slander without having any facts to back it up.

Alfonso...I work neither for FIU or the Herald. I would suggest one does not have to work for either to be disgusted by the ad hominem attacks on Ana Veciana. I think you'll have to find something to feed those macartista/propaganda enemiga tendencies somewhere else.

Mr. Moneo...if I sound like I work at the Herald or FIU, does it mean I'm also one of them there "fellow travelers"? (Con~o..hay que reirse de algo, no?).

Max...I imply nothing between "your stories and your circumstances" with how the Cuban government operates, I know nothing about them...they are your individual (just like, well, I'd suggest you and the others don't know Ana's personal story). Asi que, tomate un tilo, mi socio.

What I am *stating* (fijate bien, I'm not implying...lo estou diciendo directamente), is that the attack on Ana Veciana's integrity is motivated by ideology, has more to do with where she works than who she is or what she did, is based on unsubstantiated propagandistic allegations (for example, I'm still waiting, for Mr. Moneo to provide anything about Ms. Veciana which indicates she's a "fellow traveler"), and was originated by someone (de la Cova) who on the basis of his past history should be among the last persons to get on an ethical high horse and seek to malign the lapses in judgment of others...specially for political reasons.

I'm also pointing out that this sort of repugnant behaviour by these individuals is akin to what that which is systematically practiced by the Cuban dictatorship. (Really...it is...you can look it up!)

If you want to be more specific as to that "slander" thing you accuse me of, I can deal with that.

However if you want to get histerico/whiny and turn this into something which somehow involves the character of the entire exile community and not just on the handful of individuals in this forum (and of course, de la Cova) who have participated in this cyber-lynching of Ana Veciana, then...well...can't help you there.

'Cause, you see, I don't believe, in fact, it's never even entered my mind that Cuban-Americans in the integral are anywhere like the sort of mean-spirited, narrow-minded, petty, reactionary assholes who've taken the torch from de la Cova and tried to use it to immolate Ana Veciana to score political points. (Say...I know I'm repeating myself, but I wanted to make sure I used terms I've used to describe some members/supporters of the Cuban dictatorship..pa' estar seguro que entienden lo que estoy diciendo).

Malanga

PS Moneo...If you're wondering why I wrote "Hay que reirse" above and why I've actually gotten somewhat of a kick out of the "fellow traveller" thing ...well...dig up a copy of Flight to Freedom by Ana . You should read it...or better yet...have a teen you know read it and tell you what he/she thinks about it. Then maybe, just maybe, you'll figure out why, just for insinuating Ana is one of "them", the term pendejo might just fit you to a T. On the other hand, if you want to keep impugning her in this fashion w/o knowing your arse from a hole in the ground...bueno, cada loco con su locura.