Controversy surrounding the subpoenas of four Puerto Rican activists has renewed America’s interest in the movement for Puerto Rican independence. Tania Frontera, Christian Torres, Elliot Monteverde and Jose Diaz are Puerto Rican citizens and members of the independence movement who were subpoenaed earlier this year to testify before a grand jury.
The decision angered officials both in Puerto Rico and the continental United States. On June 25, New York City legislators Melissa Mark Viverito, Leticia James and Rosie Mendez publicly condemned the FBI’s handling of the subpoenas.
The four activists have a history of involvement in pro-independence movements against the U.S. government, including the successful struggle for the liberation of the island of Vieques from the control of the U.S. Navy in 2003.
The activists also participated in demonstrations condemning the 2005 death of Filiberto Ojeda Ríos, leader of the a militant, pro-independence group Los Macheteros, as an act of political repression by the U.S. government against the Puerto Rican independence movement.
The activists and their legal counsel denounced the subpoenas as a means of undermining the independence movement. Critics cite the secret nature of grand jury hearings as indicative of the U.S.’s intent. The press and general public are not allowed into the hearing and the activists’ legal representation cannot be present during questioning.
According to Will Pizio, assistant professor of justice and policy studies, grand juries are convened for two specific purposes: either to see if probable cause exists for parties already under arrest or to determine if probable cause exists for future arrests.
The activists are not charged with any crimes but could be held in contempt of court and face imprisonment if they decide not to testify. Supporters of the activists also question why the FBI has not yet stated if the subpoenas and hearing questions are the product of illegal communications monitoring.
If made to testify before a grand jury, each activist could theoretically act as an informant in incriminating other members of the independence movement.
“It’s a judgment call that the activists and their lawyers have to make,” Pizio said. “Whenever anyone is compelled to testify before a grand jury they must decide between the lesser of two evils. It’s similar to the decision journalists make when asked to give up their sources.”
The activists and their supporters say that these latest subpoenas are another act of grand jury political repression dating back to the 1930s when the Puerto Rico Nationalist Party was subpoenaed for its membership list.
The success of the independence movement in removing Vieques from U.S. control prompted the U.S. to reassert its authority. Ríos’ death, which pro-independence supporters attribute to this escalation of control, was widely denounced by Puerto Ricans on both sides of the issue.
Ríos was killed in a gunfight against F.B.I. agents who claimed they were attempting to arrest him.
Ríos was in hiding as a result of jumping bail for the robbery of a Wells Fargo depot in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1990.
After Ríos’ death, The Puerto Rico Justice Department filed a suit against the F.B.I. and the U.S. Attorney General for withholding information crucial to an internal investigation of the skirmish. The F.B.I. and U.S. Justice Department have yet to acquiesce.
Robert Duncan, assistant professor of political science, believes that the subpoenas are a move specifically targeting the more radical elements of the pro-independence movement. “[Los Macheteros] are disgruntled, diehard terrorists,” Duncan said.
“The activists may or may not be connected [to militant pro-independence groups],” Duncan said, “but the U.S. government wants to talk to find out what they know about the independence movement. The grand jury is supposed to assess the evidence.”
Senior Yasmin Casado, a Puerto Rican student and co-president of HUG (Hispanos Unidos de Guilford), does not condone a radical approach to independence. “I think it’s pretty radical, but I can see why they’re pushing more violently for independence,” she said.
Both Casado and junior Elena Conley, also co-president of HUG, express concern that independence might not be best for Puerto Rico presently. “Puerto Rico has changed. It’s become more poor and dangerous. It didn’t use to be like that,” Casado said.
“An independent Puerto Rico would essentially be a third world country right now because of how dependent we are on the U.S. economy,” Conley said.
Conley and Casado think that obtaining statehood is a long term goal for Puerto Rico.
“I think it’s a jip,” Conley said. “We can serve in the army, but we can’t vote for president. There’s not a lot of communication between the U.S. and Puerto Rico. We follow U.S. laws, but we have no influence over them.”
Both Casado and Conley feel that Puerto Rican statehood would ultimately be a boon for Puerto Rico, but recognize that becoming a state has its consequences.
“It’s like the situation with Hawaii,” Casado said. “Puerto Ricans are concerned about becoming Americanized and losing their culture.”
“It’s a give-and-take situation,” Conley said. “I wouldn’t jump into making Puerto Rico a state. But Puerto Ricans are very proud, and preserving language and culture is important. Puerto Ricans must do what is best for Puerto Rico for now.