SHOP

What Really Happened in 1996

Redacted is an independent platform, unencumbered by external factors or restrictive policies, on which Clayton and Natali Morris bring you quality information, balanced reporting, constructive debate, and thoughtful narratives. Stay informed by visiting Redacted for the latest insights.

The U.S. Justice Department unsealed an indictment against former Cuban President Raúl Castro, over him allegedly ordering the 1996 shoot-down of the Brothers to the Rescue planes that left four men dead.

This is a good thing, right? Justice will finally be served. Before you agree, you may want to dig beyond what the mainstream media is pushing out, and also contemplate why the U.S. chose to do this 30 years after the fact.

The media paints a picture of Cuba needlessly shooting down two planes belonging to a Miami-based non-profit organization. A group that was known for its humanitarian search-and-rescue flights across the Florida Straits, where they attempted to find and assist Cubans trying to sail to the U.S. End of story… full stop.

There’s actually more to this story, though, and the Cuban Embassy shed some light on this: “Cuba acted in legitimate self-defense within its jurisdictional waters, following repeated and dangerous violations of our airspace by notorious terrorists,” and “the U.S. government distorts other historical truths about the event it uses as a pretext.”

What are these historical truths?

The Brothers to the Rescue leader, José Basulto, had a long history of anti-Cuban militant crimes and was a former CIA-trained Cuban political dissident. The group repeatedly violated Cuban airspace, as well as dropped anti-government leaflets over Havana. The bottom line is that they were flying U.S. planes into restricted airspace and were viewed as a threat.

It’s clear that Cuba didn’t shoot them down on the fly. Between 1994 and 1996, the group reportedly committed 25 deliberate violations of Cuban airspace.

Before the incident, Cuba repeatedly attempted to resolve the matter through diplomatic channels, notifying U.S. officials who held the responsibility to stop the flights, including the U.S. State Department, the FAA, and the ICAO.

Just four weeks before the planes were shot down, an FAA worker warned her superiors that another unauthorized overflight occurred, and that it was “seen as further taunting of the Cuban Government.”

She also noted that the State Department was “asking from the FAA what is this agency doing to prevent/deter these actions.” Also stating, “Worst case scenario is that one of these days the Cubans will shoot-down one of these planes and the FAA better have all its ducks in a row.

Cuba continually reported what it felt were threatening violations, and Washington did nothing. So who was really in the wrong here then?

And now, decades later, Raúl Castro, at 94 years old, is being indicted for this incident.

So, why now? Many believe the timing is tied to the United States’ current playbook for manufacturing a “regime change” in Cuba.

And it looks like they might be making their next move, laying the groundwork for a similar operation to the January 3 abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Join the Redacted Community

Don’t miss out on the latest news and in-depth stories. Subscribe to Redacted newsletter for daily insights that matter, delivered directly to your inbox.

Sdira Wealth

Learn how to invest in cash-flowing properties in high-performing markets. Discover strategies for reducing taxes, protecting your money, and growing real wealth. Faster and smarter.

Build Sustainable Wealth
with Real Estate
Transform your financial future in three months flat
Join Clayton and Natali’s nine-module online program featuring bite-sized video lessons, actionable exercises, and an exclusive mastermind community so you can crush debt, create passive income, and secure your family’s financial future…All at your own pace.

Hot Off The Press

Fresh intel from our blog, podcast and news channels, sorted
newest first. Always see what just dropped.

Updates
Clayton Morris

The Court Gets One Right

The Supreme Court has rejected President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, ruling 6-3 that children born in the United States to illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders remain U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment. Justice Clarence Thomas, who disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision, argued that the Court got the history wrong. He wrote that the 14th Amendment was intended to secure citizenship for freed slaves, “not… the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens.” He also said the amendment “has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.” Thomas’s view was that because much of the application of Trump’s Day 1 executive order was “consistent with the original public meaning” of the clause in the 14th Amendment, it should have been upheld. If Thomas is right about the amendment’s original purpose, then this ruling isn’t preserving the Constitution but instead redefining it. President Trump called the ruling “Too

Updates
Clayton Morris

Six Years Too Late

For those of us who thought the COVID-19 pandemic was over years ago, we were wrong. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced yesterday that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has signed determinations terminating the COVID-19 Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) declarations. The move came after HHS determined that the circumstances justifying those emergency authorizations no longer exist. This change won’t go into effect until next year, though, because those who were profiting from these EUAs need to wind down their operations. Here’s how RFK Jr. explained the decision: “Americans deserve a regulatory system that is transparent, accountable, and rooted in the rule of law. By ending these COVID-19 Emergency Use Authorization declarations, we’re reinforcing public confidence that emergency authorities are temporary and targeted.” Public confidence? It’s a little too late for that. Why? Because over a million unreported deaths and injuries were caused by

Updates
Clayton Morris

Gaslighting the Gas Market

President Trump is demanding that gas companies lower prices immediately. The problem is that gas prices aren’t set by presidential decree. They are driven primarily by global crude oil prices, refining capacity, inventories, taxes, and competition. This is reminiscent of President Biden blaming grocery stores and retailers for inflation. When prices are politically inconvenient, the temptation is always to blame the companies at the end of the supply chain. Oil prices have fallen sharply over the past week, nearly erasing the “war premium” that followed the U.S.-Iran conflict. But that drop appears to be driven more by market sentiment than by a meaningful improvement in supply. Commodity strategists warned Monday that traders may be pricing in an overly optimistic outlook while underestimating the remaining supply risks. During the conflict, the United States authorized the release of 172 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help stabilize markets.

Updates
Clayton Morris

Weapons of Mass Lobbying

Should a defense contractor get to enrich shareholders with stock buybacks while it’s behind schedule on taxpayer-funded government contracts? The House will debate exactly that question this week as lawmakers consider an amendment to the annual defense bill that would prohibit certain Pentagon contractors from buying back their own stock if they are failing to meet production and delivery requirements. The idea is simple: if taxpayers are paying you to build missiles, ships, and fighter jets, maybe build the missiles, ships, and fighter jets before rewarding Wall Street. Enter the lobbyists. America’s weapons makers have deployed their most powerful weapon yet: their lobbyists, sent to kill the bill before it can reach the battlefield. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, and major defense industry groups are urging lawmakers to kill the proposal, arguing that it amounts to the federal government dictating how private companies allocate

Updates
Clayton Morris

No, Iran Didn’t Say That

The U.S. and Iran traded bombs over the weekend, despite ongoing peace negotiations. By Sunday afternoon, both sides appeared ready to climb back down the ladder. Several outlets warned that “Iran” now says it has no choice but to build a nuclear bomb. Not true. Iranian media published an opinion piece making that argument. That is not the same thing as an official Iranian government position, an IRGC directive, or a policy announcement from Tehran. The piece argued that Iran needs nuclear deterrence to force the U.S. and Israel to negotiate from a position of equality. That is a domestic strategic argument, not a declaration that Iran is building a bomb. Iran’s official position remains that nuclear weapons are forbidden under Ayatollah Khamenei’s fatwa, first publicly reported in 2003 and later cited by Iran at the IAEA. So no, “Iran” did not announce that it is building a nuclear

Updates
Clayton Morris

Let Them Bake

It’s hard to imagine worse optics. As much of Europe baked under a heat wave, the European Commission reportedly shut off air conditioning on the lower floors of its Brussels headquarters on Friday while keeping it running on the upper floors. Temperatures climbed above 97 degrees Fahrenheit. Guess where European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her senior staff have their offices. The top floors. For years, Brussels has lectured Europeans that they must consume less energy, lower their expectations, and make personal sacrifices in the name of climate policy. But when the building got too hot, the sacrifice apparently wasn’t meant to be shared equally. The message couldn’t be clearer: austerity for the staff downstairs, comfort for the ruling class upstairs.

Join the Redacted Rebellion

Get insider knowledge, bold strategies, and the truth they don’t want you to know–delivered straight to your inbox.