I don't know. I interpreted that in the traditional use of 'organised crime', as in the Mafia, etc. But it is somewhat possible to interpret it in that fashion.
Originally I thought they were accusing the US of organizing criminal misadventures on Cuba. Upon reflection, I'm not sure whether or not that is what it says.
Do you see other examples of bias?
Yeah, sure. It would be nice to know how the "Fundamental Law of the Republic" modifed the 1940 Constitution. When Batista or the US makes changes, the document identifies them as good or bad. Very little mention seems to be made of Castro's human rights abuses.
The Oct 19, 1960 entry bothers me. After Cuba essentially nationalized all US property, the US responds with a partial embargo. (How partial? The document doesn't say) Then it says that 16 months later the embargo became complete. That seems to me to be skipping a lot of context.
"Well I'm in business, the business of kicking your a$$, and let me tell you...business is boomin'. I'm open for business, the business of givin' you the business...
Soylent Green is my kind of people.