My first, very partisan response to seeing this:
Bush Tightens Rules on Travel to Cuba
was “He’s such a whore!”
What other voter block is he going to throw a meaningless bone to?
Then, I stopped and thought, well, what if he’s right. What if “Fidel Castro government [really] has taken steps to destabilize relations with the United States over the past year. ” and those step demand some sort of action…after all, I’m nothing if not sceptical of everything this man does.
Then, however, it occurred to me that tightening rules on travel to Cuba may punish Castro in that fewer Americans go and spend money there, but it mostly punishes Americans who, for reasons that transcend politics, would love to travel there. It gives the Cuban Americans who despise Castro a wink, wink, nudge, nudge reassurance the President is on their side, but it really does nothing to get us closer to what’s really needed to end this pathetic standoff…Castro’s death.
Perhaps tighter restrictions on Doctors travelling to Cuba would be a good move, but why punish the rest of us?
Actually, the real longterm solution would be massive foreign direct investment, thus undermining communism, but that wouldn’t be popular with all those rich ex-Cubans in Miami who had their property taken, would it?
“He’s such a whore!”
Well that line spoke volumns.
But before you go visit, I have only one question, you are aware of Casto’s treatment of Cuba’s democracy movement? Just asking.
Praktike, except for the US companies and individuals, there are no constraints on foreign investment in Cuba, except for constraints placed by Castro, himself.
Just a note, if Cuban Americans are rich, they made their wealth in this country.
Was that last line supposed to be ironic?
Cuba is a Socialist paradise with Universal Health Care, literacy, and happiness. Why would they need to import MDs??
It’s the timing of the announcement and shortage of accompanying details on exactly what Castro’s done, Timmy.
I know Castro’s bad news. But I think Praktike is right too, that so much of our policy regarding Cuba is dictated by Cuban contributors to political campaigns…watched its influence first hand in a few I worked on.
I would like Castro to die as soons as God deems appropriate…he’s the only thing I see standing in the way of real improvement here.
Hey, good news tho’. We can travel to Uzbekistan all we want. Apparently no problem with the government there.
Just read this on the wires:
The source, a veteran official of past GOP conventions, said the 50,000 delegates, dignitaries and guests would watch off-site events on giant TV screens. “Now, we’ll go to the deck of the USS Intrepid as the U.S. Marine Corps Band plays the national anthem,” he said, pretending that he was playing the part of the convention chairman.
“Or, and this is a real possibility, we could see President Bush giving his acceptance speech at Ground Zero,” he added. “It’s clearly a venue they’re considering.”
Whore doesn’t begin to describe him.
I don’t think we’ll see Bush giving his acceptance speech at ground zero. Being that brazen about it might result in some serious political backlash.
Eddie just read this and this and this and you will get the general drift of what is going on in Cuba.
Harley, apparently France is following Uzbekistan’s misdeeds . Are you suggesting an embargo?
Harley and Jake, interesting comments to make on 26 February, one of the few dates that I remember exactly where I was 12 years ago. Too bad the people running the federal government in 93 didn’t take it seriously.
Harley, apparently France is following Uzbekistan’s misdeeds.
Chirac is boiling people alive? I *knew* we couldn’t trust him!
Timmy, I guess you don’t remember where you were on 23 Oct ten years earlier.
p.s. any thoughts about the stifling of the 9-11 commission?
Kinda hard to really do FDI when you aren’t allowed to travel there, huh?
Edward:
I would like Castro to die as soons as God deems appropriate
Don’t think you have much say in that one.
I don’t have any problem saying Castro’s bad news (in at least some respects), just as I have no problem saying Saddam Hussein was bad news (in a great many respects).
It does however appear that there are other regimes across the world at least heading down the same path – if not already there – and while it may well be right to take the current US administration’s stance on Cuba and Iraq, and that not doing so to the other bad regimes doesn’t make it intrinsically wrong to do it to Cuba and Iraq, the US does have its favourite enemies.
But then I’m sure we all do. The English aren’t especially fond of the Scots, dontchaknow.
*blinks* Thanks for reminding me, Edward, of yet another example of Bush & Co’s hypocrisy; they build a detention center in Guantanamo Bay, claiming that the prisoners held there are subject to Cuban law, yet they claim to be opposed to the Cuban government – which, one would think, would entail being opposed to arbitrary and indefinite detention of suspects without evidence, merely because the head of state says they’re “bad men”.
Guantanamo Bay’s prison camp is illegal under international law: it is illegal under US law: if it is legal under Cuban law, Bush & Co are really reaching if they claim to be opposed to the same legal system which they are so cavalierly making use of.
Of course, I thought that about Mahar Arar being sent to Syria to be tortured, as well.
claiming that the prisoners held there are subject to Cuban law
Cite, please? I wasn’t aware of this.
What are you asking a cite to prove, Slarti? That Guantanamo Bay is part of Cuba? I really don’t see that I should have to go hunt through geography websites to find you a map to establish that, yes, Guantanamo Bay is a long-established US military base established on Cuba.
Clarify your request, and I’ll see what I can do.
Jes,
I think Slarti’s interested (as would I be) in a quote by the Administration that argued Cuba Law applies in G-Bay.
I always thought no law applied in G-Bay, as it was a no-man’s land. I’d be happy to know I’m wrong though…any cites?
Jesurgislac, you said the Bushies said the detainees were subject to Cuban law. This subjection might be a logical consequence of their location, but that doesn’t mean the admin claimed it as justification. I thought they hadn’t addressed the question of jurisdiction in Guantanamo – that they regard it as a convenient legal limbo.
Prezactly, Edward and rilkefan.
Cite, please, that they claimed that Cuban law applies. Rather silly of you to think that I was asking that Gitmo was part of Cuba.
Edward: I always thought no law applied in G-Bay, as it was a no-man’s land. I’d be happy to know I’m wrong though…any cites?
Far from it. First and most practically, since Guantanamo Bay is a US military base, US military law applies.
Secondly, according to a report in the New York Times, by the lease agreement with Cuba, sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay is reserved to Havana – Cuban law applies, not US law, though there is a specific exception in the lease that provides for US nationals being handed over to the base authorities, not dealt with by Cuban authorities. No US nationals have been detained at Guantanamo Bay.
“Claims” may have been a little strong: but according to this report, the Bush administration selected Guantanamo Bay on purpose so that Cuban law would apply, not US law. It’s an either-or situation: either Guantanamo Bay is part of Cuba, or it’s effectively part of the US. Since the Bush administration are claiming that US law does not apply to the prisoners they hold at Guantanamo Bay, they are de facto claiming that Cuban law does apply.
Rilkefan: I thought they hadn’t addressed the question of jurisdiction in Guantanamo – that they regard it as a convenient legal limbo.
Practically speaking, so it is. No Cuban authority has access to Guantanamo Bay. But legally, Guantanamo Bay is either Cuban territory or US territory.
Excellent follow-up Jes…thanks!
This from the Times article: Cuba — not the United States — has sovereignty over Guantánamo Bay,” according to the judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Hmmm…of course, that’s meaningless, as Cubans can’t enter G-Bay, so it does become limbo in practice if not in theory.
And, of course, as you note, US law does apply for all practical purposes anyway, so this is a slick solution to denying the detainees any US rights.
Anyone know if Castro’s government has expressed any feelings one way or the other about the detainees?
But legally, Guantanamo Bay is either Cuban territory or US territory
I thought that we since we leased Gitmo from Cuba that made it their territory and we’ve got so many troops there to ensure that they don’t try to eminent domain it back.
Interesting. A panel of judges says this, and it’s the administration claiming it.
Right. A cite that actually reinforces your point instead of going the other way would be useful at this point.
Slarti, are you seriously trying to argue that Bush & Co want the plaintiffs to succeed in declaring that Guantanamo Bay is subject to US law, not Cuban law?
Slarti, are you seriously trying to argue that Bush & Co want the plaintiffs to succeed in declaring that Guantanamo Bay is subject to US law, not Cuban law?
Let’s keep this on-topic, shall we? Changing the subject isn’t going to change the fact that you made a quite serious claim and have yet to substantiate. Not that it’s relevant, but I’ll decline to exercise my mighty mind-reading abilities in accordance with your question.
Slarti, if you’re not going to bother reading my responses, I’m certainly not going to bother typing it all out again. Re-read my post at February 27, 2004 10:59 AM.
And sure, you can try to claim that an on-topic question is “changing the subject”, but it’s fairly obvious that you’re just doing so because answering it would make the point that you claim I haven’t substantiated. 😉
Here’s an idea.
Open up trade with Cuba, to get their society hooked on commerce and US products, so that when Castro eventually dies it’ll be far more likely that he’ll be replaced by someone with policies we like.
In the meantime, while waiting for Castro to die, close Gitmo. Bulldoze it.
Give the pissy Cuban exiles shares in a glitzy new Gitmo casino and yacht club/resort, built by a Vegas developer.
Once Castro dies and reforms are instituted, the Cuban exiles can use their casino profits to buy up real estate in Havan to their hearts’ content.
Slarti, if you’re not going to bother reading my responses, I’m certainly not going to bother typing it all out again. Re-read my post at February 27, 2004 10:59 AM.
Post reread. Can I interpret it as a retraction of your assertion? It wasn’t clearly that. If you’re referring to:
it’s still a reach. Officials does not equate to the Bush administration.
And sure, you can try to claim that an on-topic question is “changing the subject”, but it’s fairly obvious that you’re just doing so because answering it would make the point that you claim I haven’t substantiated. 😉
Ah, wishful thinking. Well, if the statement I made about telepathy didn’t take last time, I see no point in repeating it. What I imagine the actual thoughts of GWb to be are about as far from a relevant argument as anything I can think of.
But, to be crystal clear, I decline to indulge in speculation in this matter, because I’ve got not the slightest confidence in my ability to speculate.
Slarti claimed: Post reread.
Since you really don’t seem capable of scrolling up anymore, Slarti, here’s what I said in that post that you don’t seem to want to re-read:
What I imagine the actual thoughts of GWb to be are about as far from a relevant argument as anything I can think of.
Ah well. I guess if you’re a Bush administration supporter, it would be necessary to cultivate that kind of deliberately-obtuse attitude. Too bad.
What are you asking a cite to prove, Slarti? That Guantanamo Bay is part of Cuba?
Guantanamo is held in leasehold interest by the United States. Jes’s NY Times link shows that Guantanamo is the sovereign territory of Cuba, but it is silent as to whether Cuban law applies to the premises. I suppose that, ultimately, it would depend on the language of the lease agreement and international contract law. To that end, Jes has NOT supported his contention that Gitmo is subject to Cuban law.
The reason the detainees are at Guantanamo is that it’s outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law. Quite frankly, I’m not sure what jurisdiction applies except for the UCMJ.
Is it possible, Edward, that we actually agree on something?
Is it possible, Edward, that we actually agree on something?
I saw that too…I had to re-read it a few times to make sure I hadn’t misunderstood…
Bush is not the only Pol who panders to the Cuban American voters through hallow gestures like this, plenty of Democrats do so as well…it’s really just time to admit this containment policy is not changing things…not on any meaningful schedule at least.
ummm…that should be “hollow gestures”
Ah well. I guess if you’re a Bush administration supporter, it would be necessary to cultivate that kind of deliberately-obtuse attitude. Too bad.
Aw, you could have just called me a big fat poopyhead, and used fewer words.
And if deliberately-obtuse is defined as “desirous of getting to just what the hell Jesurgislac is ranting on about this time”, I plead guilty.
And if deliberately-obtuse is defined as “desirous of getting to just what the hell Jesurgislac is ranting on about this time”, I plead guilty.
Ah, you could just have called me “a big fat poopyhead” and used fewer words.
No, by “deliberately obtuse” I meant your repeated claim that you can’t begin to tell what Bush and Co want to do by looking at what they actually do.
No, by “deliberately obtuse” I meant your repeated claim that you can’t begin to tell what Bush and Co want to do by looking at what they actually do.
Maybe there’s a point there. I have, after all, been pointing out the futility of attempting to determine what they’re thinking, particularly in light of their purported opacity. If you can describe to me exactly how you determine one’s motivations from one’s actions, I’ll call you spot-on correct and move on.
Or, I could just call you deliberately obtuse for continuing to maintain you can read their minds. Either one is fine with me.
If you can describe to me exactly how you determine one’s motivations from one’s actions, I’ll call you spot-on correct and move on.
Slarti, let’s try with this discussion.
I asked you a straightforward question at February 28, 2004 07:57: are you seriously trying to argue that Bush & Co want the plaintiffs to succeed in declaring that Guantanamo Bay is subject to US law, not Cuban law?
You have (action) persistently refused to answer it.
I can tell from that (motivation) that you really don’t want to answer it.
See? Easy.
I can tell from that (motivation) that you really don’t want to answer it.
See, this is exactly the problem. Actually, I declined to answer the question because it had exactly zero to do with your claim, which was what I took issue with. If you’re half as adept at mind-reading as you seem to think you are, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. Or perhaps you ought to stop reading my mind and read what I’m writing, instead. It might save you from engaging yourself in other lengthy but fruitless discussions.
I can tell from that (motivation) that you really don’t want to answer it.
You just flunked your telepathy final. But for the record, the answer is: I don’t know. Neither do you, by the way.
Which brings up an interesting question: how can a person who can’t grasp the simple distinction between intention and motivation imagine himself able to understand the thoughts of others?