Bush coddles Castro, betrays liberty

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Condoned, yes. But official policy, no.

It was and apparently continues to be an unwritten policy (thus giving them "lpausible" deniability. These days, my understanding is that the police are murdering street children. I expect the police and military aren't too happy about Lula's election and he probably won't have any better luck reigning them in.

[Dom Pedro II]

Actually, its been getting better. No where near perfect, but it IS getting better.

The reason being that Brazil's media is much much more powerful than it was in 1985.

Every time I go to Brazil, I see big differences. We are changing for the better. Slowly but surely...

Btw, if you want to see an absolutely awesome (and sad) move about life on Brazilian streets, see Cidade do Deus. City of God. GREAT MOVIE.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
You know, Che, if Castro really wanted to normalize relations with the US, all he would have to do is set Cuba free. Is this asking too much, given, as you say, the fact that Castro would be elected in a free, multi-party election?

Look, I don't condone everything Castro does. I'd personally like to see elections opened up to other socialist and communist groups. But free elections has never been a litmous test of whether or not the U.S. will have normal relations with you.

Despite the fact that nearly every country/NGO/group that monitored the Nicaraguan elections of 1984 said they were fere and fair, the U.S. continued to wage war on it for six more years and claimed the elections were fraudulent. Yes, when the Sandanistas lost in 1990, they looted the government, but before that, they were definately one of the least corrupt and freeest governments in Latin America and did more than any coutry but Cuba to help educate, feed, clothe, and house their people, not to mention the massive increase in health care. All of that is now gone.

I suspect that free elections don't take place in Cuba because Cuba doesn't think there's any point. If the Communists win, the U.S. will simply denounce the elections as a fraud. If they should lose, then it would be a disaster for the country as the new government would dismantle everything and sell it off or give it to the old owners of Cuba. Furthermore, the U.S. would probably give millions of dollars to anyone running to the right of the Communists, as the did in Nicaragua. What's fair about that, especially when it's illegal for foreign governments to spend money in our elections?

[Dom Pedro II]

I suspect that free elections don't take place in Cuba because Cuba doesn't think there's any point.

So the only point to allowing the people to elect their leaders would be to placate the U.S.???

Here's another point, che, that I never really understood, but since you are much more knowledgable about the subject then perhaps you can explain it... (this is a genuine question)

If they have (or were to have) a Constitution like we do (albeit for a Communist country it would have to be a MUCH larger body since it would have to have stipulations for government control of this that and the other), why would they need to be worried about deconstruction of their current system if they lose? I mean, in theory now, shouldn't there be different "Communist" parties working within the confines of a Communist system that cannot be altered because of its Constitution, in the same way that there are "Capitalist" parties in capitalist countries that work within a certain set of boundaries? Why must there be ONE Communist party, and only one Communist party, and they have to maintain a vice-like grip on power in order to keep the system intact?

[chequita guevara]

A Constitution is just a scrap of paper. It's only useful as long as the government agrees to abide by it. The USSR has one of the best constitutions in the world, but it didn't amount to much under Stalin. Cuba's got a constitution, I think the newest one was adopted in 1975.

The reason there is only one Communist Party is basically bureaucratic BS. After all, there can only be one truth, right? Heck, it wouldn't be all that bad if the party had competing factions inside it, but I don't know if the Cuban CP does.

Like I said, I don't justify everything they do, but I can see some of their reasoning. If the most pwerful country in the world is your neighbor and it wants to destroy you, you're going to take what measures you can to prevent that.

I do know that the people of Cuba have a very large degree of access to Castro and don't feel afraid to tell him to his face what they think is wrong with the country, the government, etc. I have never seen anywhere a president get lectured by regular people, and him to reply, you're absolutely right, and I don't think you've criticized me enough . . .

[Dom Pedro II]

Ok, but you don't think that they could maintain a Communist country even with a Communist Constitution?

I mean, in theory, if they had an election, even if several "capitalist" parties won seats (and probably it would more likely be degrees of Communism) it wouldn't necessarily mean that they'd have the power to sweep away the entire old Constitution, or even part of it.

But on the other hand, if they people elected, across the board, politicians who were intent on tearing down the old structure, wouldn't that be indicative of something?

And as far as American money buying out the elections... if the Cuban government controls the television and radio, and you have a set of rules guiding elections and equal-distribution of air time, how are the U.S.-backed candidates going to get more air time?

Not for anything, but the American Presidents used to have regular people come and see them too. Right up until Lincoln got shot basically. That, coupled with the Gilded Age, put a stop to that. *shrugs* Different times...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Castro sucks... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't lift the embargo .

Maybe that could encourage more democracy in the country.

[Dom Pedro II]

Maybe that could encourage more democracy in the country.

That's what I was saying... not like it was my idea, but I made reference to that earlier.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well it isn't the only reason, but elimination of the embargo would be better for both countries. More openness in Cuba can only be a good thing, right?

Of course any person that does this has to make sure they don't need Florida or New Jersey to win the election for President .

[Sprayber]

Listen folks. For me it doesn't matter if the people are coming from Cuba or Canada, as long as it's done within the law and it's fair to others that want in. If there is a case for political assylum then fine, present it to the authorities. But this crap about sneaking into the country is bull****. Period. It takes away from the millions that have come to this country legally and to those that are still trying to get it. Those are the people that I want to help.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II


Btw, if you want to see an absolutely awesome (and sad) move about life on Brazilian streets, see Cidade do Deus. City of God. GREAT MOVIE.

YES. I've been raving about this one to everyone I meet. Film of the year - no contest.

And that girl is real hot too.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Meldor
[EDIT] Am I the only one old enough to remember the flap when Clinton set this policy? Come on I know some of you have dry ears...

Yeah, I remember. It was a coupla shades quieter than the yowling about Carter and Mariel, but only a coupla shades.

Presidents have also set blanket policies (through orders to DoJ/INS) allowing different criteria to be used for asylum applications, depending on the nation. For example, under Reagan, any Nicaraguan (unfriendly murderous thug government) petition for asylum was considered, but for Guatamalans or Salvadorans (friendly murderous thug government), the asylum applicant had to show that he or she personally, or immediate family members in the same household were personally threatened with bodily harm for political reasons.

A much tougher standard to meet, and it led to a lot more summary rejections and deportations for the Guatamalans and Salvadorans, while the Nicaraguans could appeal, make an appeal bond, then apply for green cards through connection to family members.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Meldor, et al.
IF we were really in it for liberty for the oppressed, then the boat would not have been turned ‘round.

Gods....it’s like pulling teeth sometimes.

-=Vel=-

We only care about the liberty of the oppressed if they stay where they belong, and that place happens to either (a) be geopolitically useful, or (b) have resources we want, and (c) has a ruler who isn't our boy.

PS: And the numbers argument is a very poor one. Just because Castro isn’t in the big leagues as far as mass killings go….just because whole towns do not disappear in the night doesn’t make him ANY less wrong.

Castro was an improvement over his predecessor, who we happily supported as long as our politically connected companies (good ol' United Fruit, M. A. Hanna and others) got good deals on those resource contracts courtesy of Sr. and Sra. Batista.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Listen folks. For me it doesn't matter if the people are coming from Cuba or Canada, as long as it's done within the law and it's fair to others that want in. If there is a case for political assylum then fine, present it to the authorities. But this crap about sneaking into the country is bull****. Period. It takes away from the millions that have come to this country legally and to those that are still trying to get it. Those are the people that I want to help.

The problem I have with this is that most countries allow free emmigration that permits an orderly, legal process, for US immigration. Not so communist countries, like Fidel's paradise. The people who escape these countries must do it by running through minefields, dodging machinegun fire aimed at their backs, or, in the case of Cuba, traverse 90 miles of open ocean in makeshift boats while avoiding the navies of both Cuba and its seems the United States.

We never, not once, returned a refugee to the communists in Europe. Doing so in the case of Cuban refugees is unbelieveable.

It this truly is a law that Bush cannot waive, the Congress needs to act to reverse it.

[Meldor]

The question really is "Do we treat Cubans, detained on the open seas, any differently than we do any one from any other country.

The answer is plainly, no. We don't treat them any differently. We do treat them differently when they step onto American soil (as long as they violate no laws to do so such as hijacking a plane).

There are any number of places in which people are treated a lot worse than the are in Cuba. There are places where people are much more repressed than the Cubans are today. There are Latin American countries in which the plight of the people is much worse than it is in Cuba. I don't care for Castro. I hope that the current Cuban government doesn't last another year. But, it isn't something that is likely to cause me concern. Right now there is more threat coming from the middle east and the situations there. The President is addressing that problem area and if needed will handle others as well. As far as I could tell, none of the 16 hijackers IDed came from Cuba, or had funding from Cuba. While the Cuban government may sell arms and do silly things like jam satellites to gain oil from Iran, there is no direct threat from Cuba at this time.

Summary:
Cuba isn't a threat.
Cubans aren't treated any differently than any one else coming from any number of nasty places.
There are bigger things to worry about than this silliness.

However, if it really makes you feel better to gripe about it then go ahead. It begins to reach the point of diminishing returns.