Slashdot Mirror

Castro and the communist government aren't a walk in the park (e.g. human rights abuses, limited democractic rights for population, dictatorial powers) but its not nearly as bad as portrayed in the American media.

"If a person is deemed to fall under any of the types of dangerousness cited above, so-called security measures may be taken against him, and these may be either "pre-criminal" or "post-criminal". According to the Criminal Code, "security measures may be decreed to prevent the commission of crimes or by reason of their commission." In the case of pre-crime security measures, Article 78 provides that a person declared to be dangerous may be subjected to therapeutic measures, re-education or surveillance by the Revolutionary National Police. One therapeutic measure, according to Article 79, consists of internment in a social. psychiatric or detoxification institute. Article 80 provides that re-education measures are to be applied to antisocial individuals, consisting of internment in a specialized work or study institute, and delivery to a labor collective for control and guidance of their dangerous conduct. The term of these measures ranges from one year to four years. In addition, the Revolutionary National Police, according to Article 81, have a surveillance system consisting of "guidance and control over the conduct of a dangerous person." This measure may also last for a period of one to four years. Article 82 provides that the security measures may include the imprisonment of a person "depending on the degree of danger he presents and the possibilities of his re-education."

Summary: you can be arrested and detained for up to four years because the police think you appear dangerous and might commit a crime. Police are using this power to imprison people who are not criminals by any stretch of the imagination - it's a purely repressive tactic, used to intimidate and control.

If anything, the American media is too soft on Cuba, often forgetting (as apparently you have) that it is one of the last holdouts of an unacceptably repressive style of government that much of the 20th century was spent abolishing. Unless you actually live there, you do the Cuban people a disservice by trying to diminish the seriousness of these problems.

Castro and the communist government aren't a walk in the park (e.g. human rights abuses, limited democractic rights for population, dictatorial powers) but its not nearly as bad as portrayed in the American media.

"If a person is deemed to fall under any of the types of dangerousness cited above, so-called security measures may be taken against him, and these may be either "pre-criminal" or "post-criminal". According to the Criminal Code, "security measures may be decreed to prevent the commission of crimes or by reason of their commission." In the case of pre-crime security measures, Article 78 provides that a person declared to be dangerous may be subjected to therapeutic measures, re-education or surveillance by the Revolutionary National Police. One therapeutic measure, according to Article 79, consists of internment in a social. psychiatric or detoxification institute. Article 80 provides that re-education measures are to be applied to antisocial individuals, consisting of internment in a specialized work or study institute, and delivery to a labor collective for control and guidance of their dangerous conduct. The term of these measures ranges from one year to four years. In addition, the Revolutionary National Police, according to Article 81, have a surveillance system consisting of "guidance and control over the conduct of a dangerous person." This measure may also last for a period of one to four years. Article 82 provides that the security measures may include the imprisonment of a person "depending on the degree of danger he presents and the possibilities of his re-education."

Summary: you can be arrested and detained for up to four years because the police think you appear dangerous and might commit a crime. Police are using this power to imprison people who are not criminals by any stretch of the imagination - it's a purely repressive tactic, used to intimidate and control.

If anything, the American media is too soft on Cuba, often forgetting (as apparently you have) that it is one of the last holdouts of an unacceptably repressive style of government that much of the 20th century was spent abolishing. Unless you actually live there, you do the Cuban people a disservice by trying to diminish the seriousness of these problems.

Castro and the communist government aren't a walk in the park (e.g. human rights abuses, limited democractic rights for population, dictatorial powers) but its not nearly as bad as portrayed in the American media.

"If a person is deemed to fall under any of the types of dangerousness cited above, so-called security measures may be taken against him, and these may be either "pre-criminal" or "post-criminal". According to the Criminal Code, "security measures may be decreed to prevent the commission of crimes or by reason of their commission." In the case of pre-crime security measures, Article 78 provides that a person declared to be dangerous may be subjected to therapeutic measures, re-education or surveillance by the Revolutionary National Police. One therapeutic measure, according to Article 79, consists of internment in a social. psychiatric or detoxification institute. Article 80 provides that re-education measures are to be applied to antisocial individuals, consisting of internment in a specialized work or study institute, and delivery to a labor collective for control and guidance of their dangerous conduct. The term of these measures ranges from one year to four years. In addition, the Revolutionary National Police, according to Article 81, have a surveillance system consisting of "guidance and control over the conduct of a dangerous person." This measure may also last for a period of one to four years. Article 82 provides that the security measures may include the imprisonment of a person "depending on the degree of danger he presents and the possibilities of his re-education."

Summary: you can be arrested and detained for up to four years because the police think you appear dangerous and might commit a crime. Police are using this power to imprison people who are not criminals by any stretch of the imagination - it's a purely repressive tactic, used to intimidate and control.

If anything, the American media is too soft on Cuba, often forgetting (as apparently you have) that it is one of the last holdouts of an unacceptably repressive style of government that much of the 20th century was spent abolishing. Unless you actually live there, you do the Cuban people a disservice by trying to diminish the seriousness of these problems.

I think that anything that the US government may say about human rights issues should at least be taken with a grain of salt, but preferably just dismissed as imperialist propaganda.

I can show you with figures, facts, references and cross-references how what the US was telling about the Soviet Union was disingenuous lies and distortions.

Soviet Union was a very different country from what you may be accustomed in the US. Contrary to what most Americans believe, in many regards it was a country of free and happy people.

Sure. You could have said the same thing about apartheid South Africa, where I grew up, as long as you ignored the black people (and even some of them would defend the system!) That doesn't mean that the bad things going on there should just have been tolerated. It's easy to live your life in almost any country if you're just willing to look the other way and ignore problems that other people are having. But that makes you a coward. You may be happy, but you also may as well not exist when it comes to your impact on the world: in fact, your impact is negative, since your inaction implicitly endorses the bad behavior of others.

You've got some kind of beef with the US, which you're inflicting on me (who is not even an American) and others to the exclusion of the actual facts in the case of Cuba. The US is irrelevant to the situation in Cuba. Even if the US was a horrible dictatorship, it wouldn't change the facts about Cuba. You mention another repressive regime, China, which I would criticize at least as much, if not more. I'm not the one singling out Cuba - for some reason, it seems you are, presumably because it is "the enemy of your enemy". The result is a very irrational and unfocused argument from you.

Because the government jails some people that work to illegally overthrow the social order?

Who imposed that social order? Did the Cuban people as a whole have any say in it? If you held free elections in Cuba, would they elect the same sort of government?

You're simply being an apologist for repression, and you remind me of many of my South African (ex-)countrymen. Here's the deal: as long as you're willing to ignore the injustices around you in favor of a more comfortable life for yourself, you will come in for attack from people who aren't as lucky as you. What happened in the Soviet Union wasn't America's fault, just as what's happening in Cuba isn't America's fault. The people who have the power to change a country are the people of that country. If you sit around and claim that change isn't necessary, when all the facts are against you, chances are you're going to come into conflict with world history. It sounds like that happened to you, and now you're trying to blame America, but not yourself or your fellow countrymen. What you have experienced is karma, pure and simple.

You and those European and Canadian travellers are merely turning a blind eye to the repression of the Cuban people, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

On the off-chance that you'd like to alleviate your some of your ignorance about Cuba, I recommend studying its current human rights record. This page is a good place to start. Note that this is from a European human rights agency, to take the question of American bias out of the picture. Also, see my post here for a summary.

Castro and the communist government aren't a walk in the park (e.g. human rights abuses, limited democractic rights for population, dictatorial powers) but its not nearly as bad as portrayed in the American media.

"If a person is deemed to fall under any of the types of dangerousness cited above, so-called security measures may be taken against him, and these may be either "pre-criminal" or "post-criminal". According to the Criminal Code, "security measures may be decreed to prevent the commission of crimes or by reason of their commission." In the case of pre-crime security measures, Article 78 provides that a person declared to be dangerous may be subjected to therapeutic measures, re-education or surveillance by the Revolutionary National Police. One therapeutic measure, according to Article 79, consists of internment in a social. psychiatric or detoxification institute. Article 80 provides that re-education measures are to be applied to antisocial individuals, consisting of internment in a specialized work or study institute, and delivery to a labor collective for control and guidance of their dangerous conduct. The term of these measures ranges from one year to four years. In addition, the Revolutionary National Police, according to Article 81, have a surveillance system consisting of "guidance and control over the conduct of a dangerous person." This measure may also last for a period of one to four years. Article 82 provides that the security measures may include the imprisonment of a person "depending on the degree of danger he presents and the possibilities of his re-education."

Summary: you can be arrested and detained for up to four years because the police think you appear dangerous and might commit a crime. Police are using this power to imprison people who are not criminals by any stretch of the imagination - it's a purely repressive tactic, used to intimidate and control.

If anything, the American media is too soft on Cuba, often forgetting (as apparently you have) that it is one of the last holdouts of an unacceptably repressive style of government that much of the 20th century was spent abolishing. Unless you actually live there, you do the Cuban people a disservice by trying to diminish the seriousness of these problems.

Actually in this case the rules were made by an international convention in Geneva which pretty clearly defines the status of fighters dressed as civilians...

It also clearly defines a due process for determining that status. Which is not being followed.

I'll give you that. A lot hinges on "shall any doubt arise" The status of Al Queada members is not in doubt as they manifestly fail to meet the requirments of Article 4. The closest they come is article 4.2 but fail to meet conditions b. (having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance) and c. (That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.) That being said I think the US should dot it's i's and cross it's t's and have a tribunal rule on the status of individual detainee's.

As for Taliban fighters they HAVE been legally granted POW status under the Geneva convention even though most of them also fail to meet the conditions in Article 4. And even the Al Queada prisoners are being accorded many of the rights granted to POW's - most importantly the right to be monitored by the IRC.

Nonsense. Not only is it questionable who's being better or worse treated,

Reports by Human Rights Watch, and the International Society for Human Rights sugget that it is not really all that questionable. The cells that the Al Queada prisoners are in are not as cramped as the reported 3x3 meters with 15 prisoners, they do have access to medical treatment, they are not being held in solitary indefinitely, they are not being held incommunicado, they are being monitored by the IRC and since they are being monitored I assume their guards aren't beating them.

We have several orders of magnitude less influence over how political prisoners are treated in Cuba.

I was responding to a Swede with about as much influence on either country who brought up Cuba as a nation we "don't like" just because they "successfully stood up to us." That statement and the coincidence of the detainees being held in Cuba caused me to muse on those critics of the US who's commitment to human rights goes out the window when the perpetrator of the abuses is fashionably left-wing. The hysterical tone from the left internationally about the prisoners of the US military in Guantanamo contrasts unflatteringly with the dead silence from the same quarter when the subject is political prisoners just over the fence.