Slashdot Mirror
RMS Protest Song On Gitmo
An anonymous reader tipped us to a protest song RMS has written and recorded (while visiting Cuba) and is hosting on stallman.org. It's a sort of parody, although it's too serious really to be called that, in Spanish of the song "Guantanamera," in which a Gitmo prisoner talks about his experiences and mourns his fate. RMS wrote the lyrics in 2006 after learning what "Guantanamera" actually means. The lyrics are moving, and the recording, in Ogg, is competent — RMS sings well and he's got some amateur musicians from Cuba backing him up. Here are the lyrics and an English translation.
but Ogg only?
Yeah I know its RMS, so ideology wins over practicality. But I'd think AAC would be ok, and then it could be played with iTunes or whatever.
The Road to Guantanamo - about three British muslims who end up in Gitmo, get abused and then released.
Real life is overrated.
"it is totally legal to visit Cuba (up to X times per year, [IIRC X is one])"
You know, having grown up in an Eastern Block country where a symptom of the dictatorship we had was that we were allowed to go to the "West" only once in every four yours, I find this limit in the "Land of Free" totally hilarious (and, on the other hand, totally sad).
Real life is overrated.
Eh? If you don't approve of the Guantanamo detentions, it means you like communism?? What kind of bizarre logic is that?
Look, I don't approve of the Guantanamo detentions, or the war in Iraq. I also happen to think that Fidel Castro is a raging deluded asshole, yet I also think that the embargo on Cuba is embarrassingly stupid and should stop.
And I didn't see anything at that website that indicated that RMS had actually visited Cuba, but speaking of that, it's also bizarre that an American citizen cannot go wherever the hell he pleases whenever he pleases.
He should stick to what he's good at, writing software.
Next you're going to say country music singers should just shut up and sing.
It's bullshit. Being good at something does not take away your right to hold or express political views.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Ahhh yes... Gitmo, the bastion of human rights. Of course, the fact that many people with no connections to terrorism were kept there against their will doesn't outrage you at all...
Today's lucky number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
One of the things that separate civilization from barbary is that we, generally, try to play fair -EVEN- with those people who would not extend the same courtesy to us.
Yeah, the human-rigths situation is (much) worse in Pakistan than it is USA, and on US-run detention-centres. That make you particularily proud ? Your ambition is to beat Pakistan, so aslong as you're ahead of them, you're a happy camper ?
I wonder how he managed to visit Cuba without violating the federal law that prohibits US citizens from trading with our enemies.
There are several exceptions to the restrictions on travel to Cuba.
I would imagine that RMS went there for a conference on free software. This would fall under an exception which doesn't require special permission from the State Department.
Does anyone else appreciate the extreme irony of going to protest in Cuba, a nation that was rated as having the second least free press (just behind North Korea) in the world, no political freedom of any sort, and thousands of political prisoners. Cuba is a nation where if someone decided to go protest against the political prisoners held in Cuban jails, they would be rounded up and tossed into jail. Going to Cuba to protest some other nations violations of liberty is the sort of thing that should make people laugh until they cry.
"Let me get this straight. As long as Castro embraces software freedom, actual political freedom is irrelevant in Stallman's world."
And who do you think is a good example of embracing freedom, if you were going to consider the USA, then consider the following points.
- Doesn't recognize the democratically elected palistinian government as being legitimate
- Recognize Pakistan's military dictatorship as legitimate.
- Places domestic travel bans on its citizens
- Limits travel to other countries (as mentioned above)
- Spies on its own people without probable cause, (echlon/carnivore/whatever its called now, RFID ? )
- Violates its own constitution (count the ways)
- No longer has a clear separation from the judicial system (sacking bush unfriendly judges)
- Highest imprisonment rate of any country per head of population
- The government of some states kill their own people (capital punishment)
Face it, "land of the free" is nothing more than a propaganda term.
RMS isnt superman... solving all the worlds problems is too much for one person, maybe he just wants to concentrates on software freedom, doesnt mean he shouldnt express his views on other types of freedom.
If you would expect RMS to keep silent about his views on political freedom, then can you honestly say you respect political freedom ?
"It's bullshit. Being good at something does not take away your right to hold or express political views."
True, but being good at being attractive or a good singer does give you a larger stage than you would normally have to disseminate your ill-informed, embarrassing rantings, which your opinions usually are when you're a rich dilettante whose principle contribution to society was to make millions of people think, "that sounds neat" for thirty seconds.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Stallman isn't supporting Castro, he's just shitting on Bush more. The fact that Cuba isn't the bastion of human rights doesn't reduce the severity of the United States - the most powerful single country in the world - having questionable human rights practices.
Stallman is always very careful about what he says in cases like this. Don't put words in his mouth, find out what he's actually said and respond to that.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
STFU
The song has NOTHING at all to do with Cuba, it's about Gitmo which, for all practical purposes, is 100% American.
He happened to write the song while in Cuba, so what? He could have written it in Argentina or Canada or China.
Now go back to your GI Joes, the grown-ups are talking.
Besides the poor - or soon to be poor - who does an embargo hurt?
The opposing party/leaders. An embargo provides what every politician needs: something to blame everything on.
"It's not my fault your poor. It's the embargo"
"Not my fault we don't have enough fule. It's the embargo"
"The lack of electricity in Havana? The food shortages? All the American's fault"
"It's not that we have rules and policies that discourage actual progress. It's all those damn Americans"
As someone whoes talked to a lot of Cubans and knowing what conditions are like in that country (outside of the tourist areas) I have to wonder if Castro would have been overthrown a long time ago if the American government hadn't been jumping up and down with huge "Blame us for everything" sign on their foreheads.
The fact that the United States is playing international law games in order to facilitate the holding of prisoners indefinitely without trial is something that no US citizen should consider even slightly acceptable. The United States was founded on the ideal of freedom, and the founders thought that the issue of imprisonment without trial was so important that they dedicated an item to it in the Bill of Rights.
If other countries want to torture their prisoners that's bad. But for the United States to hold prisoners indefinitely in the name of defending the country - that makes a mockery of the very values that make the country worth defending at all.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Yes -- the reason they left (according to the GP) is that "they've had family members tortured and killed in some of the most horrif and brutal ways immaginable" (sic). So you're saying that, aside from the brutal torture and murder, Castro's a great guy? That's awesome.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
A fully reasonable comparison. When my dad once went to the United States, he first thought that he had gotten on the wrong plane and landed in the Soviet Union (this was while the USSR still existed). Where else would you need to fill in a whole range of papers declaring this and that*, as well as tell the immigration officials where you intend to stay and so on.
*= To a foreigner, the US immigration papers look more than silly, they make a laugh of the entire US (first impressions, you know). You have to answer questions on whether you were ever a member of a communist organization, whether you are going to the US to commit terrorist acts, etc, etc. Do they really expect the communists or terrorists to answer Yes in any of these forms? How naive are those immigration officials really?
No offense, but it is insanely ridiculous.
Sorry to say that so frankly but I'm disgusted by the foreign policy of the US. But then I read Slashdot, a site which I consider only educated ppl read and ppl who are able to think for themselves... And then I read so many weird comments relativising Guanatanamo.
... say Germany, a powerful first world country and not usually seen as being part of the "axis of evil" would hijack a US citzien visiting Italy, flying him to say... Afghanistan, let him torture him by locals to gain information, figure out that I was a mistake and after holding him for 2+ years release him without any charges.
The fact is, that the US is hijacking foreigners in foreign countries, flying them to 3d-world countries to torture them and circumvent US laws.
Just one question: What would you say if
What would you then think of Germany as a country?
Thing is, the US is exactly behaving like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
Then imagine reading a german website where a lots of Germans would say: "Well capturing foreigners and holding them without trial is not such a bad thing. At least we're not torturing them... well at least not so brutal... and giving them food. And bibles."
Then figure what your opinion of Germany and the German ppl would be.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
The problem with EEUU is not so much EEUU, but their foreign policy.
For example, I don't know many people that support EEUU views on the Iran nuclear issue. Because they know that EEUU has been the only country in the story of humanity that has actually dropped nuclear bombs to innocent people. So their thinking goes like "uh, the only country that has dropped nuclear bombs into a city and feels proud of it now tries to look like he is trying to stop other countries from doing the same?"
And we know that EEUU has a long track of supporting dictatorships that supported capitalism and declaring the war to democracies that tried to turn into a socialist economy. South-america hates EEUU, and for very good reasons. So we just don't believe when EEUU says he's trying to fight terrorism and promote freedom - we know quite well EEUU doesn't bothers about democracy or dictatorship, he just cares about capitalism (which allows EEUU companies to enter those countries) and communism, nothing else. IOW, they only care about money, not about freedom and rights.
Translation: EEUU is Spanish for The US.
Indeed you're right. The US has sabotaged its own good name and goodwill over and over again. And they just keep at it, over and over, again and again.
The most stunning example of this is how they gained sympathy all over the world after 9/11 and then somehow managed to squander it all in a few months, simply by showing an astonishingly bullying attitude rather than looking for co-operation regarding the Iraq war.
They had such amazing goodwill and sympathy, even in Islamic countries. Sadly, their propaganda machine refused to portray this goodwill, preferring to stir up conflict. But outside the US and its propaganda machine there was so much goodwill, it felt like some kind of world-wide friendship among nations was growing forth. So many past mistakes were being forgiven.
And yet somehow they managed to squander almost all of this in just a few months, by showing an amazingly bullying attitude and disdainfully neglecting all the persistent warnings about the chaos and surging terrorism that would unavoidably ensue if they went forth with their Iraq adventure.
*Sigh!* For a while it looked so promising!
I suppose their war industry didn't like that promising outlook.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
"I think people who were wavering about whether what we are doing in Guantanamo is right,"
All six of them? After all, it's been over five years now.
"will come down on the side of Bush when they see unkempt hippie commies like RMS"
Ah yes, victim of the ol' Secret Constitutional Amendment that strips citizenship away from "unkempt hippie commies."
"we are at WAR after all."
With whom, exactly? Iran? North Korea? Cuba? And whether your answer is Afghanistan, Iraq, or Oceania this week, there's still the fact that the United States hasn't been at war with anybody since 1945.
"RMS should be put on trial for treason..."
It's nice to know you share your grasp of the federal constitution with your chosen president.
Now the current, corrupt US administration is of course another story. They basically, callously and corruptly used the 11/9 incident as a means by which to profit their corporate partners and in turn themselves.
The utterly contemptible way in which they have traded human lives for profit, corrupted justice for greater corporate power and used two religions as nothing but a cynical exercise in political marketing, puts them beyond doubt, as the most corrupt and criminal administration in US history.
The worst possible mistake the Americans can now make, is to fail to prosecute the current administrations for the crimes they have self evidently committed, this failure would inevitably lead to even greater excesses by future administrations.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
>The most stunning example of this is how they gained sympathy all over the world after 9/11 and then somehow managed to squander it all in a few months, simply by showing an astonishingly bullying attitude rather than looking for co-operation regarding the Iraq war. ...
> And yet somehow they managed to squander almost all of this in just a few months, by showing an amazingly bullying attitude and disdainfully neglecting all the persistent warnings about the chaos and surging terrorism that would unavoidably ensue if they went forth with their Iraq adventure.
Living in the US and being one of the 25% of people interested in news and current events, I can guarantee you that the Iraq War, which began in March of 2003, took quite a bit longer than "a few months".
Your memory, however, is correct, much of the US' "international good-will" evaporated in a few months after 9/11, especially in Muslim and what used to be the "non-aligned" countries. After the US attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan. And to that, I give a giant middle finger to the self-serving hypocrites around the world expressing "sympathy" and withdrawing it after the US took appropriate action in its self-defense.
It's sad so many people lump in the justified war in Afghanistan with the unjustified war in Iraq.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Seemingly ridiculous, indeed, save for one point: If ever they find you gave money to some "terrorist" group or were involved with some "communist" organization, they can deport you. Not because giving your money to some "terrorist" group or having "communist" friends is illegal (it may not be), but because you lied on your immigration forms, and entered the country thus on false pretenses. That's sufficient to deport you, without the hassle of formally accusing you of dubious crimes.
I don't think that's what he's saying. Let's take this out of the political realm for a moment. Suppose you were trying to develop a well-balanced perspective on vi vs. emacs. Given their long standing enmity, you'd probably agree that it would be silly to try to get a well-balanced perspective on their relative merits by attending a "vi rules, emacs drools" party, or vice versa. You'd be much better off asking someone who was less emotionally married to the subject and who could comment convincingly on the inevitable pros and cons of both pieces of software.
Moving back into the political, if you were a non-American attempting to develop a well-rounded and nuanced perspective on American foreign policy, would you go and ask Iranians? Iraqis? Probably not. Not because these groups don't have valid complaints -- but rather because their bad experiences hamstring their ability to approach the issue of America's foreign policy in a rational way.
Similarly, the Palestinians would probably not be the right people to ask about Israel's right to exist. This is not because their complaints are unjustified, nor is to say that those should not be addressed -- but their feud with Israel makes them the least likely, in principle, to provide you with a nuanced perspective on the topic.
Armed with this understanding, the thing to realize about the Cuban American population in Florida and elsewhere is that, well, they hate Castro. Asking them what kind of a guy Castro is is about as productive as asking an internal party cadre in Cuba what kind of a guy Castro is -- the response is certain, before you even ask the question. Cuban Americans hate Castro -- that's why they left. They're not going to tell you about the good things he's done, because they want him out of power, and they see American pressure as a means to that end. Similarly, if you asked somebody high up in the Cuban Communist Party what they thought of him, they would certainly not mention anything about the bad things he's done -- they owe their livelihood to him, it is in their best interest that you see him as a good leader worthy of support.
This is the essence of propaganda, whatever end it pushes. You needn't lie; no one is perfect. Choose a side, and then selectively report only the good or only the bad, depending on which view you'd like your readership to take. If you listen to liberals, for example, Bush's tax-cuts were a "gift to the rich, at the expense of the poor" -- but in actuality, thanks to a (proven) economic phenomenon known as the Laffer curve, federal income has increased since the tax cuts, which should surprise no one who has studied economics. This is quietly ignored in the left-leaning press, who instead opt to play the percentages game and say that the middle class pays proportionally more of the tax burden than it used to, ignoring that everyone is paying less than they used to. In a similar vein, when you listen to Fox news, the completely unjustifiable Iraq war was justifiable because they had WMD, or Saddam was a bad guy, or whatever -- now, the right is careful not to invoke images of WMD because they know that it will hurt their image, which is already so tarnished that one wonders how much more damage can be done.
Selective reporting -- you should always be wary of it. My view, and I believe it nuanced, is that Castro has been a pretty brutal guy at times, and can in no way be considered a great leader by any honest definition of the term. But having said that, it is telling that the infant mortality rate in Cuba is the lowest in the Americas -- which, lest you gloss over it, includes the US and Canada. The literacy rate in Cuba is nearly 100%. People are poor, but they are not walking around on the street fearing for their lives, either, as in many places in Latin America, where kidnapping and drug cartel related deaths are a fact of life. It's not such an easy question to answer: well meaning but weak governments hav