Slashdot Mirror


Internet-Spreading American Gets 15-Year Sentence In Cuba

decora writes "American social worker Alan Phillip Gross, who has spent years connecting developing countries to the internet, has been sentenced by a 'Security Court' in Cuba to 15 years in prison. His crime: 'Acts against the Independence and Territorial Integrity of the State.' The Cuban government also claimed he was trying to 'destroy the Revolution through the use of communication systems out of the control of authorities.'"

386 comments

  1. Revolution? Control? by wvmarle · · Score: 2

    'destroy the Revolution through the use of communication systems out of the control of authorities.'

    And I always thought that a revolution by definition involves total loss of control by authorities...

    1. Re:Revolution? Control? by Bobakitoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, a revolution is a one full turn. It bring new authorities in control.

    2. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They are referring specifically to the theoretical revolution described by Marx.

      Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie > Dictatorship of the Proletariat > Stateless Communism

      Any "communist" state will be a dictatorship, ostensibly of the proletariat, that theoretically safeguards a revolution in progress. That state's duty is to prevent "counterrevolution" by the bourgeois. This is what they refer to when they say Gross is attempting to "destroy the Revolution".

      The Cuban government has, like all communist governments, stalled in the Dictatorship phase, and they are desperately preventing any move forward. Every institution is self-preserving, so the state cannot set into motion the process that would destroy it (the transition into stateless communism). So the state just kind of flops around oppressively until someone puts it out of its misery.

      edit: funny coincidence, my captcha was "anarchy"

    3. Re:Revolution? Control? by fractoid · · Score: 2

      Woah. I'd never thought of it like that... kind of like the way that "bringing balance to the force" doesn't mean total victory of the bad guys.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    4. Re:Revolution? Control? by Kilobug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dictatorship of the Proletariat is one of the most widely misunderstood expression, used a few times by Marx (and it was a very clumsy wording from him, indeed). What Marx meant by it is a strong government *in the hands of the working class* able to realize fast and profound changes in the society. He didn't mean by it a Stalin-like totalitarian state. He was even clear that for him, "dictatorship of the proletariat", was something like Paris' Commune. Which was the most democratic form of government that existed in modern history in France. In which elected representative could be recalled at any time at the demand of the basis. Which abolished death penalty, and gave right to vote to women, as early as 1870. Even the "army" of the Commune (the National Guard) was democratic, with the officers elected by the guards.

      As for the Cuban government, it's not perfect, but it's not a "dictatorship" under the common meaning of the word nowadays. People aren't arrested there for just disagreeing. There is no torture. People aren't kept in jail without trial. There are elections, and if we can discuss their fairness and the weird system they use, it's not the case only in Cuba (hint, 2000 election in the USA). There is no forced labor camps. Police don't open fire on protests.

      If you compare Cuba to its neighbors, it has much less human rights violations than for example in Mexico, Peru, Colombia or Chile (which are US allies and recognized as "democracies"). And it has several very positive aspects. One of the best healthcare system of the world (with the same life expectancy as USA despite the blockade, and a lower child death rate), one of the best educative system of the world (lower illiteracy and higher university enrollment rate than in USA).

      Cuba isn't perfect, and we should criticize what is broken in the cuban system. But Cuba is not a "tropical gulag", it's not the hell of a country that the mass media tell us it is. Considering its history and the hostility of a nearby superpower, it's quite impressive they managed to get all the good things they have, without much more bad things. Especially when you compare with so many other countries of Latin America.

    5. Re:Revolution? Control? by NoSig · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yet internet access is grounds for 15 year sentences?

    6. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I always thought that a revolution by definition involves total loss of control by authorities...

      No. You're thinking of Sid Meier's Civilization (the video game). Not everything in (real) life happens like it does on the console.

    7. Re:Revolution? Control? by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Repeat after me: "RTFA! RTFA! RTFA!"

      An American working for a covert U.S. program in Cuba was sentenced Saturday to 15 years in prison...

      Alan Gross, 61, worked as a contractor for a USAID program that secretly provided technology like computers and communications equipment to encourage democratic reforms...

      ...says the Cuban government may now use Mr. Gross as a bargaining chip to gain the release of five accused Cuban spies who were convicted in 2005 of espionage in the U.S.

      So, as usual, the summary is misleading. It should say "US and Cuba continue with their old feud... and the words "computer" and "internet" were mentioned on the article somewhere, so it belongs in Slashdot".

    8. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      And it has several very positive aspects.

      Yeah, the government death-squads have had a lot of practice, so the victims usually only suffer a single shot. /sarc

      You, sir, are an idiot. A "useful idiot", to be precise. I've spent time there. It's a hellhole outside of certain areas the Cuban government uses for propaganda purposes. Death squads are a fact of everyday life. People "go missing" in the night, never to be seen or heard from again.

      Nobody trusts anyone, as the authorities enthusiastically "encourage" people to report on their neighbors/friends/family. Corruption and outright thievery are rampant. Extreme poverty is the norm. Torture and executions are commonplace.

      Despite propaganda to the contrary, healthcare is all but non-existent, and what little there is typically takes many average month's-work's-salary-worth of bribes to even have a shot at any of it.

      Before you figuratively open your mouth about living conditions in revolutionary Cuba again and make yourself out to be an even bigger fool than Michael Moore, I strongly suggest you at least go down to southern Florida and talk to some Cuban ex-pats/survivors.

      The Cuban government is a cruel and iron-fisted despotic regime replete with all the horrors such regimes have always inflicted upon their victim-citizens. Anyone claiming otherwise is either a "useful idiot" or a complicit propagandist. I'll let you pick which category you belong in.

      I swear, some people's clueless kids...

    9. Re:Revolution? Control? by LordNacho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OT, but I always wondered WTF the Jedis were thinking when they came across Anakin. Surely if he's the one meant to bring balance to the force, and the good guys are in total power (the Sith were hiding), that means he'll help the bad guys? (Not a big SW buff though, only saw the films.)

    10. Re:Revolution? Control? by chroma · · Score: 1

      You gotta be kidding. You're wrong about just about everything. Read, for instance what Amnesty International has to say:
      http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/cuba

      --

      Your design to a real part online: Big Blue Saw
    11. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bugger, I meant 'of the good guys'. My bad.

    12. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet thousands of people risk death, and hundreds die, every year by crossing open ocean on flimsy rafts and in bathtubs while being targeted by the coastal patrols of 2 nations to escape this tropical paradise you describe. Why is that, could it be that it's not the great place that you claim.

    13. Re:Revolution? Control? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's what I meant to say... On one side you have the Jedi Council, running the galaxy, and on the other side you have the Sith, presumed wiped out. I wouldn't think the Jedi would be so keen on 'balancing' those two sides!

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    14. Re:Revolution? Control? by NoSig · · Score: 0

      Your quotes do nothing to change the point of my question.

    15. Re:Revolution? Control? by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      People aren't arrested there for just disagreeing. There is no torture. People aren't kept in jail without trial.

      Yes, there are people arrested just for disagreeing, there are people tortured, and people jailed without trial. A lot fewer than there were back in the 1960's when Che Guevera was summarily executing people daily, but it still occasionally happens.

      That said, there's a lot of evidence that Cuba is a lot better place for most of its residents than, say, Haiti or the Dominican Republic.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    16. Re:Revolution? Control? by Vidar+Leathershod · · Score: 1

      Wow. I didn't see it before, but you have opened my eyes. With all of this "awesome" happening in Cuba, I fully expect that soon people will be clamoring to get in and live under this impressive system. That's really cool that they don't open fire on protesters. Does that include anti-Castro protesters? When is the next anti-Castro protest scheduled? Maybe I will try and find a video feed.

      And elections, too? What percentage of the vote has Fidel/Raul gotten, historically? Or is it completely representative?

      --
      The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
    17. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What do you think the FCC and FBI would have to say if US citizens set up unlicensed communication in the control of a foreign country who is hostile to the US?
      It's not that they are setting up internet access. It's that it's without the consent of the government and by people hostile to the local government.

    18. Re:Revolution? Control? by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've not been but I know people that have worked there. Their story is very different from yours. I trust their opinion, and suspect you are full of shit, AC. The clues are there that you are simply a right wing idiot voicing your prejudice.

    19. Re:Revolution? Control? by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Informative

      Cuba has been impoverished by US embargoes on trade. The US doesn't only restrict their own trade with Cuba, they bully other countries to do likewise. It's been going on for decades.

    20. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      The original conception was more similar to the Hindu/Buddhist conception of "balance" and "imbalance", than the Judaeo-Christian concept of good and evil.

      The dark side of the force (originally named "Bogan") was the imbalance. And the light side of the force was the natural balanced state of the force.

      This kind of got lost in the original trilogy because they changed the names so they would sound less stupid and confuse the (American) audience less.

    21. Re:Revolution? Control? by currently_awake · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hush! America is a faith based country, where people decide what they want to believe and then go looking for evidence that supports it, they don't wish to be confronted by contrary evidence.

    22. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. And, in semi-unrelated news, some animals are more equal than others. Inquire with Cuban authorities about this, they never lie.

    23. Re:Revolution? Control? by d3ac0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It wasn't just the Jedi that were wrong. Both sides thought that their way was the exclusive and only way to deal with the Force, and really each side only understood an aspect of the force. Like old parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant, both the Jedi and the Sith of the Old Republic time were suffering from dogma myopia.

      The Jedi believed that "The Vergence" of the Force would sweep away the last vestiges of the Sith and bring about true peace and the Ultimate Jedi Way. Sort of like a Jedi Buddha. The Sith (Through Darth Sidious) Thought that creating the "Ultimate Force Being" via use of the Sith life creating skill (thus impregnating Shmi Skywalker) would allow them to rule uncontested over the galaxy.

          Anakin's true purpose was to sweep away BOTH of the old Dogmas. First by destroying the massive religious structure the Jedi had built up, and then by destroying the last leader of the Sith religion. Doing this cost him his wife, his friends, nearly his sanity and ultimately his life. (Not to mention millions of other lives throughout the galaxy) But in the process renewed not only the Force through his son Luke, but the entire Republic through his daughter Leia.

      That's my understanding of it anyway. More serious SW fans may disagree though. I'm sure they'll be along to flame me forthwith. ;)

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    24. Re:Revolution? Control? by Cinder6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's sad that somebody is able to explain, in just a few sentences, the entire plot of Star Wars much more convincingly and compellingly than Lucas was able to do in six full-length movies.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    25. Re:Revolution? Control? by d3ac0n · · Score: 0

      And yet one can easily take a short drive across the Canadian border (if one lives near it, as I do) and buy Cuban Cigars that are illegal to buy or own in the United States. Yeah, that embargo is really effective. The ONLY country that recognizes it is the United States. Every other country in the world trades with Cuba. Not even our staunchest allies join us in the Embargo.

      The reason Cuba is a shithole is because THEY ARE A COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP. Not because one country out of the entire globe doesn't trade with them. You are simply WRONG about, well.. EVERYTHING you have said about Cuba. I suspect that you are wrong about many other things as well, if you are enough of a useful idiot to believe the propaganda. As is your friend, who was likely taken around to all the Potemkin Villages just like that moron Michael Moore.

      Anyone who believes the lie of Communism in today's day and age deserves to go live in Cuba.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    26. Re:Revolution? Control? by tehcyder · · Score: 0

      I strongly suggest you at least go down to southern Florida and talk to some Cuban ex-pats/survivors.

      Check out my mate Tony Montana while you're there, he's a good bloke, great stories about the old country, a shining example of how a poor kid can make it good when freed from the shackles of Cuban communism.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:Revolution? Control? by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

      What Marx meant by it is a strong government *in the hands of the working class* able to realize fast and profound changes in the society.

      Making rapid changes to a system as complex as a human society is rarely a good idea. Even gradual change tends to produce unexpected consquences, and making many big changes quickly leads to a situation where the results of the changes becomes completely unpredictable.

    28. Re:Revolution? Control? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Cuba' is in a poor way economically due to the on-going trade embargo by the US and knock-on effect to other countries, combined with the absence of major external supporters since the fall of the USSR. It's hard to make a country great to live in when immensely rich near neighbours are doing their best to starve you out of existence.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    29. Re:Revolution? Control? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Haha I thought the exact same thing. I'm convinced Lucas only made the original trilogy good by accident.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    30. Re:Revolution? Control? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Haha I thought the exact same thing. I'm convinced Lucas only made the original trilogy good by accident.

      How else do you explain his direction of Return when Empire was the finest movie? "Whoops, can't let THAT happen again."

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:Revolution? Control? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That said, there's a lot of evidence that Cuba is a lot better place for most of its residents than, say, Haiti or the Dominican Republic.

      The question though is whether the system is any better to be in than any other particular system. If ours is better than we're justified in trying to change them. If not, then not. The disparity between the wealthy and the masses in Cuba is very, very sharp. I think you can determine the health of a governmental system by the differences between the lowest, median, average, and maximum incomes...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Minus the part about "go looking for evidence".

    33. Re:Revolution? Control? by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      Dictatorship of the Proletariat is one of the most widely misunderstood expression, used a few times by Marx (and it was a very clumsy wording from him, indeed). What Marx meant by it is a strong government *in the hands of the working class* able to realize fast and profound changes in the society. He didn't mean by it a Stalin-like totalitarian state.

      Marx envisioned and intended totalitarianism. See his brutal condemnations of "bourgeois freedom".

      He was even clear that for him, "dictatorship of the proletariat", was something like Paris' Commune. Which was the most democratic form of government that existed in modern history in France. In which elected representative could be recalled at any time at the demand of the basis. Which abolished death penalty, and gave right to vote to women, as early as 1870. Even the "army" of the Commune (the National Guard) was democratic, with the officers elected by the guards.

      It seems that what you mean by "democracy", means totalitarian terror and murder to everyone else. The Paris Commune was a military coup against a democratically elected government. Once they were in power, the death penalty was imposed for damn near everything. The "committee of public safety" was brought back with the same name, intended to strike terror into the hearts of those under its rule.

      There are elections, and if we can discuss their fairness and the weird system they use, it's not the case only in Cuba (hint, 2000 election in the USA).

      Only a madman could possibly conflate the unfree, unfair and rigged elections of Cuba to any election in the United States.

      And it has several very positive aspects. One of the best healthcare system of the world (with the same life expectancy as USA despite the blockade, and a lower child death rate), one of the best educative system of the world (lower illiteracy and higher university enrollment rate than in USA).

      Statistics pulled straight from Castro's ass, with no way to independently verify them.

    34. Re:Revolution? Control? by tarlong · · Score: 1

      As a friend of many a Cuban and cousin, by moms side, to a guy whose dad is Cuban and for my self, an employee of FIBA Americas, I can say that CUBA is a dictatorship where dissent is tolerated to a short extent and selling beer at your place was, until recently, a crime because private enterprise was prohibited. I am not a capitalist buff, in fact I despise many of the more extremes of capitalism, but come on, 10 years in a prison cuz you are selling beer to, mostly, your friends? Sheesh.

      Cuba has a lot to its name even after all the bad press and strangulation from our Government (USA) but saying that civil rights are respected, none go to jail without FAIR trail and that they have elections is a bit too much to say with a straight face. Choosing officials whose template is identical is not an election. (Not to say that we, in our democracy, don't suffer from the same thing. Democrats are just fat free Republicans or the other way around, whatever. But we have other choices. That people don't look at them is a different story.)

      Yet, it is much better to live in Cuba than, say, Haiti; that is for sure.

      --
      What? A beutiful butterfly you say? And how exactly are you going to turn into a beutiful butterfly then?
    35. Re:Revolution? Control? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Isn't it funny how everything is America's fault? Cuba imprisons people for free speech: America did it. You know how long Cubans have been keeping their own people down by appealing to their xenophobia with such nonsense?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    36. Re:Revolution? Control? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      His comment makes it clear that your question is irrelevant to the case.

      Internet access is not worth 15 years in jail. Subversion is. He was convicted of working for a covert organization towards the overthrow of the Cuban government. Hell, in the USA that can be a death sentence.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    37. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the plot is just filler between the special effects.

    38. Re:Revolution? Control? by j-beda · · Score: 1

      That said, there's a lot of evidence that Cuba is a lot better place for most of its residents than, say, Haiti or the Dominican Republic.

      The question though is whether the system is any better to be in than any other particular system. If ours is better than we're justified in trying to change them. If not, then not. The disparity between the wealthy and the masses in Cuba is very, very sharp. I think you can determine the health of a governmental system by the differences between the lowest, median, average, and maximum incomes...

      The US does not do too well on those disparity measurements unfortunately.

    39. Re:Revolution? Control? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      People were fleeing Cuba even when the Soviets were propping the regime up. What you describe has only been going on for the last twenty years, when the embargo really began to bite.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    40. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree 100%, but let's give Lucas a break...when you try to explain the ideological nuance of the plot within the movie, you get Lynch's "Dune" which is awesome, but pretty much only accessible to people who have read the book. Lucas did at least create a financially viable franchise with mass market appeal.

    41. Re:Revolution? Control? by socz · · Score: 1

      That's how I feel... because he supposedly wanted ewoks and midgets for luke and leia's roles in the one of the first drafts! wtf?!?!? Good by accident for sure!

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    42. Re:Revolution? Control? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      it's sad, to me, that grown men have spent extensive time analyzing the intricacies of the politics and philosophy of mythical beings from a 30-year-old kid's movie.

    43. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It IS a fucking tropical hell hole. You don't know the first thing about it. You useful idiot apologist.

    44. Re:Revolution? Control? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I think they would say something like, "Gee, Bob, people are starting to look at Al Jazeera's website", and then move along.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    45. Re:Revolution? Control? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Right wing or not, we also have evidence of people braving the ocean in friggin' floats made of car tire innertubes in order to get away from the country. You claim to know of "people that have worked there". Where did they work? Maybe, they worked where Castro wanted them to work? Could that be a possibility?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    46. Re:Revolution? Control? by Rasperin · · Score: 1

      Hell if he did it in the US for a hostile government, he would be in Gitmo. He'd spend 15years there and then get execution or a life sentence. It seems the rights in cuba might be better than our own...

      --
      WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
    47. Re:Revolution? Control? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Cuba has been impoverished by US embargoes on trade. The US doesn't only restrict their own trade with Cuba, they bully other countries to do likewise. It's been going on for decades.

      and yet, it is still a tropical paradise with free health care for everyone.

      It's great, but it sucks because of the US

      Dude, pick one argument and stick with it.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    48. Re:Revolution? Control? by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      Quit calling it a blockade! It's an embargo!

      US warships are not keeping Cuba isolated. Cuba can buy and sell goods from anywhere in the world _except_ the U.S.

      Does that make the embargo a valuable initiative that serves U.S. strategic interests? Through the 60s, 70s, and 80s, absolutely. A strategic partner of the USSR needed to be closely watched. Anyone who thinks otherwise wasn't paying attention during the Cold War.

      Now? I can't see any reason to keep it in place, personally. I think we should have shut it down 10 years ago at the latest.

    49. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This makes you "sad"? Really?!

      Analyzing the deeper meanings, metaphors, symbolism, etc, within a great work of science fiction, is no different than doing the same with the writings of Shakespeare, Melville, or Poe. In fact, millions of people have been doing so for hundreds of years now... we call many of those people "English Professors." Others, such as myself, have simply been applying those same analytical techniques to everything we've read or watched since we first learned how to think critically in Elementary School...

    50. Re:Revolution? Control? by cdrguru · · Score: 2

      If it is so great there, why are people in almost a continuous stream, trying to get to the US in ways that will almost certainly kill them?

      Most of the boats available do not make it anywhere near the US but sink within miles of Cuba. Still, people try.

      The question would be why, if it is such a nice place. Or are there just a huge number of people that can't see the paradise for what it is? I know nothing about the conditions in Cuba but I have to wonder about anyplace that people are so desperate to leave that dying doesn't sound so bad.

    51. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much Kool-Aid have you been drinking?

    52. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a pretty nice country. BUT, you can go to prison for 15 years for connecting people to the Internet.

      Thanks, but no thanks.

    53. Re:Revolution? Control? by Narcogen · · Score: 1

      As for the Cuban government, it's not perfect, but it's not a "dictatorship" under the common meaning of the word nowadays. People aren't arrested there for just disagreeing. There is no torture. People aren't kept in jail without trial. There are elections, and if we can discuss their fairness and the weird system they use, it's not the case only in Cuba (hint, 2000 election in the USA). There is no forced labor camps. Police don't open fire on protests.

      Those are all fine and good, but aren't the defining aspects of a dictatorship. Concentration of political power and a lack of true democratic institutions-- independent legislature and judiciary, checks and balances, organized opposition, among other things. These things may correlate with human rights, an absence of torture, and freedom of speech, but neither one causes or guarantees the other. A benevolent despot can provide all those things and still be a despot; it's just rare.

    54. Re:Revolution? Control? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      As for the Cuban government, it's not perfect, but it's not a "dictatorship" under the common meaning of the word nowadays.

      A state with a non-elected leader (and, really, being in power for several decades is a pretty good indication! and yes I know Fidel isn't at helm anymore, but his brother is no different) is a dictatorship by definition.

      There are elections, and if we can discuss their fairness and the weird system they use, it's not the case only in Cuba (hint, 2000 election in the USA)

      By that definition, any state which has elections is not a dictatorship. So Soviet Union (even under Stalin) wasn't one, and North Korea isn't one, 'cause they both have elections.

      In truth, elections themselves don't matter if they aren't fair - and you deliberately downplay that point.

    55. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was brilliant!

    56. Re:Revolution? Control? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If ours is better than we're justified in trying to change them.

      Only if you can guarantee that implementing your the system for them will be better for them. Politicians in late USSR - those same people who dissolved it - were thinking along the lines of, "West clearly lives better, so their economic system is superior - so lets tear down our planned economics adopt it with all due haste"; a kind of cargo cult economics. The result was economic collapse and a sharp decline in quality of life, which was barely recovered only recently in Russia (and even then not in all regions), and is still the reality in a good half of other ex-Soviet republics.

      I would be less worried if it was, say, Sweden trying to sell their economic model to Cuba.

    57. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think the FCC and FBI would have to say if US citizens set up unlicensed communication in the control of a foreign country who is hostile to the US?
      It's not that they are setting up internet access. It's that it's without the consent of the government and by people hostile to the local government.

      Yeah, but we're the good guys.

      No, seriously. Do your moral comparisons, get some perspective, and then get back to me... We're the good guys.

    58. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Six? I'm still waiting for those long-ago promised prequels that will finally shed light on Darth Vader's beginnings.

    59. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now? I can't see any reason to keep it in place, personally. I think we should have shut it down 10 years ago at the latest.

      But... but... any second now Castro will step down because of our embargo and we will have won! Aaaaanyyyy seconnnnd now!

      You just don't have patience you... you... surrender monkey!

    60. Re:Revolution? Control? by NoSig · · Score: 1

      If the encouragement was simply providing internet access then calling it subversion doesn't change the question.

    61. Re:Revolution? Control? by Shompol · · Score: 1
      He actually mentioned "certain areas the Cuban government uses for propaganda purposes", didn't he? So what do your "people that have worked there" actually know? I mean how can one find out about "death-squads" unless he or someone he knows disappeared? How could your friends find out for sure that death-squads do not exist? Did your fiends also mention they could hire a prostitute for a dinner? I bet they liked it there, but unfortunately their story is not indicative of the local population who are not there on a business trip.

      Now tell me this, what does it take to stay in power as a "president" for 50 years? Let me help you: takes a lot of fear, a good propaganda and an even better enforcement machine. I lived in place with a similar government, so I know what I am talking about... not "been there on a business trip" -- lived there.

    62. Re:Revolution? Control? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      America did it

      You bastards!

      I really really want to love Cuba, its people, its way of life and its world class healthcare system, just to annoy Americans. Unfortunately it's a dictatorship with appalling living standards and brutal totalitarianism, and even America's not that bad yet.

    63. Re:Revolution? Control? by metlin · · Score: 1

      Anyone who believes the lie of Communism in today's day and age deserves to go live in Cuba.

      And what lie would that be?

    64. Re:Revolution? Control? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      The disparity between the wealthy and the masses in Cuba is very, very sharp.

      The disparity is there, no question. But poor Cubans generally have decent food and housing, very good medical care, and educational opportunities (including near-universal literacy), which actually puts them in significantly better condition than many poor areas of the United States.

      (My information is mostly second-hand: I've been lucky enough to have the opportunity to meet and talk with both Cubans and people who've been able to visit Cuba.)

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    65. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a plot?

    66. Re:Revolution? Control? by syousef · · Score: 1

      By the end of the series there's no renewal, just decimation - only a handful of practicing Jedi left. Anakin didn't destroy both Dogmas - he destroyed the use and practice of the force and thrust stars universe into the dark ages. But that's okay, because while on the surface it's about good and evil, in reality it's just about George Lucas' wallet. He would have used the stupidest plot from the most idiotic soapie if it would put a few more bucks into his filthy hands.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    67. Re:Revolution? Control? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We're talking about Star Wars, a series of space opera b-movies by a hack director, not a great work of science fiction.

      You can look for the symbolism in 'He Man and the Masters of the Universe' same as you do 'Star Wars'. Same waste of time.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    68. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you even read that link?!

      I see a number of reports about political activists (didn't research each case so don't know if we're talking peaceful marchers or rioting vandals - you may say it doesn't matter, but that's a point for discussion in my opinion) being in jail - at least one report of them being released. Reports about tight control of the media - something we both have to worry about in our countries (I'm assuming you're from US - I'm from UK), but probably not to the same extent.

      But I don't see anything that goes against:

      There is no torture. People aren't kept in jail without trial. There are elections, and if we can discuss their fairness and the weird system they use, it's not the case only in Cuba (hint, 2000 election in the USA). There is no forced labor camps. Police don't open fire on protests. ...

      One of the best healthcare system of the world (with the same life expectancy as USA despite the blockade, and a lower child death rate), one of the best educative system of the world (lower illiteracy and higher university enrollment rate than in USA).

      Although it does seem that people are "jailed for disagreeing" with the state - but considering that I too can be arrested for disagreeing with a copper (affectionately referred to as 'dancing with a copper' :P) or even just using 'inappropriate language', you have to admit there's a fuzzy factor in the use of language and lack of specific details. I.E its hard to say how they were 'disagreeing' or just how strenuously/violently.

      I do also see a number of reports to being jailed without trial, alleged torture and indefinite detention - however they all refer to Guantanamo Bay facility, which I'm sure you know is not under control of the Cuban Authority - nor is it approved of by them. This particular one is the one that pulls on my heart strings, and I would've thought might garner some American sympathy as well. A 15 year old boy that was defending himself from foreign troops - and he gets charged with war crimes, taken to a secret prison and facing indefinite detention even if he is acquitted?!

        I suppose it's hard to notice this on the Amnesty International site while perusing the USA page, as the same story from the 12th of August is on page 9 of the USA directory, as opposed to page 2 of Cuba. Which I would say helps to prove the GP's point about Cuba not being as bad as some of its neighbours...

    69. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That gave me chills to read.. Bravo.

    70. Re:Revolution? Control? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      If you compare Cuba to its neighbors, it has much less human rights violations than for example in Mexico, Peru, Colombia or Chile (which are US allies and recognized as "democracies").

      People are free to leave any of the other countries you mentioned. Not so with Cuba. Nuff said.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    71. Re:Revolution? Control? by aoeuid · · Score: 1

      And yet one can easily take a short drive across the Canadian border (if one lives near it, as I do) and buy Cuban Cigars that are illegal to buy or own in the United States. Yeah, that embargo is really effective. The ONLY country that recognizes it is the United States. Every other country in the world trades with Cuba. Not even our staunchest allies join us in the Embargo.

      Businesses that do business with Cuba can't do business with the USA. Some small shop in Canada can sell Cuban cigars because they aren't doing business with the USA. But seeing as the USA has the largest market in the world, this is a very effective deterrent in getting others to stop trading with Cuba. What about the ships that carry goods across the seas. Can they make a stop in Cuba on their way to the USA? No. And examples like that make things much more difficult and expensive for Cuba.

      For what it's worth, I've been to Cuba a couple of times, and it didn't seem to me like the people were suffering too badly. I lived in Mexico for a few years and have travelled all over that country, and learned to speak Spanish there. Both times I went to Cuba, within the last year or so, I rented a car and took 1200 or so kilometre road trips, including jaunts across the middle of nowhere. And I just couldn't see how they were suffering any worse than tens of millions of people in Mexico. In fact, it seems like peasants in Cuba live much more peaceful and less stressful lives than those in Mexico. People in Mexico disappear, and the state is often responsible. The narco war is bullsh*t. People there live under a constant threat, a fear for their own safety. In contrast, people in Cuba have no sense of fear of crime. It's shocking. And I reject that I was only seeing what they wanted me to see, since we travelled pretty much where ever we wanted, hours on backroads, picking up passengers and talking to them, and so on.

      I'll grant you a couple of things. Yes, they have a very authoritarian government, but I perceive it more like Singapore than a brutal dictatorship. People are free to go about their day to day business, but there are strict penalties for breaking the law. Probably not going to send out the death squad on the first offence. It's like the signs I saw in Singapore saying what the penalties were for things. Outside the bar it says drunk driving first offence, so many thousands of dollars fine and so many days in jail. Second offence, a few more thousands and a bit more time in jail. Third offence, you're going to get a serious beating/canning.

      Second, they don't have the material wealth that we do. That is obvious, quite apparent, and not really in question. They have the bare necessities and few luxuries. Partly because of the embargo, partly because of their own economic system, and partly due to the fact that they are a small nation and don't have the vast natural resources that countries like my own do.

      So, sure, it's a police state, they don't have a lot of material wealth, but when you take everything into consideration, such as the freedom from crime, knowing that they will always have at least enough food to live on, a roof over their heads, freedom from religion (i.e. they have lots of sex which many Slashdotters can't really say), decent medical care and education, they're really not suffering any worse than tens or even hundreds of millions of peasants in Latin America. Which is what most of them would be if it weren't for the revolution.

      I can recognize that the upper class of Latin American countries would never want a Cuban style system, but for the peasants, the vast marginalized peoples that are practically forgotten even by their own countrymen in places like Mexico who just see them as stupid Indians, in the sierra of Guerrero for example, I fail to see how they would be any worse off living in Cuba.

      The UN Human Development Index ranks Cuba slightly higher than Mexico. I think it is only fair to compare the standard of living in Cuba to other countries in the region with similar histories, not to the United States or Europe.

    72. Re:Revolution? Control? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      So what do your "people that have worked there" actually know?

      Well, at least as much as an AC on Slashdot. With the added advantage that for me they have credibility to me. The people I know are artists, so we're not talking about visiting a hotel for foreigners here. We're talking about staying with locals and talking about things that matter.

      As to the price of a prostitute, I recall, many years ago, a persistent prostitute offering me sex in England for what was around the price of dinner, so that doesn't mean anything. To be clear I was just walking down the road going for my lunch from work, and wasn't interested. She was just being persistent. Presumably she wanted money urgently for drugs or something. Cuba is certainly a poorer country than England, so I'm not even slightly surprised at your comment.

      Now tell me this, what does it take to stay in power as a "president" for 50 years?

      When the US are doing their best to get rid of you and your communist state, quite a lot. Does a communist state have a right to exist, even though the US doesn't like it? Yes.

      I lived in place with a similar government, so I know what I am talking about... not "been there on a business trip" -- lived there.

      And I know of Russians that regret that the communist state fell. So your personal opinion is not the be all and end all. It's just an opinion.

    73. Re:Revolution? Control? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Isn't it funny how everything is America's fault?

      If Americans want to be blameless, they could remove the embargo, and stop the espionage and CIA activity against Cuba. But for decades, they haven't.

      The problem with America is they aren't satisfied with running their own country. They think they should impose their ideology on the rest of the world too.

    74. Re:Revolution? Control? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      He made the original trilogy good because it was fun to do.

      Remember this, entertainment czars. Fun. Hard to manufacture from a formula, and you can't force it at gunpoint.,

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    75. Re:Revolution? Control? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      and yet, it is still a tropical paradise with free health care for everyone.

      Well, more tropical and better universal healthcare than the United States, for sure.

    76. Re:Revolution? Control? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      I didn't say paradise. Is the USA a paradise? Certainly not. So why must somewhere else that is not contemptible be "a paradise"?

      Why are people trying to get from Cuba to USA? Why are many people trying to get from Mexico to the USA? Mexico is a capitalist democratic state.

      Mostly they are economic migrants. USA is the wealthiest country in the world (bar a few small tax havens). Cuba like most of the Caribbean and south America is relatively poor. The difference between Cuba and other Caribbean countries is that it's only 90 miles from the USA coast. Which isn't such a big ask for even a small boat. For sure, the few fools setting out with less than a small boat are stupid. But stupid people are everywhere. Most people don't realise how dangerous the open sea is.

    77. Re:Revolution? Control? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The reason Cuba is a shithole is because THEY ARE A COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP. Not because one country out of the entire globe doesn't trade with them. You are simply WRONG about, well.. EVERYTHING you have said about Cuba.

      A little clue for yourself is this: if you feel the need to emphasise what you say with capital letters, then you probably don't have a rational point. You just want to ram home your beliefs. It;s kind of like banging your fist on the table. It convinces no one.

      Anyone who dismisses communism out of hand isn't worth heeding on the topic of Cuba. After all, you wouldn't listen to someone who dismisses capitalism when they go on to criticise the US, would you?

    78. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Analyzing the deeper meanings, metaphors, symbolism, etc, within a great work of science fiction, is no different than doing the same with the writings of Shakespeare, Melville, or Poe. In fact, millions of people have been doing so for hundreds of years now.

      Well, that's kinda sad too. I imagine that Shakespeare would laugh his ass off at all the symbolism (aka apophenia) those people 'found' in his books.

    79. Re:Revolution? Control? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      It's been going on for 50 years, with a brief period of respite and sanity during the Carter administration.

    80. Re:Revolution? Control? by Candid88 · · Score: 1

      A kid's movie? Never heard Star Wars been called that before. Kids movies aren't usually PG-13 rated and don't usually feature killings, maiming, executions, genocide and regular battle scenes.

    81. Re:Revolution? Control? by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      You do realize that "analyzing the intricacies of the politics and philosophy of mythical beings" is pretty much what man has been doing since the beginning of time, right?

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    82. Re:Revolution? Control? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      See, you've got it all wrong. The six movies were not meant to tell the plot in a convincing and compelling manner. They were meant to make money.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    83. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing comment: Please do this simple test in any of the countries you mention: pay anybody to go to a public place to say: "I disagree with the President" (nothing offensive or disrupting or inciting to violence, etc).
      The only consequence for the person who does that is that he/she will be $5 richer.
      Repeat the experiment in Cuba: if you find a taker the person will spend years in jail.
      About the medical care: try go buy an aspirin in Cuba in any store that is not for tourists, and come back to this thread to report on your success.

    84. Re:Revolution? Control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a prison. That's enough for me.

    85. Re:Revolution? Control? by Shompol · · Score: 1

      And I know of Russians that regret that the communist state fell.

      That is irrelevant to anything that have been said. Any regime change will have "many people who regret". When Nazi Germany fell, I bet the majority of Germans regretted too. People who were in power or well-placed, but could not adapt as well to the new regime will always regret, by definition. This has nothing to do with the fact that Stalin committed mass murder with casualties far exceeding WW2 losses.

      And all that before we even discuss what regime replaced the Communism in Russia: state riches going into someone's pocket, extreme poverty, crime, state-controlled crime, no human rights, corrupt government. Every nation deserves its leaders, and Russia is a glaring example of that.

    86. Re:Revolution? Control? by Vidar+Leathershod · · Score: 1

      That's funny. I don't recall posting about economics. I was referring to the gentle way the CUban dictatorship oppresses the populace. But, of course, you had to try to come up with something that could be blamed on the U.S. and it's evil capitalist overlords. They only seek to subjugate and enslave the proletariat into a lifetime of un/under-compensated service, right?

      --
      The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
    87. Re:Revolution? Control? by bostongraf · · Score: 1

      it's sad, to me, that grown men have spent extensive time analyzing the intricacies of the politics and philosophy of mythical beings from a 30-year-old kid's movie.

      But old men (and women) have spent extensive time analyzing the "intricacies of the politics and philosophy of mythical beings" from texts for millenia. Isn't that what religion really is?

  2. If your government isn't strong enough by Compaqt · · Score: 3, Funny

    to withstand criticism, maybe it doesn't deserve to rule.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you know the history of Latin America you remember the role of USA agencies (including USAID) in putting military puppet regimes in power. USA agencies in Latin America is not as innocent as some may think. Sadly.

    2. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by makomk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably not, no. It's not terribly surprising that this guy was arrested and imprisoned, though - I mean, he was actually being funded by the US to try and undermine the Cuban government. Can you imagine what would've happened if someone funded by the Soviet Union tried to set up communications networks in the US that the Government couldn't monitor?

      Remember that the US has a history of attempting assassination attempts against Fidel Castro and has organized (badly) at least one attempt to violently overthrow the government - and they're not exactly doing it out of a desire to spread freedom and democracy... Also remember that the previous US-supported dictator was pretty horrid and screwed over basically the entire Cuban population in favour of the US interests that owned most of Cuba.

    3. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly the point of Wikileak. Fuck 'em.

    4. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Correction: "If your government isn't strong enough to root out CIA insurgents before they spread american ideas in your country, then maybe it doesn't deserve to rule."

      Internet is great and all, but before you start supporting this guy for "spreading internet", make sure you know his motives and associations.

    5. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legitimate governments serve, they do not rule.

    6. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Can you imagine what would've happened if someone funded by the Soviet Union tried to set up communications networks in the US that the Government couldn't monitor?"

      I can.
      Phil Zimmerman (Pretty Good Privacy) was investigated for 3 years because the US Government regarded cryptographic software as a munition, subject to arms trafficking export controls.

      And he wasn't even funded by the Soviets or anybody else.

    7. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by pep939 · · Score: 1

      I would like to second that by pointing out the crypto-paranoia of the US. Living in Belgium myself, I was very surprised during a stay in New York, when an american friend pointed out to me that I was, in fact, at the risk of going to prison for the contents of my partially encrypted laptop (amongst other stuff).

      I find it quite often rather shocking how american laws are almost obsessively restrictive regarding these subjects.

      I remember a talk I attended at FOSDEM in Brussels, about reverse engineering of proprietary network protocols, and the speaker Rob Savoye, who is american, seemed to envy us quite a bit for our relatively permissive laws.

    8. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah no shit, maybe if we worried about our own business and corruption, instead of playing "Hey lets fuck with everybody else!" maybe we wouldn't be in such bad shape.

      Hell when you are covering up for private contractors selling 9 year old boys as fuck toys to get better deals on contracts? you have NO STANDING to be preaching to anyone else about freedom and rights, since child trafficking is about as low and sick as it gets.

      And I don't care what anyone says Manning is a damned hero for showing what sick bastards we are actively supporting. The sick part is it wasn't even the first time we covered for these fuckers, they were selling 8 year old girls in Kosovo in the 90s. It is pretty much SOP for those bastards and we STILL kept hiring them and covering for them. Makes me ashamed to be an American. How much lower can we sink?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    9. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by JumperCable · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine what would've happened if someone funded by the Soviet Union tried to set up communications networks in the US that the Government couldn't monitor?

      I hope many people groups, countries, individuals and organizations do this. Look what happens in places like Iran, Egypt and Libya when they shut down the internet. A lot of individuals, nonprofit organizations, businesses and eventually some governments stepped in to help the citizens get safe access to the internet. If the US ever cracks down too hard on a free internet, I certainly hope everyone else out there will pitch in to help us citizens out in our time of need too. And I won't give a damn about the motivations, race, country or creed of whomever is helping me to get access to the internet. Once I get access, I'll figure out what to do myself from there.

    10. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOOSH...

      What he mean is that the US gouvement did not deserve to rule because of the Wikileak 'criticism'.

    11. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah no shit, maybe if we worried about our own business and corruption, instead of playing "Hey lets fuck with everybody else!" maybe we wouldn't be in such bad shape.

      Not that I condone the bad actions of the US government. But did you ever stop to think that if the US government had not done some of these things that maybe the country would be in worse shape? As in Soviet States of America worse shape.

    12. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by georgesdev · · Score: 1

      Phil Zimmerman was investigated for 3 years and the case got dismissed in the end. How does this compare with being sentenced for 15 years in prison???

    13. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Can you imagine what would've happened if someone funded by the Soviet Union tried to set up communications networks in the US that the Government couldn't monitor?"

      I can.

      This raises the philosophical question: If the US government can't monitor it, can a beowulf cluster of Soviet communication networks imagine *you*?

    14. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by temcat · · Score: 1

      So what if somebody does a good thing with (questionably) bad intentions.

    15. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

      "Can you imagine what would've happened if someone funded by the Soviet Union tried to set up communications networks in the US that the Government couldn't monitor?"

      I can. Phil Zimmerman [...] And he wasn't even funded by the Soviets or anybody else.

      So you mean you can't?

    16. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Neither was he funded by a foreign government or operating covertly. The point which you totally missed was probably that when the US government can do that to someone who acts in the open on his own initiative, there's no telling what they can do.
      Another example is Julian Assange, where at least two US lawmakers have mentioned the death penalty in the same sentence as his name, with clear implications of what they think.

      The reason why there isn't a completely direct analogue situation is that for every foreign spy caught on US ground, there are at least a couple of US spies already caught abroad, so these things end up with mutual extraditions and exchanges.

      But make no mistake, unlike Zimmerman and Assange, this guy actually WAS a foreign operative on sovereign territory, and 15 years is a quite light sentence as these things go.
      If you go back a few decades, you might remember a couple operating for the Soviet Union who was caught here in the US, and who didn't get off that lightly.

    17. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by corbettw · · Score: 1

      The question wasn't "Can you remember a time when someone was funded by the Soviets", it "can you imagine what would happen if..." So if Phil Zimmerman was investigated just for creating software the Powers That Be© didn't like, it's easy to imagine from there how much harder they would come down on someone funded by an enemy state.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    18. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he means that an even milder interpretation of what GP suggested has happened, and we can see it. Therefore imagining becomes all the easier.

      "wasn't even" implies you could have left the other bolded part out completely and *still* be correct, not that the other bolded part is invalid...

    19. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Very relevant quote:
      "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." - Maj Gen Smedley Butler

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    20. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you want to read "Hegemony or Survival" by Chomsky.

      Note the "or".

    21. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by Steauengeglase · · Score: 2

      Just a note, one of those was Peter King, an attention seeking hack. The other was Mitch McConnell, a man capable of occasional sanity and has to make up for it with the radical base by saying something crazy every now and then (at this point with the Republican party you are either straight up hard line or carefully mix your left with very vocal hard-right or you'll get thrown out by your own people).

      I'm sure there were many others who supported putting Assange's head on the block, but I haven't had my coffee yet. Not excusing their behavior, but it was all politics.

    22. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      to withstand criticism, maybe it doesn't deserve to rule.

      Yes, but there is a dividing line between criticism and subversion, and Cuba has every right to feel worried about attempts by Americans on their soil trying to subvert their government.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Yeah no shit, maybe if we worried about our own business and corruption, instead of playing "Hey lets fuck with everybody else!" maybe we wouldn't be in such bad shape.

      Not that I condone the bad actions of the US government. But did you ever stop to think that if the US government had not done some of these things that maybe the country would be in worse shape? As in Soviet States of America worse shape.

      The only way you would ever have had a Soviet States of America is if the working classes had risen up and created a socialist revolution. The USSR was never going to be able to invade the US and impose communism that way; and your working classes are too stupefied by cheap food and TV propaganda to be interested in anything involving political action.

      The whole "domino theory" bollocks was just an excuse for the US to interfere with other countries for their own economic ends.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    24. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this the only case you can think of? Wow. Selective amnesia?

    25. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      How much lower can we sink?

      You have no idea....

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    26. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Goes both ways. Cuba has problems. And the US continues to attempt "regime change".

      The best thing the US could do to change Cuba is to simply drop the stupid travel requirements. I mean, why shouldn't Americans be able to go to Cuba?

      And having real person-to-person contact would make for a lot more social change than trying to set up Internet connections.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    27. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      What? So is it illegal to choose "Encyrpted file system" when installing, say, Ubuntu?

      Anybody have some more info on that?

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    28. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. The point I badly attempted to make was that Zimmerman had nothing to do with the Soviet Union, therefore it misses the crux of the question: the role of international politics on freedom of expression. I'd think a better example would be the american japanese interment camps in WW2. After all that's what the asians represented to them: an unmonitorable, potentially spy-laden network.

    29. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by russotto · · Score: 1

      I would like to second that by pointing out the crypto-paranoia of the US. Living in Belgium myself, I was very surprised during a stay in New York, when an american friend pointed out to me that I was, in fact, at the risk of going to prison for the contents of my partially encrypted laptop (amongst other stuff).

      The contents, maybe -- if you deal in reverse engineering there's the DMCA to contend with. But not the encryption; it's not illegal to encrypt information in the US.

    30. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by pep939 · · Score: 1

      I think there's a restriction on the length of the key... in particular when crossing the border, maybe not when you stay inland. I could be wrong, I found this document which seems fairly interesting. I will read it.

    31. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by tobiah · · Score: 1

      On a related note, one of the women accusing Assange of sexual misconduct works for USAID and had been kicked out of Cuba for her activities.
      http://www.infowars.com/cia-honeytrap-ardin-deleted-twitter-posts-praising-assange/

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    32. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So what if somebody does a good thing with (questionably) bad intentions.

      In this case he is doing a bad thing with bad intentions, that has peripheral benefits that neither he nor his CIA puppet-masters give two fucks about.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    33. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/legal_hacks.png

    34. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by russotto · · Score: 1

      There were restrictions against export of cryptography, but they're largely gone.

      The complete removal of those restrictions is fairly recent, but they were relaxed significantly before then.

    35. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The 'American Communist Party' from the USSR era exactly matches your question. (Funded by Soviets, though they denied it at the time. Maintaining secret internal communications.)

      The FBI watched them like hawks and no doubt penetrated their network.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    36. Re:If your government isn't strong enough by temcat · · Score: 1

      Providing Internet access is a good thing.
      The intention of undermining Cuban government or any other government (including USA government and my home country government) to the extent it oppresses freedom is a good intention.
      And I don't care if it's done by CIA, MI-6, FSB or Mossad.

  3. Social worker? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    CIA-agent is more accurate. USAID is a CIA-cover.

  4. Bradley Manning by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 3, Interesting
    All counter-revolutionaries are given the harshest treatment. Remember: all their rights respected until somebody we like gets elected. You can spread your opinion from the rooftops as loudly as you like, as long as it is either (i) pro-government; or (ii) of no consequence to the government. The US government is clever to realise that most speech comes under (ii).

    For an example closer to Western home, check out what's happening to Bradley Manning.

    1. Re:Bradley Manning by darojasp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I find funny that the US demands this guy to be released. By principle, if this guy is released so should be Manning

    2. Re:Bradley Manning by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      By principle, if this guy is released so should be Manning

      Manning acted out of a juvenile sense of drama, and indiscriminantly stole hundreds of thousands of documents in a fit of pique over "being in a bad place" emotionally. He betrayed his fellow service members and knew that his drama queen routine was going to put many people at great risk so that he could be seen stamping his feet and saddling up to that ego maniac, Assange. How is that the same as setting up communications channels for individuals living under an oppressive totalitarian regime like Cuba's? It's not.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Counterpoint: Manning is one of the greatest American heroes of the last 100 years.

    4. Re:Bradley Manning by darojasp · · Score: 1

      What I meant is, if you are a spy and you get caught, you are screwed. It doesn't matter if you are an spy for a corporation a free government or an autocracy. It is just one of the dangers of the business.

    5. Re:Bradley Manning by LordLucless · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Funny, I thought his fellow service members were busy betraying their principles by colluding in the organised rape of children that Manning helped expose.

      Yeah, finding out my country was funding that could quite possibly put me "in a bad place emotionally" and lead to a "fit of pique". Of course, I'd probably call it "righteous anger" and "exposing corruption", but spin it however you will. After all, it's easier to call people "drama queens" and "ego maniacs" than it is to actually believe that your saintly government could be involved in corruption.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    6. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, if I had an account, I would mod you +funny. Oh wait... you are serious, aren't you?

      Why Manning acted the way he did is just speculations. What we know is the facts and results. We discovered that the US military hides information from the public which would have severe impact on the citizens opinion over US military policies. The army knew that the public would disagree so they purposely acted against the interests of the US people. You know how we call that in the rest of the world? Fraud and treason.
      I don't really care why Manning did what he did. This information was going to stay burred for decades until the people responsible grow old and/or die, and most importantly, give them years to continue acting behind the people's backs. Objectively speaking, Manning reviewed a very corrupt system acting against the interests of the US and Afghan citizens among others, while the potential damage in revealing them is hardly going to affect more than a tiny minority of those people. Do I care about his reasons? Not really, he did the right thing and that's what matters to me.

      How is that the same as setting up communications channels for individuals living under an oppressive totalitarian regime like Cuba's?

      They are similar in the sense that both governments try to withhold information about their crimes in order to control their respective citizens. Nobody claimed they are the same.

    7. Re:Bradley Manning by tick-tock-atona · · Score: 2

      Manning acted out of a juvenile sense of drama, and indiscriminantly stole hundreds of thousands of documents in a fit of pique over "being in a bad place" emotionally. He betrayed his fellow service members and knew that his drama queen routine was going to put many people at great risk so that he could be seen stamping his feet...

      Kissinger said much the same of Danel Ellsberg: It’s treasonable! There’s no question it’s actionable. I’m absolutely certain that this violates all sorts of security laws.

      How is that the same as setting up communications channels for individuals living under an oppressive totalitarian regime like Cuba's? It's not.

      He set up a communication channel with the world because he believed that the information belonged "in the public domain". His actions have been credited with helping fuel the revolutions in the middle east - helping individuals living under an oppressive totalitarian regime.

    8. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find funny that the US demands this guy to be released. By principle, if this guy is released so should be Manning

      This would be the principle of false equivalency, then.

      Unless you're trying to claim this guy joined the Cuban armed forces, took an oath to uphold the supreme law of the land of Cuba, signed a contract agreeing to be held accountable to Cuba's code of military conduct, did classes explaining said code of conduct, and, after being carefully briefed, signed a non-disclosure agreement explicitly promising not to release Cuba's sensitive data. And, don't forget, he would have had to have worked closely with many people in Cuba's military, form close friendships with many of them and have plenty of time to become cognizant of the fact that those buddies could be hurt or killed if he released that information.

      And, let's not forget that much of the material he would have to release would be diplomatic material that put in jeopardy Cuba's efforts to avoid going to war.

    9. Re:Bradley Manning by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are talking as if betrayal is inherently wrong. I realise it's expected, in evolutionary terms, for humans to feel this way. It's the social primate inside you talking: my tribe/country, right or wrong; the death of one of my tribe is worse than the death of a thousand of anyone else.

      But there is nothing wrong with betraying something or someone you initially thought to be acting morally but then found to be acting immorally. For they have already betrayed you, and to continue is to betray yourself. Even civilian law mostly understands this: you're not excused because you did something illegal for a friend, nor does the law punish you for reporting your friend for murder. What is more, you're never just following orders, even when a substantial hierarchy is in place to make the order lawful from the point of view of that hierarchy. The extent of your willing participation measures the extent of your guilt.

      Lawyers have lawyered the Constitution with absurd interpretations to break its spirit. Constitutionalists sometimes even forget that the document represents a set of principles; it does not generate those principles. Manning was certainly acting morally. Maybe the right combination of judges at some future trial will conclude that he was acting legally (perhaps in terms of international law, or perhaps US Constitutional law).

      And, let's not forget that much of the material he would have to release would be diplomatic material that put in jeopardy Cuba's efforts to avoid going to war.

      "Diplomatic material" here is a weasel phrase for "secrets which we want to keep to maintain peace in a dishonest manner". There is diplomacy in the sense of everyone sitting down at a table and openly discussing their grievances and finding a peaceful solution. Then there is diplomacy in the Kissinger sense of tricking people with a myriad of under-the-table deals into thinking they've been offered more than nothing at all. Entangling alliances with none.

    10. Re:Bradley Manning by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      He set up a communication channel with the world because he believed that the information belonged "in the public domain". His actions have been credited [foreignpolicy.com] with helping fuel the revolutions in the middle east - helping individuals living under an oppressive totalitarian regime.
      If we're going to assign so much credit, then let's assign some blame as well. How many dead shall we heap upon PFC Manning's plate?

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    11. Re:Bradley Manning by davev2.0 · · Score: 0
      I see you can't fucking read or are a complete and incompetent liar. The question is which one are you? From your own link [emphasis added]:

      A scandal involving foreign contractors employed to train Afghan policemen who took drugs and paid for young "dancing boys" to entertain them in northern Afghanistan...The episode helped to fuel Afghan demands that contractors and private security companies be brought under much tighter government control...Atmar himself warned about public anger towards contractors...In a meeting between Atmar and the assistant ambassador Joseph Mussomeli, the US diplomat said he was deeply upset by the incident and that the embassy was considering Afghan demands that the US military should beginning overseeing the DynCrop operations

      Looks like you are a fucking liar. This incident DIDN'T INVOLVE ANY U.S. SERVICE MEMBERS, you worthless, lying piece of shit. What about this part of the article you linked to:

      There is a long tradition of young boys dressing up as girls and dancing for men in Afghanistan, an activity that sometimes crosses the line into child abuse with Afghans keeping boys as possessions.

      It seems your "organised rape of children" is being done by the Afghans and it has a long history of such. But wait, there is more!

      Two Afghan policemen and nine other Afghans were arrested as part of investigations into a crime described by Atmar as "purchasing a service from a child", which the cable said was against both sharia law and the civil code.

      So, it looks like no contractors have been arrested for anything, but Afghans have been. That seems to argue that the contractors didn't commit any child rape or any other crime.

      The evidence indicates you are a lying waste of skin asshole the better part of whom ran down his mother's leg. The world would be a better place if your mother would have just swallowed that night.

      And, just to show the quality of the Guardian's reporting and editing, the very first sentence of the article you linked:

      A scandal involving foreign contractors employed to train Afghan policemen who took drugs and paid for young "dancing boys" to entertain them in northern Afghanistan caused such panic that the interior minister begged the US embassy to try and "quash" the story, according to one of the US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks.

      as written, indicates it was the Afghan policemen who took drugs and paid for the young dancing boys, not the contractors. In fact, as written, it was the contractors who trained the police to take drugs and hire dancing boys. If it were differently punctuated, it would read as you, pig spittle, have read it.

      So, puss for brains, are you lying, dog-fucking asshole or are you an ignorant, monkey cum eating, piece of shit? Which is it?

    12. Re:Bradley Manning by intheshelter · · Score: 2

      One could easily make the point that Manning was "setting up communications channels for individuals living under an oppressive totalitarian regime", because if you think we are still living in a democracy then you need to wake up.

    13. Re:Bradley Manning by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      I don't know, how many? How many can we we say with certainty have died because of his actions? Have ANY died because of his actions?

      Before you try to imply some sort of atrocity attributable to him maybe you could have an ounce of evidence?

    14. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the cuban governmnet should play the but hes a 'TERRORIST' card and send him to guantanemo bay,

    15. Re:Bradley Manning by jackbird · · Score: 2

      indicates it was the Afghan policemen who took drugs and paid for the young dancing boys, not the contractors. In fact, as written, it was the contractors who trained the police to take drugs and hire dancing boys.

      So you're suggesting that the newspaper's editors misunderstood their own article when giving it the headline

      "Foreign contractors hired Afghan 'dancing boys', WikiLeaks cable reveals?

      This is also not the first time DynCorp employees have been caught engaging in child sex slavery. And these "contractors" are performing functions such as training Afghan police and guarding US embassies that historically have been done by soldiers.

      Yes, there is a long-standing tradition of organized child rape in Afghan culture. And we should be having nothing at all to do with it, and we should be arresting and throwing the book at the contractors that are.

    16. Re:Bradley Manning by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Manning acted out of a juvenile sense of drama, and indiscriminantly stole hundreds of thousands of documents

      No, he didn't steal anything. He copied the documents. I bet you think copyright infringement is theft, too.

      in a fit of pique over "being in a bad place" emotionally.

      That's like saying someone is in a fit of pique over "bleeding" physically. His emotional distress was directly related to where he was and what he was doing.

      He betrayed his fellow service members

      He betrayed betrayal of the American people by his fellow service members to the American people, to whom he is responsible before his fellow service members.

      and knew that his drama queen routine

      Fit of pique, drama queen routine, someone could almost get the impression that your juvenile sense of drama is getting away from you. This is important, it's not just a chance for you to show how clever you are.

      was going to put many people at great risk

      It's been discussed to death already how it really hasn't put anyone at great risk because these people were overwhelmingly already known sympathizers and thus already at risk, and the state department has admitted that they cannot find a single person who has been harmed because of the leak.

      so that he could be seen stamping his feet and saddling up to that ego maniac, Assange.

      More of your bullshit attempts to paint Manning as a child, and an Ad Hominem attack against Assange. It's nice that you are as transparent as our government needs to be. It makes it very convenient to see your agenda.

      How is that the same as setting up communications channels for individuals living under an oppressive totalitarian regime like Cuba's?

      You don't see that we're living under an oppressive totalitarian regime because we have more shiny gewgaws? Which, by the way, we soon won't be able to afford because our economy is being looted? You either aren't paying attention, or you have something to gain by preserving the status quo.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:Bradley Manning by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      was going to put many people at great risk

      Yeah, we keep seeing this one dragged out into the street and paraded around.
      Mind actually showing who was put into what sort of risk? I know of one Iranian fencer from a prominent family that was used as a contact. He can probably be identified by authorities. So far, that's it.

      And if you even THINK about throwing back some vague "endangering our troops" comment, you need to re-examine your entire argument. Because I can quite equally and vaguely say that he's a great force for freedom and liberty. The difference is that I can point to specific examples of transgressions that he brought to light. Although you might have to dig around, it appears the powers that be have decided to move a lot of stuff to various subpages.

    18. Re:Bradley Manning by davev2.0 · · Score: 0
      Yo, jackass, Try reading what the fuckhead I replied to posted, then spout your shit, ok? And, when quoting me, how about including all relevant information, such as the words "as written", m'kay, shithead?

      First, I am stating that the Guardian's reporters and editors don't even use their own language properly as evidenced in the VERY FIRST LINE OF THE ARTICLE.

      Second, dipshit LordLucless stated

      Funny, I thought his fellow service members were busy betraying their principles by colluding in the organised rape of children that Manning helped expose.

      which is a factual LIE. You do know what the word lie means right? Manning is a member of the U.S. Army. By stating that "his fellow service members", he is stating that members of the U.S. Army were "colluding in the organised rape of children", which is a LIE. Those that were allegedly "colluding in the organised rape of children" were employees of a private corporations which was hired by the Afghan government to train police. They were NOT members of any U.S. armed service. They may not even have been Americans, but rather employees of an international company based in the U.S.

      As the contractors are not employed by the American government but rather for the Afghan government and are operating outside the United States, and did not travel to Afghanistan for the purpose of having sex with children but for business, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence the contractors had sex with the boys, is there any applicable U.S. law these people can be prosecuted under? As this occurred in Afghanistan, shouldn't the contractors be prosecuted under any applicable Afghan law?

    19. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your foul mouthed ad hominem attacks aren't exactly helping. They only detract from your arguments and make people want to ignore you.

      If you can't argue your point of view without resorting to name calling perhaps you will find other sites (reddit, etc.) more to your liking.

    20. Re:Bradley Manning by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You are talking as if betrayal is inherently wrong.

      Exactly.. If they had succeeded, the Generals plotting to kill Hitler would have been heroes, not traitors.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    21. Re:Bradley Manning by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      If I look in your basement window, and report to the world that you are raping children down there, then you kill 3 policemen when they come to apprehend you, am I responsible for the deaths?

      Manning has no control over Ghadafi. How can he be guilty of a crime for exposing the dictators corruption to the people of Libya?

      I'm one of those crazy, hard-right U.S. Libertarian types that believes our government is corrupt and needs the exposure of daylight any way we can get it.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    22. Re:Bradley Manning by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      We discovered that the US military hides information from the public which would have severe impact on the citizens opinion over US military policies

      We did? When was this?

      The army knew that the public would disagree so they purposely acted against the interests of the US people. You know how we call that in the rest of the world? Fraud and treason.

      lol. Oh, I see. You're one of those guys. Yes, everything the military does is treasonous. Make love, not war! You can't hug your kids with nuclear arms! Pass the joint, would ya?

    23. Re:Bradley Manning by Leebert · · Score: 1

      if you think we are still living in a democracy then you need to wake up.

      Can you please explain to me why America isn't still a democracy?

      Last I checked, the currently serving political representatives were the ones that the people elected.

      The people chose foolishly, if you ask me, but that doesn't mean we're not democratic; it just means the democracy is being managed poorly by the people.

    24. Re:Bradley Manning by Slur · · Score: 1

      Not everything the military does is treasonous. Generally, they're more interested in being effective. And sometimes good consciences do get overridden in the name of The Cause. The importance of transparency is that people with broader and deeper concerns have a chance to review and these institutions have an opportunity to reform. Anything that improves transparency is very good. Every person in the world deserves to know just what's what so they can act a smidgen more rationally.

      --
      -- thinkyhead software and media
    25. Re:Bradley Manning by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I agree. I'm glad to hear that you're such a big fan of transparency, despite your decision to use a pseudonym in your comments. Please post your online banking login information so that I may review your account in order to ensure that there is no hanky-panky. Surely you don't want to keep me from knowing what's what.

    26. Re:Bradley Manning by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      I would say it's not a democracy because business special interests are running this country. They supply the cash that finances the candidates who will dance to their tune. At anything above the local level there is rarely a citizen government, but only professional politicians bought by the rich. In short it's not a democracy because the choices are already decided for us by those with the money.

    27. Re:Bradley Manning by Leebert · · Score: 1

      In short it's not a democracy because the choices are already decided for us by those with the money.

      I disagree. The people decide, they're just stupidly swayed by expensive campaigns. Ergo, the people still have their choice, even if they choose poorly.

    28. Re:Bradley Manning by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Funny, I thought his fellow service members were busy betraying their principles by colluding in the organised rape of children that Manning helped expose.

      Yeah, finding out my country was funding that could quite possibly put me "in a bad place emotionally" and lead to a "fit of pique". Of course, I'd probably call it "righteous anger" and "exposing corruption", but spin it however you will. After all, it's easier to call people "drama queens" and "ego maniacs" than it is to actually believe that your saintly government could be involved in corruption.

      No doubt you will be relieved to know that those claims are false.

      DynCorp disputes WikiLeaks allegations

      A salacious, scandalous story involving allegations of child sex that has unfolded on blogs and websites over the last two weeks seems to implicate DynCorp International, a major Fort Worth employer.

      The problem, say both DynCorp and the U.S. State Department, is that the story is exaggerated and the worst parts of it untrue.

      The recent release of thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks prompted the reports. Among the cables is one that discusses a meeting with Afghan Minister of Interior Hanif Atmar, who wanted the U.S. to help quash a possible newspaper article about foreign employees of DynCorp hiring "dancing boys" to perform at a party.

      Britain's Guardian newspaper published an article Dec. 2 about the memo and the minister's meeting with embassy officials. The article tied the reported party to "a long [Afghan] tradition of young boys dressing up as girls and dancing for men ... that sometimes crosses the line into child abuse with Afghans keeping the boys as possessions.".....

      In the Afghanistan case, both DynCorp and the State Department say what occurred was far less sinister than portrayed in such reports.

      According to a detailed statement provided by DynCorp spokeswoman Ashley Burke, a going-away party for a departing Afghan employee was held at the regional police training center in Kunduz. The party organizer, a local employee, hired "a 17-year-old local dancer who performed at ... weddings and other celebrations, to perform a traditional Afghan dance."

      Shortly after the dancing began, a DynCorp manager "recognizing that the situation was culturally insensitive ... stopped the performance," according to the statement.

      The company conducted its own investigation of the matter, "determined that the leadership of the team exhibited poor judgment and were subsequently terminated. That is the whole story; no alcohol or drugs were involved, or other illegal behaviors occurred."

      The State Department concurred, saying there were no drugs, no alcohol and no boys procured for sex.

      "There was no evidence of any of that," said Susan Pittman, spokeswoman for the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement.

      Both the bureau and the Office of the Inspector General investigated the matter, Pittman said, including reviewing videos of the party.

      For several days after the leaked memo was published, DynCorp's Burke said, none of the online media writing about it bothered to contact the company or the State Department. Eventually, one blog, TalkingPointsMemo, did and reported the company and State Department side of the story.

      The leaked memo says the Afghanistan government was prosecuting two Afghan police officers and nine other persons for "the crime of purchasing a service from a child."

      Publication of the leaked memo didn't actually break any news. The Washington Post reported on the party in a July 2009 article about DynCorp. The Post said the company was taking steps to strengthen its ethics

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    29. Re:Bradley Manning by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      wMind actually showing who was put into what sort of risk? I know of one Iranian fencer from a prominent family that was used as a contact. He can probably be identified by authorities. So far, that's it.

      And if you even THINK about throwing back some vague "endangering our troops" comment, you need to re-examine your entire argument. Because I can quite equally and vaguely say that he's a great force for freedom and liberty. The difference is that I can point to specific examples of transgressions that he brought to light. Although you might have to dig around, it appears the powers that be have decided to move a lot of stuff to various subpages.

      As requested....

      Taliban Study WikiLeaks to Hunt Informants

      Updated | 12:36 p.m. A spokesman for the Taliban told Britain’s Channel 4 News on Thursday that the insurgent group is scouring classified American military documents posted online by the group WikiLeaks for information to help them find and “punish” Afghan informers.

      Speaking by telephone from an undisclosed location, Zabihullah Mujahid, who frequently contacts news organizations, including The Times on behalf of the Taliban, said, “We are studying the report.” He added:

      We knew about the spies and people who collaborate with U.S. forces. We will investigate through our own secret service whether the people mentioned are really spies working for the U.S. If they are U.S. spies, then we know how to punish them.

      Steve Coll, an expert on the region and a former senior editor of The Washington Post, said in a New Yorker podcast on Thursday, “my reading of the disclosure of these informants in the context of Taliban-menaced southern Afghanistan is that people named in those documents have a reasonable belief that they are going to get killed, or — actually the way it works with the Taliban is, if they can’t find you, they’ll take your brother instead.”

      Although various professional news outlets attempted to redact the documents, there were documents put on the Internet without redaction. Names were named.

      Having informants against the Taliban is a good thing, and not just because of what is going on in Afghanistan.

      Pakistani Taliban paid $12,000 to Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad

      You picked the wrong "hero".

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    30. Re:Bradley Manning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True that man you tell em...I'm tired of the sensitive trolls that bash America but have no problem with country's that would KILL them just for being American, think retards where do you live and why

    31. Re:Bradley Manning by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Oye, "The Taliban is combing through the leaks looking for names that got through redaction."
      That's exactly the vague answer I preemptively called bullshit on. Who ISN'T looking through the leaks? And since you say "names were named", all I ask is that you name them. I mean, if that sort of vague doom-saying counts then I can say that Arabs also read the leaks and that lead to widespread revolution and overthrowing of dictators. That's a hell of a lot cheaper then invading Iraq was.

      Yeah yeah, I know that our spies are theoretically helping protect us in the shadows. They did a great job keeping Faisal Shahzad from detonating that car bomb, didn't they? They also had fantastic success with the Mujaheddin freedom fighters in Afghanistan. Oh wait..

      As for the character attack on Manning... well, yeah, he's not exactly a shining example of nobility, but I'm still saying that the leak was a good thing.

  5. yeah, right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://inteldaily.com/2011/03/our-man-in-havana/

  6. stupid americans by petur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Stop trying to be hero's by trying to rebuild countries after destroying them with wars or business blocks.

    1. Re:stupid americans by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Insightful

      after destroying them

      The only people who have destroyed Cuba is the totalitarian communist family that runs it and who jail or kill people for trying to lead a free life or leave the island.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:stupid americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, we will just destroy them and leave them seething in the mess.

    3. Re:stupid americans by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Before Castro, there was the american mafia.

    4. Re:stupid americans by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The only people who have destroyed Cuba is the totalitarian communist family that runs it and who jail or kill people for trying to lead a free life or leave the island.

      What about the fascists who run this country, and if you try to lead a free life (e.g. engaging in various victimless activities which are crimes like growing a certain plaint proven not only to be harmless but actually beneficial to everyone and everything but big pharma's bottom line) they will take all your stuff, take away your children and place them with a family as unlike you as possible, and put you in a jail where you will most likely be raped and given a disease guaranteed to kill you? Those are the same people who placed embargos against Cuba.

      You are truly allowing your thoughtless patriotism to cloud your judgment. Cuba is no better and no worse than the USA. It only has less resources.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:stupid americans by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Before Castro, there was the american mafia.

      So you're saying that the mafia was acting as an agent of US government policy?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:stupid americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop trying to be hero's by trying to rebuild countries after destroying them with wars or business blocks.

      Stop trying to do something good just because your government have been doing bad things?

      An american != US Government..

    7. Re:stupid americans by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that the mafia was acting as an agent of US government policy?

      Yes.

    8. Re:stupid americans by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that the mafia was acting as an agent of US government policy?

      Yes.

      You better reread it - that's not what it says.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    9. Re:stupid americans by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Yes, why? You actually had any <doubt>?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    10. Re:stupid americans by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      No, it's the <paragraph above that>..

      Batista was the "buffer".. They have lots of "buffers"

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  7. Shame, shame, shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Funny thing, this guy entered Cuba on a tourist visa, so I'm not sure what he was doing hooking up dissidents to the Internet and expecting to get away with it.

    If the American government had as much outrage against its own military torturing and jailing innocent civilians, or hero's who risked their own lives and well being to help people; like Bradly Manning did in the whistle-blowing case; then people would be more likely to believe the United States, and the integrity of their words.

    Shame, shame, shame.

  8. Correction: Jew handing out sat-phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The actual story is: Jew handing out sat phones to contacts in cuba to assist in the transfer of black market goods into cuba and assist to drug-trafficers to import their wares into the US.

  9. Poor American? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We have absolutely no idea how innocent or guilty this person is. For all we know he could be a freedom of speech activist or an undercover CIA operative.

    I simply refuse to take these stories at face value. Person X that did Y that I can neither confirm nor deny has recieved penalty Z.

    Uhm, OK. I'll just read my emails now, if that's OK with you.

  10. What about the prisoners in the US? by br00tus · · Score: 4, Informative
    Of course, Americans are thrown into prison for allowing people to see foreign satellite channels, but let's not discuss that. Let's have the NASDAQ listed US Geeknet corporation news website Slashdot bash Cuba. Of course, USAID and the CIA have been trying to foment revolution in Cuba for a long time, and the US government has supported the terrorist groups that have been bombing hotels in Cuba. Meanwhile, the US tortures prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, a military base Cuba has asked leave Cuba but the US in its imperialist hubris refuses. Terrorists who bomb civilian airlines like Luis Posada Carilles walk the streets of the US freely, with his only legal problems being minor asylum discrepancies.

    Also, how many cable stations in the US is English Al-Jazeera on? Talk about a corporate/government lockdown. Al-Jazeera is banned from the New York Stock Exchange floor as well for whatever reason.

    What rank hypocrisy. Five Cubans who were concerned with terrorists like Carilles are locked in US jails right now. I'm sure Cuba would be perfectly willing to do a prisoner exchange. The US should free its political and free spech prisoners and stop supporting terrorists like Carilles before its corporations like Geeknet/Slashdot complain about Cuba. How is this USAID spy a spy who should be free, but the Cuban Five should be in prison. Just the arrogant imperial hubris of the US.

    1. Re:What about the prisoners in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up.

    2. Re:What about the prisoners in the US? by i-linux123 · · Score: 0

      Al Jazeera, Russia Today, ... . Hillary Clinton said "We're in a media war, and quite frankly, we're losing it." in the context of the mentioned channels. I have no idea what she meant when all I see during the middle-eastern uprising on these channel's online streams is news and coverage that is aligned and compatible with western views, which I'd like to think are generally good from a humanitarian standpoint. (I live in Europe btw.)

    3. Re:What about the prisoners in the US? by NightFears · · Score: 2

      (fixing formatting)

      > foreign satellite channels
      I wonder why you felt you had to use that euphemism instead of just saying "Hezbollah TV". Maybe because Hezbollah is a world-wide famous terrorist organization? As such, distribution of its materials is prohibited by law, therefore what you support here is violation of law, and apparently you don't want to appear that way, am I correct?

      This is the usual hypocrisy of your type of rights activists. You are accusing state authorities of actions that are determined by law authorities and, indeed, by law. There are good laws and bad laws, and it is arguable whether this particular law is any good. But this is not a level of discussion you want to engage in, as you don't care about the laws or logic behind them, all you care about is propaganda. Just to show this, you proceed to make further radical unsubstantiated claims, such as
      > US government has supported the terrorist groups that have been bombing hotels in Cuba

    4. Re:What about the prisoners in the US? by gabebear · · Score: 1

      The guy went to jail was being paid by Hezbollah to broadcast the station($28K/month). http://ztruth.typepad.com/ztruth/2008/12/new-york-javed-iqbal-pleads-guilty-to-broadcasting-hezbollah-television-in-us.html

      Posada is finally being tried for the airline bombing which, although he is a terrorist, he may not have done. http://venezuela-us.org/2011/01/28/el-paso-diary-day-9-in-the-trial-of-posada-carriles-abascals-testimony-damages-posadas-defense/

      Even Cuba admits the five cubans are inteligence officers sent to the US to spy, it's just a matter of what they were sent here to spy on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Five

      I don't believe this guy should be freed(and he likely won't be freed). He wasn't doing this out of concern for people, he was doing it because he was getting paid by the US. He's a mercenary, but he didn't kill anyone so instead of being executed he's being sent to prison.

    5. Re:What about the prisoners in the US? by merlock18 · · Score: 1

      Looks like Mr Iqbal was actually convicted of "providing material support to Hizballah, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization." Not just showing their material, as the NYTimes reported. http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3773
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082401461.html
      Apparently he was "supporting" them simply by promoting these broadcasts? Not sure how I feel on this one. If DVRs are questionable, simply because ads can be skipped, as ads are the only support for television broadcasting companies, how much is something like Mr Iqbal is doing, support?

    6. Re:What about the prisoners in the US? by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      I guess in Cuba the US is legally a terrorist organization too.

    7. Re:What about the prisoners in the US? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Of course, Americans are thrown into prison for allowing people to see foreign satellite channels

      Oddly enough, your link only resolved to a full screen ad with no option to skip. Maybe if I trusted nytimes to run javascript or other crap, which I most certainly do not. Maybe you should provide a link to a site that isn't into ads and paywalls. Nytimes is part of the problem, linking there for an issue like that is ridiculous. At minimum they will move the article later to produce 404s (and they will NOT provide a new address.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:What about the prisoners in the US? by radtea · · Score: 1

      Of course, Americans are thrown into prison [nytimes.com] for allowing people to see foreign satellite channels, but let's not discuss that.

      No, please, let's not. Not here, as it is completely and utterly irrelevant to the topic of this discussion, which is the behaviour of people in the Cuban government. Why you and others insist on bringing up totally unrelated issues of behaviour as bad or worse by people in the American government is beyond me. It is obscurantist and distractings and worse of all it makes it look like you think there is absolutely nothing substantive or interesting to say about Cuba.

      It is, with you people, all and always, only about America.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    9. Re:What about the prisoners in the US? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Al Jazeera, Russia Today, ... . Hillary Clinton said "We're in a media war, and quite frankly, we're losing it." in the context of the mentioned channels. I have no idea what she meant when all I see during the middle-eastern uprising on these channel's online streams is news and coverage that is aligned and compatible with western views, which I'd like to think are generally good from a humanitarian standpoint. (I live in Europe btw.)

      She meant 'we're not controlling it'. If we're not in charge, we're not in the game. Just one of those little intellectual problems of being the only superpower. Not to worry - it'll change in a bit, always does.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    10. Re:What about the prisoners in the US? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Wait. You don't want a subscription to the Economist?

      You must be a communist.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  11. Not news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Regimes that have, ideologically, started out as Communist revolutions, like to refer themselves as "revolutionary," much like the West uses the word "democratic": "that is us, never mind the word's meaning or our actions". So, yes, it is possible to have a reactionary Revolution, or a fascist Democracy; note the capitalization.

    1. Re:Not news. by skarphace · · Score: 1

      So, yes, it is possible to have a reactionary Revolution, or a fascist Democracy; note the capitalization.

      What about the capitalization? None of these are mutually exclusive in their actual definitions.

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    2. Re:Not news. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yep - in a similar vein, Gaddafi keep talking about "defending the revolution".

    3. Re:Not news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, for instance, you can tell the bias of the author based on whether he write "capitalism" or "Capitalism".

  12. Manning and Crowley criticised the US government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Look what happened to them.

  13. resentment for people with more rights than me by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    I can't get upset about this. I feel it is bad enough that Americans with Cuban heritage have the right to visit Cuba while my government says that I am forbidden to do so. But this guy isn't Cuban (he's Jewish), yet somehow he get to go to Cuba on a tourist visa. He broke their laws (which really suck but he clearly knew their laws).

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by georgesdev · · Score: 1

      But this guy isn't Cuban (he's Jewish)

      What has religion got to do with this??? Or has Castro banned Judaism on his island? I'm always unhappy to see people mixing Hebrew, Israeli and Judaism. They are as different as French language, France, and, say, Catholicism.

    2. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cuba will give you a tourist visa. Go to Canada or Mexico, get a visa and then go. It will not even stamp your passport as not to get you in trouble.

    3. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by Loundry · · Score: 0, Troll

      I can't get upset about this. I feel it is bad enough that Americans with Cuban heritage have the right to visit Cuba while my government says that I am forbidden to do so. But this guy isn't Cuban (he's Jewish), yet somehow he get to go to Cuba on a tourist visa. He broke their laws (which really suck but he clearly knew their laws).

      I can't get upset that I don't have the right to financially support a Communist island quasi-gulag, but I can understand why that pisses off "progressives" (those scare quotes are EARNED), so I empathize with you ... just a smidge. At the same time, so what if he "knew their laws"? No one should be punished for an unjust law. I'm sure the people in Cuba's prisons who are there for the horrible crime of criticizing the government would agree with that.

      I'm sorry, what was I engaging my brain again? I just need to repeat, "They have Universal Health Care in Cuba!" over and over. War is Peace, Love is Hate. A=!A.

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    4. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communism(or actually Marxism) is generally against religion in all its forms.

      "Religion is the opium of the people" — Karl Marx

    5. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by Kilobug · · Score: 2

      "Quasi-gulag ?" I went to Cuba. I spoke to cuban. I saw how they live. Not in luxury and there are problems, yes. But it's definitely not a "quasi-gulag". The only "gulag" in Cuba is Guantanamo.

      "No one should be punished for an unjust law." Indeed. But a law saying an agent from a foreign hostile power can't come to your country to stir unrest, build a covert communication network, and corrupt people to oppose the government, well, it's not that an "unjust" law, and similar laws exist everywhere in the world.

      "I'm sure the people in Cuba's prisons who are there for the horrible crime of criticizing the government would agree with that." No one is. There are people in Cuba's prisons for the horrible crime of receiving money or goods from a foreign hostile power to undermine the government. That's completely different. Now we can argue about the fairness of the trial, and some may be innocent of the crime they are accused of. Like there are people innocent in jail in every country. We should criticize it every time we have data on such a case, and we can criticize specific methods used in the court process. There is a lot to criticize on that topic in Cuba. But also in USA, and also in the European Union.

    6. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't get upset that I don't have the right to financially support a Communist island quasi-gulag, but I can understand why that pisses off "progressives" (those scare quotes are EARNED), so I empathize with you ... just a smidge. At the same time, so what if he "knew their laws"? No one should be punished for an unjust law.

      You've never been to Cuba, have you?

      I've spent as much time in Cuba as I have in the US and in many ways find the US to be much closer to authoritarianism. While the US is not quite a police state yet, for every story like this about Cuba (which, btw, is actually about a spy if you bother to look into it) there are literally hundreds of stories about the US.

      Yes, Cuba has its issues. But a lot of those issues, and the inability to move beyond them, is because nitwits like yourself simply regurgitate what they've seen on Fox rather than look for themselves.

    7. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Because the term "Jew" has been a racial designation far longer than it's been a religious one? Jew => Descendant of Judah.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    8. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by mangu · · Score: 1

      But a law saying an agent from a foreign hostile power can't come to your country to stir unrest, build a covert communication network, and corrupt people to oppose the government, well, it's not that an "unjust" law, and similar laws exist everywhere in the world

      The main organized crime where I live in Brazil is called the "Red Command" . That name means "red" as in communist, that organization started when common criminals where trained in jail by agents sent from Cuba to overthrow the Brazilian government.

    9. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by Evtim · · Score: 1

      So they are against drugs. Isn't this a good thing?!

    10. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sent from Cuba to overthrow the Brazilian government.

      which at that time was a military dictatorship, according to the article you linked. Not really unimportant, don't you think?

    11. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      "Jewish" as in ethnicity. Don't be daft on purpose so obviously.

    12. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At the same time, so what if he "knew their laws"? No one should be punished for an unjust law.

      So, when you're visiting a foreign country, you shouldn't have to abide by their laws?

      I can truly say I don't care about their laws/government either way (no desire to visit there), but something about that statement doesn't seem quite right. You're saying that, just because you don't agree with their laws, you shouldn't have to abide by them when you're in their country? I'm sure there are plenty of people visiting the US right now who will be happy to hear that.

    13. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      I would submit that it has been erroneously used as a racial designation as a way to deflect any criticism. It's a religion, not a race. I can convert to a religion, but I can't convert to a race. I can convert to Judaism, I can't convert to being black, or latino.

    14. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All drugs except cuban cigars and russian vodka. Just like it should be.

    15. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by osgeek · · Score: 1

      I know what you mean. I can't seem to muster much sympathy for dipshits that go to oppressive foreign countries, do illegal things, and get busted.

      That includes you stupid hikers who go looking for trouble on the "borders" of Iran or North Korea. You're fools and we waste far too much time giving a damn about how you fucked up your lives.

    16. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the rum.

    17. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Communism(or actually Marxism) is generally against religion in all its forms.

      "Religion is the opium of the people" — Karl Marx

      And for that reason, if no other, it deserves to be taken seriously by anyone who professes to be rational.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    18. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      At the same time, so what if he "knew their laws"? No one should be punished for an unjust law.

      Sorry, but when you're in another country you obey their laws. If they repel you that much, don't go there.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That implies the laws themselves are moral which is false. Going to some country to peacefully offer internet connectivity to willing parties does not justify kidnapping for 15 years. The common response that it is their societies land and it is right that you must abide by their rules is utter nonsense. Society doesn't own shit. People do. If this man offers a service to a willing individual, there isn't a single piece of private property he violated. Unless one wants to bite a very large bullet and argue that the government owns the whole of the island and the people in it, you cannot justify this initiation of force even if the intent was to give connectivity to those who opposed the cuban government.

      These conflated phrases like 'my house, my rules' all fail to realize that ones ownership of their house does not then imply societies ownership of a nation. If it did, it would contradict the very phrase itself, because then it wouldn't be 'my house' at all.

    20. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      "Judaism" may be a religion, but "Jewish" is an ethnic designation. "Jew" and "Jewish" wered used as such before the term Judaism was coined, although the actual religion predates them. "Jew" is used to describe a member of either the ethnos or the religion, and thus there can be some confusion. The confusion is reinforced by the fact that you Judaism itself conflates the concept of religion and ethnos - if you convert to Judaism, you are also adopted into the Jewish ethnos.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    21. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by georgesdev · · Score: 1

      "Jewish" as in ethnicity. Don't be daft on purpose so obviously.

      Nope, to refer to ethnicity, you should use Semitic, not Jewish.
      I'm not saying no one uses Jewish to refer to the ethnicity, but they're wrong, and Semitic is a better term.
      And regarding Cuba and the US in this case, I think they care more about the religion of that guy than his ethnicity, and I also think it should be irrelevant

    22. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Okay, go educate people in israel then. I have several relatives there, and they always call themselves "jewish" when asked about ethnicity. I'm sure they will be very interested in the fact that not only have they been doing it wrong, but even governmental paperwork in Israel and abroad accepts their false term.

    23. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by georgesdev · · Score: 1

      When you show me someone that is Jewish and Muslim, and sees no contradiction in that, then I'll start believing you
      Amen!

    24. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Yes, that would be how a jewish person who believes in allah identifies him/herself. Same as jewish christians.

    25. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by georgesdev · · Score: 1

      would you care to cite your sources on this please?

    26. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Would a lengthy wikipedia article suffice, or do you need me to state that, yet again, I have relatives in the country, i.e. source that has first hand information?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christian

    27. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by georgesdev · · Score: 1

      Now you're the one acting daft!!!
      That Wikipedia page merely says that some Jews (as in religion) believe that Jesus existed, etc ...
      Of course Christian religion has links with Jewish religion, that does not prove that "Jewish" is an ethnicity.
      Like I said, find me a clear reference of people claiming to be both Jewish AND Muslim, and I'll start believing you.
      And please, do not cite Wikipedia as a source, it's supposed to be a secondary source, not a primary source!

    28. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      What kind of confirmation are you looking for then? Since neither wikipedia nor people actually living in Israel are good enough for you, and I don't think issue is important enough to get you a knesset-signed statement.

      Actually, let's try Godwin. Hitler hunted ETHNIC jews. Not ethnic semites or religious jews. Are 6 million dead jews good enough for you?

    29. Re:resentment for people with more rights than me by georgesdev · · Score: 1

      if one of them was both Jewish and a Muslim, let me know. Good luck!!!

  14. At least he have been sentenced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oposite other prisoners on that island.

  15. Unfair trials in Cuba by dugeen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Doubtless the Cubans are merely following the shining example of the kangaroo courts that try 'terrorist' inmates in the concentration camp at Guantanamo. I can't quite recall which democratic power operates that camp though, perhaps it will come back to me...

    1. Re:Unfair trials in Cuba by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      the kangaroo courts that try 'terrorist' inmates

      You don't actually know what that phrase means, do you?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Unfair trials in Cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you expect to get positive moderation on that comment?

    3. Re:Unfair trials in Cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From Wiki: "A kangaroo court or kangaroo trial is a colloquial term for a sham legal proceeding or court. The outcome of a trial by kangaroo court is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of ensuring conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all."

      Sounds right to me.

    4. Re:Unfair trials in Cuba by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Doubtless the Cubans are merely following the shining example of the kangaroo courts

      Wow, so you're a racist who thinks Cubans can't do anything on their own, and you throw out a groundless tu quoque argument from the get go. Impressive.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    5. Re:Unfair trials in Cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A kangaroo court or kangaroo trial is a colloquial term for a sham legal proceeding or court. The outcome of a trial by kangaroo court is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of ensuring conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court

      You're right, he doesn't, we aren't allowing even the court proceedings out of 'fear they might be found innocent.'

    6. Re:Unfair trials in Cuba by osgeek · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that there are enough moderators to rate up illogical drivel to +5 instead of -1 flamebait.

    7. Re:Unfair trials in Cuba by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Doubtless the Cubans are merely following the shining example of the kangaroo courts that try 'terrorist' inmates in the concentration camp at Guantanamo. I can't quite recall which democratic power operates that camp though, perhaps it will come back to me...

      Wow, so you're a racist who thinks Cubans can't do anything on their own, and you throw out a groundless tu quoque argument from the get go. Impressive.

      Wow, so someone makes a political statement about how Cuba is merely doing the same kind of shit we are all doing, and you have to discredit it by accusing him of racism? Not only are you an asshole, but you're a stupid, jingoistic asshole who has gotten defensive.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Unfair trials in Cuba by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Way to miss the point (again), Marty.

      The original poster's point was not that Cuba is merely doing the same thing the US government does. He specifically stated they are following our example, then used the loaded term "kangaroo court". This reveals two falsehoods:

      1) Cuba is not following the US's example, they've been doing these kinds of things for years independent of the US doing them.
      2) A kangaroo court presumes the outcome is known in advance. However, several of the defendants of the military tribunals at Gitmo have been cleared of wrongdoing and released. You don't have to agree with the policy that created these tribunals or their propriety to recognize they are not, at all, "kangoroo courts".

      So yes, implying that Cuba is only doing this because the US is is at best borderline racist, and calling military tribunals "kangaroo courts" is just tu quoque on top of it all.

      Now, if none of that is what dugeen meant, then maybe he needs to pick his words more carefully in the future. But that's not my problem if he's functionally illiterate on top of being borderline racist and illogical.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    9. Re:Unfair trials in Cuba by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Way to miss the point (again), Marty.

      Way to get my name wrong, corbetty.

      A kangaroo court presumes the outcome is known in advance. However, several of the defendants of the military tribunals at Gitmo have been cleared of wrongdoing and released. You don't have to agree with the policy that created these tribunals or their propriety to recognize they are not, at all, "kangoroo courts".

      That's a lot of nonsense. They can decide that some people will come out cleared of their charges ahead of time, too.

      The simple truth is that he said nothing racist whatsoever. He never implied that they COULDN'T come up with the idea on their own. And further, it is absolutely true that we have taught many nations bad behavior by example.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Unfair trials in Cuba by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Marty is a perfectly cromulent nickname for Martin. So you'll always be Marty to me. You don't have to like it, but there's nothing you can do about it, so best to just accept it and move on with your life.

      That's a lot of nonsense. They can decide that some people will come out cleared of their charges ahead of time, too.

      True. But can you prove that that's what's happened? Or is this just wild speculation on your part?

      I still maintain that implying that Cuba is only doing this because the US showed them the way is borderline racist. And while there's an argument to be made (and one I would agree with) that our government's behavior has given an excuse to other nations who act the same way or worse, it's absurd to think they're only doing it because of us.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    11. Re:Unfair trials in Cuba by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Doubtless the Cubans are merely following the shining example of the kangaroo courts

      Wow, so you're a racist who thinks Cubans can't do anything on their own, and you throw out a groundless tu quoque argument from the get go. Impressive.

      I always laugh when I hear Americans accuse other people of being racist. You're the ones who had laws based on skin colour half a century ago. Well, you and South Africa.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    12. Re:Unfair trials in Cuba by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So you'll always be Marty to me.

      Marty is some other guy. If you always call me Marty, you'll always be a douche to me.

      I still maintain that implying that Cuba is only doing this because the US showed them the way is borderline racist.

      I maintain that inferring racism from his statement is inherently racist.

      And while there's an argument to be made (and one I would agree with) that our government's behavior has given an excuse to other nations who act the same way or worse, it's absurd to think they're only doing it because of us.

      No, of course, they're doing it because it is everyone's SOP today. America doesn't have the market on evil cornered. On the other hand, I do believe that while a monarch or a small ruling body is overwhelmingly likely to be corrupt, a bureaucracy will always become so because it separates rights from responsibilities.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Unfair trials in Cuba by corbettw · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I do believe that while a monarch or a small ruling body is overwhelmingly likely to be corrupt, a bureaucracy will always become so because it separates rights from responsibilities.

      Ah-ha! Something we completely agree on. Well said, Marty.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  16. Re:NuKE Cuba with neutron bombs by qmaqdk · · Score: 1

    Wow, that karma was really burning a hole in your pocket.

    --
    My UID is prime. Hah!
  17. Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ? by Kilobug · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, what ? A man employed by an hostile foreign power (a power imposing to a country an illegal blockade since 50 years, and sponsoring terrorism against that country) is arrested because he, secretly and without any permission, is corrupting local persons into subverting the local government. He would be arrested in any country for that.

    As for USAID, it's a not a charity, it's a CIA cover entity since long.

    If USA were really interested into spreading Internet in Cuba, they would lift the blockade restrictions that forbid Cuba to connecting to the trans-atlantic cable that runs not so long from it. If they were really interested into spreading Internet in Cuba, they would allow Cuba to purchase computers.

    But no. They don't want to spread Internet in Cuba. They want to reward the few cubans (and the wikileaks are clear that even the SINA (US "embassy" in Cuba) acknowledge the "opposition" in Cuba is very small and unpopular there) who betray their own country to support the agenda of the nearby imperialist power. That's it. It's plain corruption.

    Cuba system is not perfect. It has many flaws. It also have many positive things. We should encourage them to keep what's good and change what is not. But it's not by sending cover agents to corrupt people to oppose their government that it'll happen. And the cover agent who tried to do that is not a freedom-fighter.

    And I can understand Cuba being strict with those cover agents, when you see that the Cuban Five were sentenced to much harder penalty, while they weren't at all opposing the US government, but only infiltrating the Miami-based terror groups.

    1. Re:Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ? by NoSig · · Score: 1

      Providing internet access is corruption of locals?

    2. Re:Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ? by Kilobug · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not "providing internet access to anyone". That would just require the US to lift the blockade. It's "providing internet access to those who oppose the government". Which is indeed corruption : you oppose the government, you receive goods that other people can't buy (because of the blockade).

    3. Re:Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      It does seem odd that the US government would sponsor a mission like this, which doubtless cost quite a bit of money and now this guy his freedom, and yet they won't do something simple like, oh, I dunno, lift the embargo and let Cubans buy all kinds of cheap communications equipment. Hell, we could flood their entire country with throwaway items from 10 years ago that would still be more advanced than what most people there use, and even provide free WiMax to the whole country for less than what this operation probably cost.

      But the goal does not appear to be just freeing the Cuban people, it's to punish Castro. The irony is that if we ended the embargo and just ignored him he'd fall quickly enough (if only because it would take away the convenient Goldstein he has to focus his people's anger at).

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    4. Re:Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ? by cjav · · Score: 2

      Just to be clear, you do know Obama lifted the ban on Cuba to connect to any cable and gave US companies the right to do business with Cuba with this respect several months ago, still Cuba didn't acted on it. If you watch this video, they say is because they don't have for sure the US wouldn't take the money and not provide the service:
      http://vimeo.com/19402730

      They will always find a reason not to give people access to information!. That video is also a prove why there is a need for people like Alan Gross to go to Cuba and do what he was doing, and only the Cuba government is to blain for that.

      Let me be clear, I give the CIA or directly the US government is using here the USAID to do things that could potentially bring down the current Cuban government, which yes could get anybody in trouble anywhere, but that doesn't make the fact that what Cuba is fighting here is Internet access for the people. I'm Cuban, left Cuba 2 years ago when I was 29, my chosen field, bioinformatics, and yes I left Cuba not only because it was extremely frustrating to work in a field where internet is a must, I left because it was killing me from inside out to live in such a totalitarianism country, but believe me, controlled access to Internet will make the current dictatorial government fell one way or the other, doesn't matter if they choose not to give access anybody and then fell behind the rest of the world, or if the technology allow people circumvent the government control and they decide on their own with the information they will have to raise.

    5. Re:Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ? by NoSig · · Score: 0

      I can't tell if you are using the word corruption as in accepting bribes or as in general moral corruption. You seemed to be saying that internet access leads to moral corruption of the people who have internet access. Now you seem to be saying that for these people to have internet access is some kind of bribe (so the first sense of corruption), which implies that these people are opposing the government of Cuba in part so that they can have internet access. Both statements seem bizarre and I don't think that's what you really mean.

    6. Re:Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ? by waldonova · · Score: 1

      Interesting that you make out the US to be the governing authority for Cuban computer purchases. Cuba can purchase the same computers you can purchase in the US, just not from the US. I don't know how accessible the Internet is outside the resorts, but it has certainly been available in the resorts for at least a few years now. Very slow and expensive a few years ago but indeed there.

      I guess they make exceptions for those with hard currency to leave behind, but this is a communist government and the Internet truly is the opiate of the masses... not to be trusted. Can you imagine the reaction these cats had when they were briefed about how easy it is for a PC to use ssl/ssh and how much privacy it affords the user? There is a big difference between developing countries and developing communist countries, as I'm sure Mr. Gross is currently aware.

    7. Re:Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ? by multipartmixed · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, he's saying that receiving internet access is a form of payment for doing corrupt things. Just like receiving bags full of money, fancy cars, or bricks of cocaine.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    8. Re:Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a blockade, it's an embargo.

      An embargo means "we will not do business with you", a blockade is "we will stop everyone from doing business with you", in the case of the US and Cuba, it's the former. Canadians and Europeans travel freely to Cuba. That island is in shambles not because of the US Embargo, but because the USSR is no longer its Sugar Daddy.

      Your deceptive use of that term calls your objectivity into question.

    9. Re:Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ? by NoSig · · Score: 0

      If by "no" you mean "yes", then OK.

    10. Re:Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ? by roystgnr · · Score: 1

      corrupting local persons into subverting the local government. He would be arrested in any country for that.

      Really? My country subverts its local government every two years. Some of the bastards get to go four or even six years with minimal danger of being kicked out, but even during that time we're allowed to rant about how much they should be kicked out.

      That makes for a much more accurate way of judging how large and popular an opposition is, in fact: you let it oppose. It does seem less stable to have a bunch of people freely questioning your power, but as a lot of countries are currently finding out, in the long run it's safer than bottling those questions up until a sudden preference cascade topples you.

      Oh, yeah, and that "freely" thing is nice too.

    11. Re:Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job. I wish people would actually stop and think about what you just wrote (or even read it thoroughly). I imagine many people will quickly dismiss your comment due to years of hearing only one side of the story. Too bad for them.

    12. Re:Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Please enlighten us as to how the US boycott of Cuba is illegal. What laws are being broken? Who mandated these laws? You seem to throw a lot of terms about very loosely.

      With respect to Alan Phillip Gross, are we supposed to buy your completely made up story? You've got sources to back up your claims, right...?

    13. Re:Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the only "blockade" was during the Cuban Missile Crisis and that was a good thing.

    14. Re:Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has many flaws. It also have many positive things.

      The flaws and the positive things are one and the same.

      If you're a doctor, the flaw is that you are a slave, held hostage in a country that can't pay you enough to stay voluntarily.

      If you're sick, you might have a doctor you don't need to pay as much as you need if he has was allowed to live somewhere else.

      Indeed, flaws and positive things.

  18. Re:Manning and Crowley criticised the US governmen by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Troll

    Manning and Crowley criticised the US government ... Look what happened to them.

    Manning indiscriminately sprewed hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents out the door in a fit of not liking the fact that he'd put himself - an angsty gay man - into a military job that really didn't suit his personality. The problem was that he didn't criticize the government, or use any of the many established mechanisms for pointing out specific acts or policies requiring wider whistleblower-style attention/coverage, and when straight for the personal drama (using the outlet set up by Assaange, who is also all about personal drama). He displayed the exact opposite of thoughtful, principled action. He had a tantrum.

    Crowley, who worked in an appointed position at the pleasure of the chief executive, decided to deliberately call his chief executive's policies "stupid" (and more) in a public setting, for the press, and of course lost his job. He worked for the country's diplomatic wing, and showed the inability to be diplomatic and to uphold the policy positions of the person who put him in that job. So of course someone else is now going to have that job. Are you really so morally bankrupt that you can't grasp the distinction between that and being thrown in a Cuban jail for fifteen years for helping people get on the internet? Yeah, I guess you are. I don't know how you even manage to choose which brand of toothpaste to use, considering you have a case of mixed premises that bad.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  19. Internet-Spreading American Gets 15-Year Sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Internet-Spreading American Gets 15-Year Sentence In Cuba = USAian Spy Gets A Trail* And A 15-Year Sentence In Cuba.

    *Unlike those people in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

  20. Cuba has a long history of intervention by mangu · · Score: 1

    Can you imagine what would've happened if someone funded by the Soviet Union tried to set up communications networks in the US that the Government couldn't monitor?

    I know Cuba is a backwards country, but I didn't suspect the situation was so bad that the government couldn't monitor the internet.

    Remember that the US has a history of attempting assassination attempts against Fidel Castro and has organized (badly) at least one attempt to violently overthrow the government

    Considering how easily the US invaded two different countries at the same time at the other side of the world, they could take over Cuba in a weekend if they wanted to. The Bay of Pigs rebellion was performed by Cuban citizens, with some support from the CIA but no direct military intervention from the USA.

    This is very different from the Cuban invasion of Angola. The Bay of Pigs affair is more similar to the many different interventions that Cuba has performed all over Latin America. Cuba tried for decades to overthrow the governments of almost all countries in Central and South America, so when they complain about CIA actions in Cuba that's the pot calling the kettle black.

    - and they're not exactly doing it out of a desire to spread freedom and democracy

    I see. So Cuba has oil?

    remember that the previous US-supported dictator was pretty horrid and screwed over basically the entire Cuban population in favour of the US interests that owned most of Cuba.

    Batista was a corrupt dictator that got money from the US organized crime. To call that "US interests" is quite an exaggeration. it was the Italian mafia operating from the USA that paid Batista to launder their money. That was no more "US interests" than when the Colombian drug cartels used Noriega in Panama to launder their money.

    The fact is that the Cuban dictatorship uses the USA as a convenient excuse for keeping their country under their military rule. And the irony of it is that from financing and training agents to overthrow foreign governments to direct military invasion, Cuba has done in many other countries exactly what they accuse the USA of doing.

    1. Re:Cuba has a long history of intervention by Kilobug · · Score: 1

      "They could take over Cuba in a weekend if they wanted to." Like they could in Vietnam ? The USA knows that they can't win a war against Cuba, without having to slaughter most of the cubans. They can't afford it, especially when there is no oil in Cuba to justify it in front of corporate USA.

      "The Bay of Pigs rebellion was performed by Cuban citizens, with some support from the CIA but no direct military intervention from the USA." No, it was performed by mercenaries. And it had cover by USA frigates and airforce, if that's not military intervention.

      "This is very different from the Cuban invasion of Angola." Cuba didn't invade Angola. Cuba sided with one side of the two belligerents in a civil war in Angola, only because the other side was supported by Apartheid South Africa imperialist forces. The defeat of South Africa in invading Angola, thanks to Cuban effort, was recognized by Nelson Mandela as a major step in the fall of Apartheid.

      "The fact is that the Cuban dictatorship uses the USA as a convenient excuse for keeping their country under their military rule." If that was really the case, why wouldn't the USA just stop the blockade ?

    2. Re:Cuba has a long history of intervention by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 3, Informative

      So Cuba has oil?

      Sure, 120 million barrels proved reserves at the moment and 51k barrels/day production; estimates of their offshore resources are much higher. CNN: How oil could bring Cuba and the U.S. back together - May. 25, 2010. That might provide a convenient casus belli, or lead to greater cooperation. Or maybe things will just waffle along the way they have for the last 50 years.

    3. Re:Cuba has a long history of intervention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      If that was really the case, why wouldn't the USA just stop the blockade ?

      That's a common misconception. The US doesn't have a blockade against Cuba, but an embargo. A blockade would involve the interdiction of Cuba's trade, or other involvement, with other countries around the world (including, in the past, with its Soviet allies). An embargo restricts Americans from trade, or other involvement, with Cuba. Granted, America would be a very conveniently located and generally advantageous trading partner for the Cubans, but they nevertheless are free to interact, and they do, with other countries around the world (subject of course to any similar embargoes imposed by other countries on their own citizens). This is why Cuba has a significant (though perhaps not great) amount of trade with various EU countries, China, Venezuala, etc.

      In my opinion, the previous poster is generally correct about this point. Though the embargo certainly is not helping the Cubans, it does not explain their general social or political predicament. A good reason for ending the policy, in fact, is precisely that it does serve as an excuse for the communists running Cuba.

    4. Re:Cuba has a long history of intervention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US pretty much could take over Cuba at will. Cuba lacks the population, terrain, supply chain or tactical considerations that allowed Vietnam's guerrilla movement to be so effective. Nobody would be pouring weapons and warm bodies into a Cuban army to fight the US, and the Cuban population isn't scattered in penny packet villages that allow for support and recruiting of opposition forces. The armed population of Cuba is tiny compared to Vietnam (or the united states) as well. Their are less then two thousand privately owned rifles in the whole country.

    5. Re:Cuba has a long history of intervention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Cuba has oil?

      Sure, 120 million barrels proved reserves at the moment and 51k barrels/day production; estimates of their offshore resources are much higher. CNN: How oil could bring Cuba and the U.S. back together - May. 25, 2010. That might provide a convenient casus belli, or lead to greater cooperation. Or maybe things will just waffle along the way they have for the last 50 years.

      To put that in perspective, the US consumes nearly 20 million barrels a day.

    6. Re:Cuba has a long history of intervention by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 2

      Cuba's consumption is about 200 kb/d, IIRC. The article mentions a USGS estimate of ca. 4 billion barrels reserves, which could translate into them becoming a net exporter if things panned out well enough. The experiences of other OPEC nations and also major producers like Mexico don't necessarily mean this will translate into greater per capita wealth or well-being, of course. Those USGS estimates are often a bit askew of reality, also. But the Gulf of Mexico is a pretty remarkable basin so who knows. Mexico are attempting to move into the deepwater GOM too, and have relaxed regulations on outside participation in their hydrocarbon industries which were in place since 1938; perhaps Cuba will follow suit here.

    7. Re:Cuba has a long history of intervention by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      But what does Cuba have that the US wants? Nothing at all. They have oil, but they are not one of the major producers.

    8. Re:Cuba has a long history of intervention by russotto · · Score: 1

      "The fact is that the Cuban dictatorship uses the USA as a convenient excuse for keeping their country under their military rule." If that was really the case, why wouldn't the USA just stop the blockade ?

      Because our lawmakers are idiots. The blockade might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but the effects have IMO clearly been counterproductive.

    9. Re:Cuba has a long history of intervention by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The Bay of Pigs rebellion was performed by Cuban citizens, with some support from the CIA but no direct military intervention from the USA.

      Well there was the small matter of direct US military intervention in Cuba causing World War Three to bear in mind.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    10. Re:Cuba has a long history of intervention by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      The US pretty much could take over Cuba at will. Cuba lacks the population, terrain, supply chain or tactical considerations that allowed Vietnam's guerrilla movement to be so effective. Nobody would be pouring weapons and warm bodies into a Cuban army to fight the US, and the Cuban population isn't scattered in penny packet villages that allow for support and recruiting of opposition forces. The armed population of Cuba is tiny compared to Vietnam (or the united states) as well. Their are less then two thousand privately owned rifles in the whole country.

      And the US would lose the few remaining friends it had in the world, in return for a spiteful piece of bitchery left over from the Cold War against a tiny country who dared to throw out the gangsters installed by America and attempt a non-capitalist alternative.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re:Cuba has a long history of intervention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know Cuba is a backwards country, but I didn't suspect the situation was so bad that the government couldn't monitor the internet.

      hint: Lack of resources. It's more economical to shut it down than to monitor it. Besides:
      1. It prevents any further "complication" for the government.
      2. What he was doing is illegal under cuban laws anyway.
      3. He wasn't doing it (risking himself, or do you think he didn't know was he was doing is risky?) from the "kindness of his heart". There were political reasons behind all those actions.

      Remember that the US has a history of attempting assassination attempts against Fidel Castro and has organized (badly) at least one attempt to violently overthrow the government

      Considering how easily the US invaded two different countries at the same time at the other side of the world, they could take over Cuba in a weekend if they wanted to. The Bay of Pigs rebellion was performed by Cuban citizens, with some support from the CIA but no direct military intervention from the USA.

      Define "intervention" please!. Because I would rather say that without USA's "intervention" (call it help or whatever you want) the INVASION (not rebellion) would not take place in the first place. And "...by cuban citizens..." is wrong, "...by cuban exiliates..." better. They were defeated "by cuban citizens".

      - and they're not exactly doing it out of a desire to spread freedom and democracy

      I see. So Cuba has oil?

      Oil, freedom and democracy... None of them have anything to do with the real reasons behind all this.

      Batista was a corrupt dictator that got money from the US organized crime. To call that "US interests" is quite an exaggeration.

      Only from "US organized crime"? and that was the only "US related way" Batista was corrupt? Hint: what percentage of Cuban businesses were "US related"? Did Batista ever defended Cuban PEOPLE interests above all those businesses' interests? Maybe. But, DO YOU KNOW?

      I'm cuban, and I'm sorry to tell you this: it's a shame there are so many misconceptions about cuban history around the world.

      The problem with cuban revolution -IMHO- is not how originated, but the thing it has become along the way.

    12. Re:Cuba has a long history of intervention by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Well there was the small matter of direct US military intervention in Cuba causing World War Three to bear in mind.

      What? Where? Did I miss the memo again?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:Cuba has a long history of intervention by makomk · · Score: 1

      I see. So Cuba has oil?

      They do, but the actual problem is that prior to Fidel Castro seizing power the US essentially owned most of Cuba and the Cuban population were living in poverty as a result.

    14. Re:Cuba has a long history of intervention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cuba is one of the last few producers of communism. maybe the usa want communism.

  21. Re:Manning and Crowley criticised the US governmen by bball99 · · Score: 1

    the difference between Manning and Crowley is that one is an enlisted traitor and the other is a passed-over mouthpiece who stepped on his you-know-what

    Manning will be in jail for a long, long, long, long time

    Crowley will find somewhere to land inside the Belchway with others of his ilk

  22. What about Che Guevara? by mangu · · Score: 2

    Of course, USAID and the CIA have been trying to foment revolution in Cuba for a long time, and the US government has supported the terrorist groups that have been bombing hotels in Cuba

    Isn't it ironic that people who claim about US agents are trying to overthrow the Cuban government are the same people who idolize a Cuba government agent that was killed while conducting terrorist actions to overthrow other countries governments?

    1. Re:What about Che Guevara? by aBaldrich · · Score: 1

      It's obvious, isn't it?
      "We are the good guys, everything we do is good. They are the bad guys, everything they do is wrong"
      It applies to both sides.

      --
      In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
  23. Cheap propaganda by NightFears · · Score: 1

    > foreign satellite channels I wonder why you felt you had to use that euphemism instead of just saying "Hezbollah TV". Maybe because Hezbollah is a world-wide famous terrorist organization? As such, distribution of its materials is prohibited by law, therefore what you support here is violation of law, and apparently you don't want to appear that way, am I correct?

    This is the usual hypocrisy of your type of rights activists. You are accusing state authorities of actions that are determined by law authorities and, indeed, by law. There are good laws and bad laws, and it is arguable whether this particular law is any good. But this is not a level of discussion you want to engage in, as you don't care about the laws or logic behind them, all you care about is propaganda. Just to show this, you proceed to make further radical unsubstantiated claims, such as
    > US government has supported the terrorist groups that have been bombing hotels in Cuba

    1. Re:Cheap propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was against the law to hide Jews in Nazi Germany. Perhaps the law can be wrong?

    2. Re:Cheap propaganda by NightFears · · Score: 1

      Next time try reading the whole comment.

  24. Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem with communism (Marx/Engels version) is that violent revolution is part of the Communist Manifesto's implementation plan for Communism (read it if you don't believe me).

    In most violent revolutions the person willing and capable of exerting the most violence ends up at the top. Most such people do not give up their power once at the top.

    That's why communist (and other violent) revolutions tend to end up as dictatorships.

    Only a few cases (e.g. the American Revolution) are the exceptions. I'm no expert but I think the American Revolution was quite different when compared to most "communist revolutions". Seems to me that much of each state's structure was maintained rather than overthrown.

    --
    1. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by stiggle · · Score: 2

      Most communist revolutions are a revolution by the working masses to remove the landed gentry from positions of power and control. The American Revolution was a revolution by the landed gentry - who then put in place a system of government to keep themselves in positions of power and control.

      If the revolutions mantra of "No taxation without representation" is true then why are Green Card holders taxed?

    2. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If the revolutions mantra of "No taxation without representation" is true then why are Green Card holders taxed?

      Because they have no other right to be in the country outside that granted to them by the government who also taxes them.

      But you have to also remember, the people who started "No taxation without representation" were stating it as citizens, not guests temporarily allowed to work in the country.

    3. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Funny

      and yet they still, quite simply, are taxed without having any representation.
      Nothing you said justifies that.
      it just makes you feel better about it.

    4. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      If the revolutions mantra of "No taxation without representation" is true then why are Green Card holders taxed?

      Of course it must be remembered that individual taxes at the Federal level were forbidden in the Constitution by the "no taxation without representation" people.

      It was only later that the Federal government decided to amend the Constitution to allow the phrase "no per capita tax" to be translated as "any per capita tax we think we need"...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In a few US states, convicted felons even after serving out their time no longer have a right to vote.

      --
    6. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by SQL+Error · · Score: 2

      The problem with communism is that it doesn't scale. A communist economy of any significant size will always go down the tubes, and the people will revert to a market economy or simply leave unless prevented by threat of violence.

    7. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are either a troll or an idiot. I suppose you could be both.

    8. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by lwsimon · · Score: 2

      That's the case in most states, I believe, and it is not the only right denied.

      Felons typically also lose the right to own firearms, even if convicted of non-violent crimes.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    9. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that if the population doesn't want to willingly share all things in common the state has to continue to use force.

    10. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by Nexus7 · · Score: 1

      The constitution is clear about which parts apply to citizens and which to anyone in the country. Since the constitution was written initially by people who revolted because (in part) they were taxed without representation, they would have been equally clear about it if the intent was to allow non-citizen residents to be exempt from taxation.

      Since the constitution itself doesn't define a definition and process of immigration, or of taxation, things get unclear. But if someone argues that taxing non-citizens goes against the principle of "no taxation w/o representation," they should equally well consider that except for clearly stated things (such as political office), the constitution confers the same rights & responsibilities to citizens and non-citizens alike; so why should taxation be special?

    11. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by afidel · · Score: 1

      Dude you don't need to be convicted of a felony, or even a crime to have your rights revoked. In many states a simple psych eval is all that's needed to deny you your rights (psychology is a pseudo-science with many quacks willing to say whatever gets them paid). Another example is in Ohio where *any* drug conviction even a minor misdemeanor (same as a ticket and technically not a crime) bars your from owning a firearm until and unless you are able to beg your county prosecutor to reinstate your rights.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    12. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The problem with communism is that it doesn't scale.

      And the problem with democracy is that it doesn't last. Although some white people in the cold are engaging in an interesting experiment. It seems like mandatory democracy is actually superior. Surprise, surprise. Government is basically a structure designed to make up for the fact that most people won't act in their own interest. Or, you know, take advantage of it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Guess what, when you commit a very serious crime, you have demonstrated that you can't play well with the rest of us, and we decided that you will lose certain civil rights. Such as: not being able to own a firearm, participation in the political process, and ineligibility for military service. Tough shit. Should have thought of that before hurting society. Payback's a bitch, ain't it?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    14. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude you don't need to be convicted of a felony, or even a crime to have your rights revoked. In many states a simple psych eval is all that's needed to deny you your rights (psychology is a pseudo-science with many quacks willing to say whatever gets them paid). Another example is in Ohio where *any* drug conviction even a minor misdemeanor (same as a ticket and technically not a crime) bars your from owning a firearm until and unless you are able to beg your county prosecutor to reinstate your rights.

      This is the sad truth. It wasn't so long ago that when you were released from prison you were given cash for roughly 30-days of living if you stretched it real tight. Likewise, if you were arrested with a firearm, you were returned your firearm and given six or so shells for your weapon. Yes, that's right, felons were re-armed if they were arrested with a firearm. They understood this was essential to allowing them to live. Of course socio-economically times have changed somewhat in that regard, but the point remains, anything else is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. This is something that was well understood and accepted even less than a hundred years ago.

      The sad truth is, unless there is a Constitutional amendment to revoke the second amendment rights from criminals, all of these laws are unconstitutional. Frequently citing US law, Title 18, Section 922(g) of the US Code, is given as an excuse why felons are not allowed to carry weapons but completely ignores the fact that a law can not usurp the protections provided by the US Constitution and it is specifically mandated only an amendment can do such a thing. So according to the US Constitution and US law, the US and state laws which prevent felons from owning weapons is both unconstitutional and illegal - nonetheless, its enforced.

    15. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by tarlong · · Score: 1

      Neither. I agree. We keep forgetting that we ourselves are immigrants or the sons and daughters of immigrants. We pride ourselves (and when i say we, i mean everyday Janes and Johns born and raised in the continental US, because as an invaded second class citizen - Puerto Rican - we are treated just an inch above illegals. A Republican Congressman of Armenian decent said as much the other day) in our RIGHT to be here. Hell, most of the south west was either French or Mexican/Spanish and we either took by force or advantage of greedy dictators and bought land a dirt cheap prices.

      No taxation without Representation is bullshit. You take money from green carders (taxes) and provide none of the benefits. At the very least, they should have some form of representation. With voice and vote. And i ask the same to USA colonies like Puerto Rico, Guam and US VI. We have to stop this double face crap. Either we are citizens with all rights or we are independent nations. Green carders are either exempt from taxes or should have at least some minimal form of representation. On the most part, they come here to work and try to get better lives for themselves and their families. Lets have some integrity please.

      --
      What? A beutiful butterfly you say? And how exactly are you going to turn into a beutiful butterfly then?
    16. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Most revolutions are violent. I don't recall the Continental Army sticking flowers in British guns.

      Where Marx's theory always collapses is at the point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, that period when Marx figured the revolution needed to be centrally run before the workers "got it" and started being proper Communists. Of course, what actually happens is the revolution gets stuck at the Dictatorship and never moves one inch forward. In fact, in China, just about everything else even vaguely Marxist has been swept aside, except the Dictatorship part.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    17. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by lwsimon · · Score: 2

      Most, if not all, of Section 922 is unconstitutional. Sickening.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    18. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1) Even after serving out the sentence? IMO that falls under cruel and unusual punishment.

      2) Nowadays even not so serious crimes can count as felonies.

      http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1553510,00.html

    19. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by Rasperin · · Score: 1

      You aren't going to win this argument. Why should we give you the right to vote the second you walk into this country? Who knows we could be immigrated by a large sum of non-like minded individuals who prefer a dictatorship. A green carder doesn't serve in the draft either. So while I support an open immigration policy (which this government is founded on) I do believe you should become citizens before you have the right to vote. The process of citizenship means denouncing your previous government. Unless you are actually able to get dual citizenship. (I believe the UK & Canada are the only countries we allow dual citizenship, though I could be wrong).

      --
      WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
    20. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by smelch · · Score: 0

      Green card holders are citizens somewhere else where they are represented. Taxation without representation would be like if the green card holders were not allowed to vote in their home country but also were being taxed on income. Asshat.

      They can become citizens (some of them) or they can go home, or they can stay here and get no benefits. Just because they choose to stay here doesn't mean we're bad, it means we're good and obviously they like it that way. Further, they do use some government things even if its not getting money from somebody. Police, firemen, streets, emergency health care, etc. don't grow on trees.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    21. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Hey, no problem. New rule: green card holders don't get police or judicial protection, any medical services unless they provide cash up-front, and can't use any roads without first paying a fee. Problem solved!

    22. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      The problem was identified a long time ago with the phrase that the American democracy would last until the people figured out they could vote themselves benefits. When that happens, it is pretty much over.

      I would say that the beginning of the end was probably Social Security, although it was a relatively minor form of the problem. Welfare programs could have been the nail in the coffin, but somehow they were repealed. The current argument about things like a living wage, minimum guaranteed income and, yes, government-paid health care is pretty much going to doom any real democracy forever. I don't think these programs can be repealed once they are enacted.

      So really it is that people are acting in their own interest - exclusively. The "mob" can't understand that there are only a few ways to equitably split up resources and putting all of them in the government's hands and trusting them to be given out fairly is the wrong answer. The majority will always vote for more benefits and more taxes because they aren't paying them. Right now we have around 30% of the people not contributing either through unemployment or other reasons. Once they stop looking for a job they aren't counted any longer by official numbers, so this doesn't count disabled, discouraged or impaired people all of which are vying for government support in one form or another.

      Part of the problem is that the majority doesn't understand that the wealthy (not necessarily rich, just with more than the majority has) are mobile whereas the majority are not. If Bill Gates wants to move to Brazil, Greece or Australia who's going to stop him? If the Bush family moves to South America, who is going to stop them? Yes, right now the US is a pretty stable low-tax country but that is likely to change very, very soon. When Michael Moore writes about how America is not broke - the rich have money, just take it from them - it is clearly not something that takes a genius to figure out. Well, the rich are unlikely to sit still for it. Close the borders and keep them here? Unlikely, as we can't even keep people we do not want out today.

    23. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Likewise, if you were arrested with a firearm, you were returned your firearm and given six or so shells for your weapon. Yes, that's right, felons were re-armed if they were arrested with a firearm.

      If you were arrested for public intoxication, sure. Anything else, you would probably have been hung, and I doubt your corpse would have been re-armed prior to burial.

      It's easy to have loose gun laws in a society where capital punishment is meted out with little - if any - judicial review, and where public duels result from minor insults and offenses. I'm pretty sure Somalia has similar gun laws, and a similar attitude towards law and order. It's much harder to have those types of laws in a first-world nation.

    24. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by enjerth · · Score: 1

      Government is basically a structure designed to make up for the fact that most people won't act in their own interest. Or, you know, take advantage of it.

      Really? I thought that one of the primary purposes of government was to act as an impartial intermediate, to act on the part of victims to seek justice, so that the people don't NEED to seek their own retribution for crimes committed against them. Ideal criminal law is a contract between the government and the people that the government will attempt to right wrongs on their behalf and the people give up that right. This is to end the uncivilized endless cycle of retaliation that begets retaliation.

    25. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by vux984 · · Score: 1

      when you commit a very serious crime

      Like walking around with 2 ounces of marijuana?

      Yep you "hurt society" and shouldn't be able to participate in the political process...because your a very bad person...

    26. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Your time line is incorrect.

    27. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      And the problem with democracy is that it doesn't last

      Nonsense. If we're doing comparisons, communism doesn't come close to the longevity of democracy. If we're talking absolutes, it depends on how you define "democracy", but many nations can realistically claim to have been democratic for thousands of years.

      It seems like mandatory democracy is actually superior

      Pft. Look, it's obvious to everyone that you've got a crush on northern europe, but that doesn't mean you get to claim that everything they do is better. Either support your claims, or GTFO.

      Government is basically a structure designed to make up for the fact that most people won't act in their own interest

      More bullshit. Government is a way to organize people - nothing more, nothing less.

    28. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      But you have to also remember, the people who started "No taxation without representation" were stating it as citizens, not guests temporarily allowed to work in the country.

      And yet, in the US shortly after the revolution, residing (and paying taxes) in most states for 6 months to 1 year, depending on the state, would make one a citizen - no other credentials needed.

      Hey, I just realized - all those "amnesty for illegal immigrants" programs are just restoring US to the good old days of the Founding Fathers! Bring in the Tea Party pro-amnesty rallies!

      What, no cigar? Oh, so it's like selectively quoting Bible by religious funding to prove their point. Never mind.

    29. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Most communist revolutions are a revolution by the working masses to remove the landed gentry from positions of power and control.

      That is patently false. Most revolutions are by the children of the moneyed class who have too much time on their hands (usually the younger children who are not being groomed to take their parents' place in the power structure).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    30. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Guess what, when people have no rights they have no obligations.

      Such as: obeying firearms law, obeying laws introduced by a corrupt political process and performing their civic duty by serving in the military.

      Tough shit. Should've thoguht of that before demonising people that may have just been unlucky, may have made an unfortunate mistake they'll never repeat, may have had to make a hard decision or may be delighted that they are no longer morally obliged to follow rules they had no intention of following in the first place.

      Payback's a bitch, but it's not fucking justice.

    31. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Why should we give you the right to vote the second you walk into this country?

      That wasn't being requested. Why should you charge taxes on people that have generously left their own homes to come and contribute to the wealth of the US with their own labour, and don't even get to vote on how that wealth is used?

      I do believe you should become citizens before you have the right to vote.

      I don't think that's unreasonable. I don't think it's unreasonable to charge taxes either, but don't pretend it's fair or remotely aligned to the orignal (stated) reasons for the US revolution.

    32. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most such people do not give up their power once at the top.

      Ironically, the Cuban revolution had one such person...Che. He was more interested in overthrowing the oppressive dictatorships in Latin America than he was in enjoying the power that came with success in that endeavor.

      Cuba would likely be a better place if he had stuck around longer during the nation building step of the revolution.

    33. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by curunir · · Score: 1

      If the revolutions mantra of "No taxation without representation" is true then why are Green Card holders taxed?

      Simple, because green card holders are equally able to donate to political campaigns.

      What? You think voting is in any way linked with representation anymore?

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
    34. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I thought that one of the primary purposes of government was to act as an impartial intermediate, to act on the part of victims to seek justice, so that the people don't NEED to seek their own retribution for crimes committed against them.

      Short-term vs. Long-term interest. Which one pays better? People will act against themselves to satisfy their short-term goals (e.g. revenge) and sabotage their long-term goals (e.g. not having to look over their shoulder for the rest of their therefore miserable lives because they wind up living in a world full of vengeful acts.) And anyway, the wolves are only a small slice of the population. If it were any other way the world would be peopled only with cannibals.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by HungryHobo · · Score: 2

      He does make a good point about Puerto Ricans though.

      Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the United States: "belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States"

      they have no voting representative in the U.S. Congress yet U.S. federal law applies to Puerto Rico.
      They have U.S. citizenship yet they get no vote in congress and cannot vote in U.S. presidential elections.

      Puerto Rico residents are required to pay U.S. federal taxes, import/export taxes,federal commodity taxes, social security taxes etc yet they get no vote in congress and cannot vote in U.S. presidential elections.

      Since 1917 Puerto Ricans have been included in the compulsory draft whenever it has been in effect yet they get no vote in congress and cannot vote in U.S. presidential elections.

    36. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by FileNotFound · · Score: 1

      Are you serious this retarded or just delusional? Do you even know what democracy is about?

      Here is the Democracy Index: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

      Notice how at the very top is Norway.

      How much do you know about Norway and their social programs? They are probably the most socialist 1st world country around - and the most democratic, despite "outrageous", by US standards, taxes

      I don't give a fuck if Bill Gates moves to Brazil. You really think he isn't dodging taxes? The rich can all move to the Isle of Man but unless they can take all their assets with them it's not really an option.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, the television watches YOU!
    37. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by tftp · · Score: 1

      Why should you charge taxes on people that have generously left their own homes to come and contribute to the wealth of the US with their own labour, and don't even get to vote on how that wealth is used?

      Those taxes are used to defend and protect GC holders, to pay them unemployment insurance and other benefits, to build roads that they use, etc. etc. The only missing piece is inability to select the same corrupt politician that is squatting in the office for a few decades. This is a very minor loss - many citizens don't vote either.

      Besides, if GC people are so unhappy they can always leave - and some do, for various reasons. Deterioration of the US society is the major reason among those; taxation is not so important unless you make lots of money. Inability to vote is probably dead last.

    38. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by smelch · · Score: 0

      So the question is, do they want to be the 51st state? It is my understanding that largely they do not, which is why this hasn't been a problem.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    39. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PR at least out of that list has had several votes on if they should become a US state, and have always voted it down. PR doesn't want representation, as it would reduce the amount of money coming into the country, and increase the taxes paid by the people.

    40. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      And yet, in the US shortly after the revolution, residing (and paying taxes) in most states for 6 months to 1 year, depending on the state, would make one a citizen - no other credentials needed.

      Actually, just establishing a residence in one of the states or the constitutional territory of the US would have made you a citizen until congress changed the laws. And this specific issue was dealt with by the US constitution too. In fact, it is specifically listed as one of the power congress is supposed to have in article 1 section 8 of the US constitution so it should be something you know about.

      The US constitution gives congress specific rights to declare who is a citizen if they weren't born here.

      Hey, I just realized - all those "amnesty for illegal immigrants" programs are just restoring US to the good old days of the Founding Fathers! Bring in the Tea Party pro-amnesty rallies!

      You should really look up what you are talking about before spouting off like an idiot. I mean seriously, if you can post to this site, you have the internet and copies of the constitution at your fingertips.. There really is no excuse for that last comment.

      What, no cigar? Oh, so it's like selectively quoting Bible by religious funding to prove their point. Never mind.

      It's more like complete ignorance combined with diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.. Perhaps you could tell us more seeing how you are completely wrong. The founding fathers very much intended on congress to have the power to limit or control who became a citizen or else they never would have specifically listed it as a power of the federal government inside the constitution that create this great nation.

    41. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You mean it just makes you feel good about your rationalization?

      You see, there is a difference between allowing foreign nations in a country to work and being a citizen of the country. The founding fathers were very much citizens of the nation or colonies they fought to free from the crown. They weren't visitors looking to cash in on a job because they couldn't find the same work in the shit hole they call home.

      And you seem to completely miss the entire problem that made taxation without representation an issue. It was because they would have to leave their homes, travel thousands of miles, and set up citizenship in a new land in order to get representation. With immigrants, They are doing the complete opposite, they are knowingly leaving an area they have representation in, and going to one knowing that they will not but will be taxed just the same.

      If you can somehow equate being born and living your entire life somewhere with making a choice while knowing all the consequences, I would like to know how. It simply isn't the same and anyone who spend minutes thinking about it should be able to see that.

    42. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Most communist revolutions are a revolution by the working masses to remove the landed gentry from positions of power and control.

      That is patently false. Most revolutions are by the children of the moneyed class who have too much time on their hands (usually the younger children who are not being groomed to take their parents' place in the power structure).

      [Citation needed]

      Point out one example of a revolution, not a palace coup, please, where that was the case? There haven't been all that many revolutions lately (which means a complete change in the power structures, and entire classes of people getting involved instead of just parts of the ruling clique exchanging light weapons fire).

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    43. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Most revolutions are violent. I don't recall the Continental Army sticking flowers in British guns.

      Where Marx's theory always collapses is at the point of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, that period when Marx figured the revolution needed to be centrally run before the workers "got it" and started being proper Communists. Of course, what actually happens is the revolution gets stuck at the Dictatorship and never moves one inch forward. In fact, in China, just about everything else even vaguely Marxist has been swept aside, except the Dictatorship part.

      Marx didn't figure that, Stalin figured that and claimed that he merely implemented Marx's ideas. It's sort of like Microsoft implementing the HTML 1.0 standard and claiming their extensions are improvements. You can say HTML is broken because of IE4, or you can point the finger at Microsoft.

      China never was socialist. They had a revolution by intellectuals who lead a peasant army. By the time they won, most communists were already killed by the Guomindang (see the Shanghai Commune). The remaining few told the workers to "keep working" when they entered the big cities, and the peasants never trusted them. It was a very succesfull contender in the old Chinese "peasant uprising" category, but it was not, in no way, shape or form, a workers revolution. What it was, was a highly centralized industrializing mono-capitalist. State capitalism avant la lettre, very much like Japan after 1945 under the MITI guidance. Except with a different flag, mostly for propaganda purposes.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    44. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      French Revolution. Russian Revolution. Iranian Revolution. There are three examples.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    45. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      The problem with communism (Marx/Engels version) is that violent revolution is part of the Communist Manifesto's implementation plan for Communism (read it if you don't believe me).

      If you read Engels' commentary on the Communist Manifesto, they're perfectly ok with a thoroughly democratic government being the way the workers assert their control over industry. Engels specifically states that all the workers in the US have to do to achieve their communist revolution is to vote for it.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    46. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we extend that rule to niggers too?

    47. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      It was only later that the Federal government decided to amend the Constitution

      No, the State governments changed that.

    48. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I think you'll have considerable debate among Marxist theorists. Most of what I read suggests that Marx's intent was indeed that the revolution had to be focused and that a sort of benign dictatorship was required until such time as the proletariat was ready to take on the mantle of a true Communist state.

      As to China, I'd argue that there never has been a true Marxist state, in no small part because the presumed workers revolutions that Marx predicted never happened. Marxism was based entirely on the notion of an industrialized society overthrowing the Capitalists and instituting a Communist economic and political system. None of the attempted revolutions in the appropriately industrialized capitalized nations ever happened. Instead it was largely agrarian countries like Russia and China that saw the major revolutions. By Marx's accounting, these nations were still too primitive and had yet to pass through the capitalist phase. Guys like Stalin and Mao seemed to try to crowd together two separate phases (as Marxist history would dictate) of development to get to the same end that Marx had supposed would happen at two quite different stages of development.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    49. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by owlstead · · Score: 1

      "Yes, that's right, felons were re-armed if they were arrested with a firearm. They understood this was essential to allowing them to live."

      Yes, and if I'm not thoroughly mistaken, at this day and age it certainly isn't. That is, unless the person is involved in gang fights, in which case giving them a gun is probably not such a bright idea either. I don't see why the "point remains" (outside of the question if it is unconstitutional or not).

    50. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by Redlazer · · Score: 1
      The US recently began allowing dual citizenship.

      Many countries permit dual citizenship - not all, not most, but quite a few indeed.

      But, if your country was immigrated to by a bunch of unlike-minded individuals, and they then became the majority, then whatever they vote on is acceptable.

      I see the OP's point - immigrants are people too, it's possible to love more than one country, and people have a right to an expectation of proper treatment. I think allowing them to vote in elections would probably be a mistake - but how much would it alter the existing voter fraud landscape?

      I think it's an interesting argument and more time should be spent thinking about it.

      --
      Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
    51. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      that line gets trotted out so many times it's almost funny (if it didn't want to make you cry).

      Here is the problem, who defines a serious crime? Can jaywalking be a serious crime? If you can lose constitutional rights because of a law you violated, then any law can be made to take your constitutional rights from you. How about no rights to due process if you have been cited for jaywalking. Or how about losing your right to free speech for speeding or speaking out against a political candidate when not in the declared free speech zone.

      Tough shit. Should have thought of that before hurting society. Payback's a bitch, ain't it?

      The are called constitutional rights for a reason. It's because they are rights set above and beyond laws, they are rights guaranteed to people by limiting the ability of government to infringe on them. If that doesn't mean anything, then ever single right is up for grabs as soon as someone finds it politically advantageous. Is tough shit really the response you are expecting when it happens to something you actually care about?

    52. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      It was only later that the Federal government decided to amend the Constitution

      No, the State governments changed that.

      State governments voted for the amendment, of course. But it must be remembered that it was proposed in Washington, and passed both houses of Congress with suitably large majorities before the States ever got a chance to vote on it.

      Note that the really interesting thing about the 16th is not that they allowed an Income Tax, but that they specified that Income Taxes weren't Direct Taxes on individuals (which were, and still are, forbidden by the Constitution, hence the fooforaw about Obamacare).

      A remarkable bit of sophistry, really....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    53. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Sure but:
      1) Who really reads the commentary? The stupid pawns don't. The Dictator-to-be using the pawns might, but he doesn't care.
      2) In most countries that are rich or that are growing rich, most of the workers already have votes and are voting in Capitalists.

      Fact is you will have communists starting violent revolutions as part of the implementation as long as they follow the Communist Manifesto which states:
      http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61/pg61.html

      The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.
      They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by
      the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.

      And as long as violence is part of the revolution they will end up with a dictatorship.

      Think about it. How else would the whole country realize who is the "winner" of the violent revolution? The winner is the one who has defeated all challengers. And in a violent revolution, the defeating is done violently not via votes or debates.

      If you're very lucky you get a dictator who hands over the power soon after.

      --
    54. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that the really interesting thing about the 16th is not that they allowed an Income Tax, but that they specified that Income Taxes weren't Direct Taxes on individuals

      Lul what, how did you get that from:

      The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

    55. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by Synonymous+Homonym · · Score: 1

      First, your source does not mention communism, but socialism in general.

      Second, your source defines socialism as the attempt to run a state as a business.

      And the assertion that it does not scale is backed up by nothing more than the opinion that businesses, unlike democracies, can't grow beyond manageable size.

      However, all but the last two paragraphs of your source are an interesting, completely off-topic read.

    56. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      The firearms prohibition on felons is US federal law. No "typically" about it. If you are convicted of a felony in the US you lose the right to own firearms unless it is expunged.

      That said, as always is the case with laws, there are loopholes. Muzzleloading weapons (regardless of date of manufacture) and any "antique" guns (anything made prior to 1898, but not replicas thereof) are not considered firearms under federal law. Doesn't matter that they have triggers and barrels and when you pull the trigger it goes bang and a piece of lead flies out the end at deadly velocity - it's not legally a firearm. :)

      Of course, then you get into the territory of state law, and SOME states do further define those items as firearms and issue their own prohibitions against felons owning them. Some states even prohibit felons from owning any "deadly weapon" which even encompasses archery.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    57. Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The rich can all move to the Isle of Man but unless they can take all their assets with them it's not really an option.

      More to the point, all true wealth is derived from the land. You can sell the land but nobody is going to move it, and nationalization has been done all 'round the world on numerous and sundry occasions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  25. Completely biased , /. by TranceThrust · · Score: 2

    The article linked to speaks of 'covert actions' to bring about 'democratic reforms', and the slashdot article speaks of a 'social worker'. Site's losing trustworthiness quickly this way. Sad.

  26. Does that mean... by warGod3 · · Score: 1

    They are going to make him serve out his sentence in Gitmo? Or is he going to be sentenced to a prison that overlooks the base?

    --
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
  27. Yup. Just ask McKinnon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yup. Just ask McKinnon. Or Bradley Manning. Or the people in GITMO.

    1. Re:Yup. Just ask McKinnon. by MaDeR · · Score: 1

      "Someone else is same or worse" is shittiest defense that I ever seen and very, very popular among various hipocrites, nationalists, dictature apologists and various other folks that consider Reality highly optional.
      What got my attention is a little unusual use, because usually this defense is used by USA crimes apologists.

      --
      What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
    2. Re:Yup. Just ask McKinnon. by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Yup. Just ask McKinnon. Or Bradley Manning. Or the people in GITMO.

      So let's be absolutely clear about the comparison we're making here. We have Alan Phillip Gross, accused of providing satellite equipment to a group that would give them Internet access. We have Garry McKinnon, accuse of hacking nearly 100 US Government computer systems. We have Bradley Manning, a US soldier accused of intentionally releasing several hundred thousand classified documents. And we have "people in GITMO", who's crimes we really don't know but could conceivably be anywhere from active terrorism / insurgency to pissing off some neighbor who accused them.

      We're saying that these are all equivalent.

  28. Not according to actual Cubans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cuba system is not perfect. It has many flaws. It also have many positive things.

    Not according to any Cuban I've known (and yes, I have known a few). Ask them, and you'll find nothing but hatred for Castro AND his political system.

    1. Re:Not according to actual Cubans by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 2

      Cuba system is not perfect. It has many flaws. It also have many positive things.

      Not according to any Cuban I've known (and yes, I have known a few). Ask them, and you'll find nothing but hatred for Castro AND his political system.

      So, you can't find anyone who likes Castro in a self-selected group of ex-pats who fled Cuba specifically because they hate Castro and the Cuban government? Funny that. Mind you, I don't like the Communist government of Cuba or Castro, either. But your logic is, shall we say, a wee bit faulty.

    2. Re:Not according to actual Cubans by Grundlefleck · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, is that Cubans living in Cuba, or, for example, expatriates living in Florida?

      --
      I accept I know nothing. Insulting my ignorance is wasted on me.
    3. Re:Not according to actual Cubans by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should ask the ones still in Cuba instead of the ones who have left? Your sampling group is obviously biased before you even started.

  29. Re:If you're ashamed to be American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're free to move to Cuba, North Korea, or Venezuela where I'm sure you will find the political environment more to your liking.

  30. cuba is not a democracy by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    therefore, it is not legitimate, and deserves no respect. either the people participate in who is chosen as their leader on a regular basis, or they don't. if they do, it is a good government and a stable country. if the people have no voice in their own government, it is a vile government that deserves no respect, internationally and domestically, and will crumble eventually, as the middle east shows: even the most hardened despot can do nothing if his people ceases to fear him anymore. and if you do not have consent, then fear and force is all you have left to govern people, and this is how cuba operates

    therefore, in the name OF the cuban people, in solidarity with the cuban people, i condemn their government to hell. as well as china. as well as iran, as well as any other country where the people do not participate in the formation of their own government

    only democracy creates legitimacy. all other forms of government are illegitimate. either the government regularly subjects itself to the consent of the people, or the country rules by force and fear. there is no other choice between what undergirds the source of the power of your government: either consent, or fear

    it is only a matter of time before castro's regime falls, as the revolutions facing the middle east show. it is only a matter of time before china, iran, cuba, zimbabwe, etc., befall the same fate. simply because these governments don't subject themself to periodic reconstitution from its own people: a democratic vote. therefore, the government's legitimacy fades over time, to the point where the people just throw off the yolk. if you are not a democratic government, there is an essential instability you cannot escape and will be your doom, one way or another, one day or another. the only way for the people to renew their faith in their government is to actually be consulted on their government's makeup on a regular basis. if they aren't consulted, they will eventually revolt. there is no other way

    so to hell with the government of cuba, in the name of the cuban people. the cuban government apparently does not respect its own people enough to consult them as to its makeup. therefore the cuban government is illegitimate, and does not deserve any domestic or international respect. same applies to china, same applies to iran, same applies to zimbabwe

    consult the will of your people on regular basis in a true democratic vote, or you are doomed

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:cuba is not a democracy by tehcyder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there is no other choice between what undergirds the source of the power of your government: either consent, or fear

      The collection of capitalists, crooks, psycopaths and scum that make up most Westen governments rely almost exclusively on fear and propaganda to maintain themselves in power against the true will of the people, or else you wouldn't have billionaire cunts paying minimal taxes and getting away with whatever they want around the world.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:cuba is not a democracy by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The collection of capitalists, crooks, psycopaths and scum that make up most Westen governments rely almost exclusively on fear and propaganda to maintain themselves in power against the true will of the people, or else you wouldn't have billionaire cunts paying minimal taxes and getting away with whatever they want around the world.

      That's hilarious :) Let me guess - liberal arts degree at the local college, right?

    3. Re:cuba is not a democracy by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing seven+ years in and still no degree.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  31. USAID by vawwyakr · · Score: 1

    Not defending this guy in particular but calling USAID a CIA cover is rather false. Perhaps some CIA people have said they worked for USAID but USAID itself is a fully independent organization that does a lot of good around the world. My wife works there is spends a lot of long hours trying to work to get money to forgotten little places in africa where people are still starving and dieing of disease in large numbers.

  32. Just when I was getting pro-Cuban... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do they have to keep reminding us what mongoloid dummies are in charge of the law in (poor) countries? With the banking crisis and them using bailout money to pay their bonuses, I felt that socialism wasn't such a bad thing after all, and maybe Sharia law would ensure that guilty greedy bankers had both their hands chopped off.

  33. Cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cuba as an evil Communist dictatorship for a government. Nothing more,, nothing less!

  34. Re:If you're ashamed to be American by intheshelter · · Score: 2

    It's not an either/or proposition douchebag. It's perfectly reasonable to make the point that the USA meddles where it shouldn't meddle, usually fucks it up when they do (see Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) and we should be using our resources to improve America rather than tossing bombs left and right to make the defense industry rich. Just because Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela are worse doesn't mean we don't have plenty to clean up here in the US.

  35. History Lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh Cuba, haven't you learned anything since the Spanish-American War?

  36. Man breaks law, news at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man breaks law, is convicted for it, news at 11.

  37. Castro wins the elections. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Castro wins the elections and remains leader. How is that not legitimate? Before then, US puppets were in charge allowing US (i.e. foreign) companies to work there and reap rewards of their enforced governor.

    Obviously, when these illegitimate leaders were kicked out, these friends of the USA were pissed off and cried to their parent about how bad it was and how it was illegitimate that they were kicked out.

    And their children are continuing it, safe in Florida.

    1. Re:Castro wins the elections. by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

      the usa did plenty wrong in cuba. but not since 1959

      its all castro's wrongs since 1959. you do understand the usa has no influence in cuba since 1959, right? that's a long time ago. you want to have arguments from over half a century ago? or do you wish cuba to have a democracy, as is the right of cuba's people?

      do you side with the cuban people? or do you have some chip on your shoulder from a long dead time from before the vast majority of cuban people lived?

      "Castro wins the elections and remains leader. How is that not legitimate?"

      you honestly want to represent that as your honest opinion?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:Castro wins the elections. by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      ...you do understand the usa has no influence in cuba since 1959, right?

      Such innocence... so totally unaware of how nature works.. You do read something other than the New York Times, right?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    3. Re:Castro wins the elections. by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

      if you are going to construct alternate theories and explanations for why anything bad happening in cuba being the fault of the usa, you're just a propaganda victim, and beyond the realm of commenting intelligently or rationally on political or international affairs. not that that will stop you of course. castro is firmly in control, the responsibility for cuba's state of affairs is firmly in the hands of havana. i'm sorry reality counteracts your politics. maybe you should adjust your politics. of course you won't, you'll just deny reality. so much easier. pfffffffft

      it's so tired, typical, and braindead: all evil emanantes from washington dc. all power emanates form washington dc. castro is blameless and helpless. if something goes bad somewhere in the world: a middle eastern government is overthrown, castro "has" to do something draconian, my grandmother studs her toe: clearly, washington dc is to blame, somehow

      the subtext that you won't examine in your one-sided thinking though is that you are saying only americans are responsible people. according to you, not me, the people in the middle east, latin america: they are always pawns and victims, they are never masters of their own affairs. don't you find that worldview rather condescending and racist? i do. not that you will examine your dehumanizing of nonamericans, but that's what your worldview does when YOU say that latin americans or middle easterners can't be resposnible for their own state of affairs

      of course you will howl and gnash your teeth about cold war era us crimes. good for you. be trapped in history. the cold war ended over 20 years ago. arent' you ready to move on? as events in the middle east have shown, the people there are ready to be masters of themselves and be responsible for themselves, why aren't you?

      my personal worldview, the people and the countries of latin america and the middle east are their own masters. always were. always will be. if the usa meddles, they have to kick the usa out. castro and cuba did that quite effectively. replacing us meddling with authoritarianism is not actually much of an improvement, but at least a real cuban will tell you cuba is run by cubans

      but you, you are such a tired shrill dead voice in the world today. you fall into this sort of helplessness where you feel powerless to do anything because magic boogeyman from the usa will always hold you back. history doesn't expand your worldview, you are trapped in history. your worldviews says more about failures in your own personal psychology than the reailty of people in the world

      the simple fact is, if latin america and the middle east aren't living up to their potential, it is because of the existence of people like you: permanent victims, always the victim, never the master of yourself

      are you a master of your own destiny? or a permanent victim, always ready to describer define, and never do anything about, your helplessness?

      go ahead, let's hear you regurgitate the tired cold war history, that, only in your mind, explains why americans must always be the only responsible ones in the world. so stupid, typical, and tired

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:Castro wins the elections. by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      ..beyond the realm of commenting intelligently or rationally on political or international affairs..

      Very difficult to do in the realm of the absurd in which you surround yourself... In the name of the Cuban people? How so totally scrumptious.. Let's have another latte, and we'll get all "rational". You city boys.. I wonder about you sometimes.

      How do I know these things? I'm soaking in it. And it's true, my hands already feel softer.. That whole "outside looking in" thing.. The effect is almost.. magical.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    5. Re:Castro wins the elections. by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      who should be the master of the cuban people?

      i believe it should be the cuban people

      you believe it should be castro, an authoritarian despot. because of a cold war grudge from 50 years ago

      and you accuse me of being blind to or defending american meddling in the world. because i won't support a despot. because i want the cuban people to be their own masters

      absurdity, indeed

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    6. Re:Castro wins the elections. by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      ...you believe it should be castro...

      ?? You're confused sonny.. The voices you're hearing didn't come from me.. Try to quiet down the mental chatter for half a second, and read what was written.. And you may want to watch your sugar intake

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    7. Re:Castro wins the elections. by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      I guess you just don't understand the nature of open forums. Your comment attracted my attention, more for its comedic value than anything else, I suppose.. Your responses only made the whole thing more interesting, and very enlightening. I always wanted to meet a Times reader..

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    8. Re:Castro wins the elections. by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

      yes, i made a mistake. i assumed i was responding to the same person. now instead i am in a small box with a sycophant. time to leave

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    9. Re:Castro wins the elections. by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Let me ask you, who's gonna write your life story?
      1) Spike Lee
      2) Michael Moore
      3) Woody Allen

      Or maybe a collaboration?

      You're a real piece of work there buddy... Thanks for the good time.. The money's on top the dresser

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    10. Re:Castro wins the elections. by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

      your strange sycophantic needs to latch onto the egos of others points to a personal failure you should work on. i know the internet makes feeding your odd psychology easier, but you can't go creeping and crawling through life in the shadows of others son. no one likes parasites

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    11. Re:Castro wins the elections. by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Why thank you! I'll make a note of it...

      Here's to the future

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  38. Put him in GITMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put him in GITMO.

  39. Michael Moore by slapout · · Score: 1

    Where's Michael Moore when you need him?

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  40. Re:If you're ashamed to be American by MaDeR · · Score: 1

    Hey retard, saying "USA commited cirmes" does NOT equal saying "North Korea is cool place to live".

    --
    What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
  41. you're a moron by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    the people freely elect their governments. corporate influence is disgusting, but its just that: influence. to reduce it is a laudable goal. but to think that is anymore remotely in the same ballpark as actual genuine authoritarian control makes you out to be a complete idiot

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're a complete idiot times two if you believe for a second that corporate influence will ever go away peaceably. They'll destroy you all if they even think you present a real threat. They've already demonstrated a tiny example of their power, and all of you are too dumb to notice, in fact, you gave up more to them. As long as they can pacify you with the TV, everything's hunky dory. You're safe as long as you keep believing. But if the effect ever wears off, you'd better run for cover.

      Good luck with your "democracy"...

    2. Re:you're a moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations directly write legislation, which is then passed into law. What more do you want?

  42. This man did break the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As far as I can tell, this man did break the law, and whats more was aware that he was breaking it. You can't really complain when you work to bring down a government when that government stops you.
    Much as I love the internet, it really isn't a human right.

  43. Re:If you're ashamed to be American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Unlike most, I chose to be an American citizen. It was not a decision taken lightly.

    The USA (like every country) is not perfect, and I suspect what most people mean by "I'm ashamed to be American." is "I'm ashamed of the actions taken by the American government, nominally on my behalf and in my name."

    Implicitly saying "If you don't like something here, go to another country." is so wrong on so many levels. Perhaps you should remember the words of Carl Schurz, the 19th century American senator, who said "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."

  44. Typical for communists/socialists/progressives... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Obama and his fellow Mao supporters stay in charge, the same crap will eventually happen in the US. China is another fine example of government controlling speech. It starts by enacting a "fairness" doctrine, and then labeling points of view that you don't agree with, hate speech. Like most liberal programs, the name is completely opposite of the true intentions. Because normal freedom loving people wouldn't buy into it with a more accurate description. Makes me absolutely sick to see how many communists and socialists drive the message at Democrat rallies lately. They make no effort to even hide the fact that they're communists/socialists, yet the media doesn't say anything about it. Yet the media goes out of their way to find the one lone goon at a Tea Party rally. Amazes me that Democrats would squash the communists/socialists amongst their ranks. They have no business being in America. If they love that style of life, go to a communist country, I'm sure you'd love it in Cuba. OK, done ranting, only meant to type one sentence :-)

  45. The awful truth by cvtan · · Score: 1

    I hate to break the news to all you revolutionaries in China and Cuba, but when the revolution succeeds, it becomes the establishment. You can't be in power and still claim to be revolutionary! Who are you revolting against?

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:The awful truth by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      There's nothing in the street
      Looks any different to me
      And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
      And the parting on the left
      Is now the parting on the right
      And the beards have all grown longer overnight

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  46. Thank you, Comrade Castro by Shompol · · Score: 1

    As for the Cuban government, it's not perfect, but it's not a "dictatorship" under the common meaning of the word nowadays.

    It is common knowledge that Castro was not a dictator in power from 1959 to 2008, but a rightfully self-appointed "president".

    It is also common knowledge in Cuba that they have best education, best healthcare and the best rule of proletariat. This is also the main reason why the Internet is a big no-no -- it is only best while Cubans believe it.

  47. Re:Typical for communists/socialists/progressives. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    It takes a special kind of retard to equate Obama with Mao.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  48. Re:grown men by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    I suppose you've never wasted any time ever in your entire life. Oh wait, the post you just made seems less than useful.

  49. The revolution... by Rhodri+Mawr · · Score: 1

    ...will not be televised. Or streamed over the internet for that matter.

  50. but he did bring balance by johncandale · · Score: 1

    Anakin did bring balance, when he threw the emperor into the pit at the end of Jedi

  51. Break the law (however stupid), go to jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy entered the country on a tourist visa, "smuggled" banned communication equipment into the country and then helped people install it.

    While this should not be a crime in any country it is hard to complain that he is being treated unjustly when he:

    1) Lied w.r.t. immigration intent
    2) Smuggled banned items under clear customs regulations
    3) Was an accessory to setting up illegal connections

    Yes the laws are stupid, but they are the law and when you get caught you face the consequences.

    That doesn't mean that we shouldn't get this guy released as he is really fighting for our agenda; but lets not paint this as a corruption/unjust incident.

  52. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had to check your Slashdot ID to make sure it wasn't a low number. If it had been I was worried you might have a brain tumor. But you're just colorful. Oh well, carpe diem!

  53. Re:If you're ashamed to be American by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    Thank you AC. My grandfather and great uncles fought in WWII, one getting radiated and eventually dying of cancer helping the Japs after Nagasaki and my grandfather helped to liberate one of the smaller camps before spending two years in a body cast thanks to an attack by a Werewulf squad that took out three of his men and dropped a wall on him.

    And one thing I can say without fear of doubt is if they were here now they would be sickened and ashamed and the USA paying mercs that are selling little kids for fucktoys to get better deals. I mean how can you even answer that? I don't think there is any lower you can get here.

    That is why I don't give a shit what anybody thinks Manning is a hero of the USA for showing the sickness and corruption hiding behind closed doors between the mercs and the MIC. My grandfather got out before Vietnam and even then he said "The MIC will keep us in wars until we are broke or there is nobody left to ship out" and he was 100% correct, only it is even worse as they'll just hire mercs that don't follow ANY rules of war when they need that contract signed or that wetwork done.

    We USED to be the good guys, we used to actually care. Ever since the end of WWII when the MIC was born we have fallen further and further and we should all be ashamed at the rape, child trafficking, and outright genocide being committed in our names with our flag flying overhead. Is it any wonder they hate us?

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  54. Re:Typical for communists/socialists/progressives. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    It takes a special kind of retard to equate Obama with Mao.

    Isn't that a rather harsh way to refer to the Chinese? Seems to have been popular with them.

    Is this Anita Dunn’s favorite clothing store?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell