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.'"
'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...
to withstand criticism, maybe it doesn't deserve to rule.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
For an example closer to Western home, check out what's happening to Bradley Manning.
http://inteldaily.com/2011/03/our-man-in-havana/
Stop trying to be hero's by trying to rebuild countries after destroying them with wars or business blocks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
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
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.
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