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.'"

Comments

If your government isn't strong enough

[Compaqt]

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

Re:If your government isn't strong enough

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:If your government isn't strong enough

[makomk]

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.

Re:If your government isn't strong enough

[nospam007]

"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.

Re:If your government isn't strong enough

[hairyfeet]

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?

Re:If your government isn't strong enough

[dkleinsc]

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

Re:Revolution? Control?

[Bobakitoo]

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

Bradley Manning

[Hazel Bergeron]

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.

Re:Bradley Manning

[darojasp]

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

Re:Bradley Manning

[Hazel Bergeron]

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.

What about the prisoners in the US?

[br00tus]

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.

Not news.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Revolution? Control?

[Anonymous Coward]

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"

Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ?

[Kilobug]

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.

Re:Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ?

[Kilobug]

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).

Re:Internet-spreading ? Or covert agent ?

[multipartmixed]

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.

Re:Revolution? Control?

[Kilobug]

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.

Re:Cuba has a long history of intervention

[Ol Biscuitbarrel]

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.

Violent revolutions create Dictatorships

[TheLink]

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.

Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships

[TheLink]

In a few US states, convicted felons even after serving out their time no longer have a right to vote.

Re:Violent revolutions create Dictatorships

[GooberToo]

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.

Re:Cuba has a long history of intervention

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Revolution? Control?

[ifiwereasculptor]

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".

Re:Revolution? Control?

[BasilBrush]

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.

Re:Revolution? Control?

[BasilBrush]

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.

Re:Revolution? Control?

[d3ac0n]

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. ;)

Re:Revolution? Control?

[Cinder6]

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.