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.'"

13 of 386 comments (clear)

  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: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: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

  4. 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.

  5. 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"

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

    --
  9. 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".

  10. 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.

  11. 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/
  12. 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
  13. 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.