[J m HofMarN]

1: So then you'd refer to Hitler as mein fuhrer? or Mussolini by whatever silly title he gave himself?

2: You're right it's perfectly legal even though the entire world voted against it. Howaboutl, as the Cuban ambassador mentioned, the UN Charter, which provided that all countries should have the right to free trade except by UN order, and that no country should make laws that inhibit the free trade of others? Now, counting Iraq, Panama, and the torture and use of POWs for propaganda, that makes four flagrant violations of international law. And why would I even need to argue the morality of it? The entire world voted against it except the most stolid of imperialist puppets. The blockade serves no purpose but to cause the death of Cubans. When the US blockaded Iraq millions died, but through the foresight of His Excellency and his extraordinary caring for his people he's managed to ensure that everyone in Cuba usually has enough to eat and decent medical care, even despite the US trying to take the food from their mouths. No, I dont think any argument can be made that this blockade is anything but genocidal imperialism being thwarted by His Excellency.

3: That's because IT DOES. You cannot show him on a plane, you cannot show him on a train, you cannot show him in a box, you cannot show him on some rocks, You cannot show a POW eating green eggs and ham, it's making him a public curiousity, Sam I am.

Saddam is indeed covered since he was Commander in Chief of Iraq's armed forces. Thus he is a POW and so he gets visits from the red cross and other protections. Obviously if he's done something horrible he can be put on trial for it and that makes him a criminal and not a POW, but while he's being held in a military detention facility, while he is not yet on trial, he's still a POW.

you can't accuse a COUNTRY of violating international law when a private individual takes ONE picture of him and sells it to a tabloid magazine

you cannot be akkusink zee fassaland of killing zee jews! it vass only zee private individuals, chust like zee private individuals who torture people at Abu Graib, Bagram and Guantanamo, not zee country! zieg heil!

Also, there was more than one picture. Also, you might note that Saddam is what is refered to as a high value detainee. This means that his guards would likely be screened to ensure loyalty and whatnot. And it also means that people would watch their asses. For instance, if I were Saddam's guard, and I tried to sell pictures of where he was being held to the resistance, do you really think the imperialists would fail to notice and shoot me? Of course they have a ton of surveilance on the guards. Those guards could not logicaly take photos and then sell them to tabloids without the knowledge and consent of the US government. We've made it clear that the US government, through memos and policy, has allowed the torture and photographing of POWs in humiliating situations, so why do you think this is above them?

And you still haven't even bothered to respond to your bullshit hypocricy cause I pretty much am assuming you know you're a hypocrite and don't give a shit.

K...

4: Japan's government was not elected so your point is moot.

5: So if Castro is doing a good job in Cuba, why should he have to cede power?

6:

I want your answer, do you believe its ok to target civilians on purpose in order to defend your cause and that country has a govt that either has conscription or is pursuing imperialistic aims?

No. In order for terrorism to occur the government targeted has to be

1: more or less democratic
2: actively engaging in imperialist war (Zionist Entity, Russia, Britain, US)
3: and in order for the targeting of civilians to be anywhere near justified there has to be conscription or virulent support for the genocide. The only country meeting all 3 requirements is The Zionist Entity.

Also, I really don't understand your argument of "wwwaaah waaaah they kill civilians!" In every conflict mentioned it is the aggressive Western nations who have killed the most civilians (Chechens, Iraqis, Palestinians) So why are they not being labeled as terrorists? You can be blown up by a suicide bomber or an American tank shell, but you're still just as dead, and the imperialists have killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq alone, which is more than the terrorists ever have. And dont tell me they're not targeting Civilians. You don't run over 100000 people in your car and then say it was an accident.

So basically, if one day I walk over to where you are and I personally believe you haven't done enough to stop the AIDS crisis which has resulted in millions dying, I can kill you?

AIDS (for the purposes of argument I'll leave out the debate about its origins which are linked to Henry Kissinger and the WHO) is allegedly just a normal old virus. You don't HAVE to try to stop a virus. You don't HAVE to try to stop the Hutus from killing the Tutsis in Africa. You don't HAVE to stop a school bus that's heading towards a cliff.

But if your friend is shoving that school bus towards a cliff using a forklift you gave him, and you don't do anything, you're going to be charged as an accomplice.

i don't like the whole idea of people killing innocents cause they "believe" that person deserves it.

Groovy. There's an anti-war march on Washington this September, I'll see you there.

What makes you think if they had bigger planes, bigger tanks, they wouldn't use those as well to kill civilians at the same rate Israeli's do?

Perhaps because if the Palestinians had the chance the people they'd really want to kill would be the people who have been killing them and bulldozing their houses?

And moreover if the Palestinians had a properly equipped military the Zionist Entity wouldn't fuck with them.

and for your final argument, the difference is that France dosnt have the clout and the power to unilaterally invade Iraq if they did something with those weapons that France didn't approve of.

[Renegade]

Nice, your finally returning to making some coherent arguments rather than rambling.

Anyway:

1: So then you'd refer to Hitler as mein fuhrer? or Mussolini by whatever silly title he gave himself?

Yep. I'd call em leader of country X or what not.

which provided that all countries should have the right to free trade except by UN order, and that no country should make laws that inhibit the free trade of others?

Cite the law please, and I'll pretty much concede on this point.

That's because IT DOES. You cannot show him on a plane, you cannot show him on a train, you cannot show him in a box, you cannot show him on some rocks, You cannot show a POW eating green eggs and ham, it's making him a public curiousity, Sam I am.

Definition of POW:

A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, or PW) is a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict.

He's not a freaking POW, he's a LEADER of a country. Your basically stipulating that if Hitler was captured in his bunker before he killed himself, that no flash photography could of been taken cause that would of violated his "rights". I guess the shots taken of Hermann Goering and the rest of the Nazi's before Nurenberg were also violations of the Geneva Conventions huh? He's a public figure and as such will be treated as one when captured (as opposed to soldiers who aren't).

Obviously if he's done something horrible

If? Come off it already..

Those guards could not logicaly take photos and then sell them to tabloids without the knowledge and consent of the US government.

The US govt wasn't consenting to it period. I can't argue this anymore cause its like arguing with someone who just spews out something random that is so unreasonable that there really cant be any counter to it. I don't know why your gonna continue this retarded argument when you could validly be arguing about something like Abu Graib or something. And you may still not see it, but how do you answer to the fact that you are fine with Palestinian terrorists because Israeli "terrorists" are worse, but you aren't fine with showing a pic of Saddam in his underwear when he was doing "worse" things. Explain the hypocricy there.

4: Japan's government was not elected so your point is moot.

Well I "believe" they didn't do nuff to prevent their imperialism and "believe" they wanted it anyway. Since I believe it, I guess it was ok to nuke em right?

5: So if Castro is doing a good job in Cuba, why should he have to cede power?

Cause power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely no matter who you are. Plus I don't mind him keeping his power till he dies since he's obviously running a fascist communist state so obviously he can't cede power since communism has no answer to governance. My biggest problem is he doesn't trust one person in his party to take over AFTER he's dead besides his brother, which you still can't explain why he can't trust ONE PERSON.

This post has been edited by Renegade: 01 August 2005 - 01:18 PM

[Renegade]

In order for terrorism to occur the government targeted has to be

1: more or less democratic
2: actively engaging in imperialist war (Zionist Entity, Russia, Britain, US)
3: and in order for the targeting of civilians to be anywhere near justified there has to be conscription or virulent support for the genocide. The only country meeting all 3 requirements is The Zionist Entity.

Fair nuff.. for once you explained your position on this properly. Though I still disagree.

You don't HAVE to stop a school bus that's heading towards a cliff.

But thats the whole point. You said if they "believe" your doing wrongdoing, which means its open to interpretation. Thats exactly why the deliberate killing of civilians is unjustfiable because even if the country your terrorizing may be a bad one too, you have no way of knowing who you are targetting and what they truly believe or have done.

Perhaps because if the Palestinians had the chance the people they'd really want to kill would be the people who have been killing them and bulldozing their houses?

Yes and while doing that they'd be killing just as many civilians.

and for your final argument, the difference is that France dosnt have the clout and the power to unilaterally invade Iraq if they did something with those weapons that France didn't approve of.

Irrelvent. I'll ask again, why is France selling arms (that resulted in the deaths of countless people undoubtebly) equate to "regular trade" but when America did it, it was murderous. Both arms resulted in deaths, both arms were sold in order to reek some benefits (France was oil, America was to keep em alive vs Iran).

[JW Wells]

As a public service:

(From the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Part I)

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (A) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (B) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; © that of carrying arms openly; (D) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

I remember pictures of Saddam Hussein wearing a uniform, so he almost certainly held the highest rank in the old Iraqi army. As such, he would be theoretically entitled to prisoner of war status when captured, which doesn't preclude anybody from filing military or civilian criminal charges against him.

If Saddam Hussein has been formally transferred to the legal custody of the Iraqi government, his time as a POW may well be over already. I think he's being held for trial on charges they've filed against him.

[Renegade]

I remember pictures of Saddam Hussein wearing a uniform, so he almost certainly held the highest rank in the old Iraqi army. As such, he would be theoretically entitled to prisoner of war status when captured, which doesn't preclude anybody from filing military or civilian criminal charges against him.

Well yes at one time he was a soldier for the baathists, but thats really irrelevent. At the time of his capture he was President of Iraq, not a member of the military or a soldier. I mean under that case, Hitler would also be defended by the Geneva Conventions because he at one time was a soldier and so would Goering since he was head of the Lufwaffe.

[Mnesymone]

Slade, you were right.

[Slade]

Renegade: So, what's your point, that anything goes with captured leaders? Or are there specific other laws involved?

[J m HofMarN]

1: I'd call them scum, just like Bush. And when leaders do things worthy of my respect I recognize that as well.

2: Could you be a little more assinine? Fine, I admit it, there is no UN charter, and the UN would never ever write a law stating that countries should be able to trade freely. It was all a hoax and you've proven it. The real UN charter just says "The US R0XXORZ MY B0XXORZ"

3: Why is it that you have no problem admitting that American imperialism is genocidal and wrong, yet you flinch when it's proven to be unlawful? You cannot take pictures of captured leaders in their underwear and distribute them. Even though it's clear that he is a POW having been commander of his country's armies, even if he werent it still wouldnt be decent. As for your stupid reference to Nuremberg, they were on public trial for criminal acts and thus no longer considered POWs, but you didnt see the Allies shoving lightbulbs up Goering's ass or taking pictures of Hess naked did you?

Now as for the question of the government's complicity in what happened you're just ignoring what's obvious. If you have, arguably, the most dangerous man in Iraq locked in a prison, YOU DO NOT LET PEOPLE TAKE PICTURES OF THAT PRISON AND GIVE THEM AWAY!!!!!!! Why hasn't this soldier been fired or sent to the brig? Because he was following orders given by the CIA. Otherwise he would never have been able to get the photos out of there.

4: Well that's the US rationale, funny how you just used the same argument to justify atomic genocide as a bunch of Saudis used to justify killing a few thousand people at the WTC. Makes you realize how alike the two sides are.

5: I don't understand what you mean. Cuba dosnt torture people or kill people, they don't wage genocidal wars, their people have high literacy, plenty of food and free healthcare and His Excellency is the source of all of it. I fail to see how he has been corrupted by power. Please cite examples of His Excellency's alleged corruption other than "he's ruled Cuba for a really long time."

6: So it's not ok to deliberately kill 4000 civilians, but it IS ok if you "accidentally" kill a hundred thousand? Where's the logic in that?

7: Ah, so it's ok for the Zionists to oppress Palestinians simply because, in your theoretical world, the Palestinians would do the same thing if they could?

8: So you can't tell the difference between

"I need oil to run my car, and I can give you a commodity you want in return for it"

and

"I need some Iranian blood to slake my thirst, have some guns, and some nerve gas, and complicated satellite systems to help you target your chemical weapons"

[J m HofMarN]

J. W. - I'm pretty sure the pictures were distributed before the charges were formally filed. But regardless of timing it was still an immoral and unprecedented cruelty.

[Renegade]

Fine, I admit it, there is no UN charter, and the UN would never ever write a law stating that countries should be able to trade freely. It was all a hoax and you've proven it.

Well it just doesn't sound legitimate to me.. a country has the right to trade with whoever he likes. When OPEC embargoed the United States in 1973 that wasn't violating international law. They have a right to trade with they like and so do we. If their is a clear international law though i'll concede..

Even though it's clear that he is a POW having been commander of his country's armies, even if he werent it still wouldnt be decent. As for your stupid reference to Nuremberg, they were on public trial for criminal acts and thus no longer considered POWs, but you didnt see the Allies shoving lightbulbs up Goering's ass or taking pictures of Hess naked did you?

Sigh... listen hes not commander of the countries army, hes not a general, hes not apart of the armed services. He's the LEADER OF A FUCKING COUNTRY. He's a public figure, and obviously when hes captured he WILL be taken pictures of. If Hitler was captured, guess what, PHOTOS WOULD OF BEEN TAKEN. Btw, Goering had pics taken of him before he was standing trial as well and ya Hess had it a lot better, he was immidiately captured, had no trial and was immidiately tossed into London Tower. Oh ya, that definitly was some grand rights Hess got. This is all assuming he should even be given Geneva Convention rights, based on your thesis that eye for an eye is legitimate, why should someone who tortured his own people even be granted such good rights anyway mr Palestine is justified cause Israel is worse? You still have yet to clear up that hypocricy.

Because he was following orders given by the CIA. Otherwise he would never have been able to get the photos out of there.

What gain does the US govt get from his photo being released in underwear? Do you like know anything about strategy or realistic politics? The US literally gains NOTHING by that photo being released. Do you realize WHY you humiliate POWs? To gain something politically/militarily. For example, when Vietnam started released videos of our POWs it was in order to convert public support at home from pro war to anti war and weaken our resolve. Basically showing Saddam in his underwear does EXACTLY the opposite, all it does is make them more pissed off about us. Besides if the CIA and the such do things like that, they keep it a secret, they don't leak it to tabloids. Can you start going back to some real arguments cause this one is a dead issue and you've been defeated on it.

4: Well that's the US rationale, funny how you just used the same argument to justify atomic genocide as a bunch of Saudis used to justify killing a few thousand people at the WTC. Makes you realize how alike the two sides are.

I'm basing that on your reasoning that "believing" something means you can deliberatly kill civilians, not something I'd argue for..

5: I don't understand what you mean. Cuba dosnt torture people or kill people, they don't wage genocidal wars, their people have high literacy, plenty of food and free healthcare and His Excellency is the source of all of it. I fail to see how he has been corrupted by power. Please cite examples of His Excellency's alleged corruption other than "he's ruled Cuba for a really long time."

Ya it just tosses people in prison if they are believed to be anti Castro without trial. Ok we get the point his country is grand with its social programs but guess what? Nobody wants to live in Cuba. Sure you can read, but you can't do much else. Cuba with Castro might be "free" from "imperialism" but its certainly no better a place to live than it was before really. And your really just a naive person if you think someone ruling a country for 40 years won't lead to some corruption, i mean its just common sense, even a saint can't run a country that long without corruption or power becoming an issue. And you STILL have avoided the direct question of how he can't trust a single member of his "party" after 40 years to succeed him.

6: So it's not ok to deliberately kill 4000 civilians, but it IS ok if you "accidentally" kill a hundred thousand? Where's the logic in that?

Well maybe they shouldn't start 3 wars then huh?

7: Ah, so it's ok for the Zionists to oppress Palestinians simply because, in your theoretical world, the Palestinians would do the same thing if they could?

No.. I simply am pointing out that the only reason Israel has killed more total civilians than Palestine is because they simply have the means to do so and they don't. It's not because Palestine is some noble country that has higher morals.

8: So you can't tell the difference between

"I need oil to run my car, and I can give you a commodity you want in return for it"

and

"I need some Iranian blood to slake my thirst, have some guns, and some nerve gas, and complicated satellite systems to help you target your chemical weapons"

So its ok to trade for oil even if you know those weapons will cause people to die and the person your giving em to is a known dictator? That's just oh you know, normal trade and totally moral. I guess American support for Saudi Arabia is totally justifiable then cause you know, we need oil and who cares if they are a dictatorship, its just fair trade. Whoo the hypocricy aint gonna stop is it.

And we didn't sell arms to Iraq to "quench" our murderous thirst, we did it so the country didn't completely fall to Iran which however you look at might have been bad but I don't really see how you could consider that murderous but not what France did. If you believe one is murder than the other has to be.

[Renegade]

J. W. - I'm pretty sure the pictures were distributed before the charges were formally filed. But regardless of timing it was still an immoral and unprecedented cruelty.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aww ya I feel so bad for Saddam. I mean can you believe he had a pic of him in his underwear released! It's like the cruelest act ever done by any govt EVER in history. Man that is like sooo much worse then what he did:

-Two years earlier, two human rights organizations, the International Federation of Human Rights League and the Coalition for Justice in Iraq released a joint report, accusing the Saddam Hussein regime of committing "massive and systematic" human rights violations, particularly against women. The report spoke of public beheadings of women who were accused of being prostitutes, which took place in front of family members, including children. The heads of the victims were publicly displayed near signs reading, "For the honor of Iraq." The report documented 130 women who had been killed in this way, but stated that the actual number was probably much higher. The report also describes human rights violations directed against children. The report states that children, as young as 5 years old, are recruited into the "Ashbal Saddam," or "Saddam's Cubs," and indoctrinated to adulate Saddam Hussein and denounce their own family members. The children are also subjected to military training, which includes cruelty to animals. The report also describes how parents of children are executed if they object to this treatment, and in some cases, the children themselves are imprisoned.


-Full political participation at the national level was restricted only to members of the Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party, which constituted only 8% of the population. Therefore, it was impossible for Iraqi citizens to change their government.

-In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern and Southern Iraq. This is known as the Anfal campaign. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children. A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations.
-In April 1991, after Saddam lost control of Kuwait in the Gulf War, he cracked down ruthlessly against uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south. His forces committed wholesale massacres and other gross human rights violations against both groups similar to the violations mentioned before. Estimates of deaths during that time range from 40,000 to 100,000 for Kurds, and 60,000 to 130,000 for Shi'ites.

-In June of 1994, the Hussein regime in Iraq established severe penalties, including amputation, branding and the death penalty for criminal offenses such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion.

Mmmm I don't know about you, but I don't think I'll be able to sleep at night knowning what kind of torture is going on against Saddam. And even worse, there STILL taking pictures of him clothed too!! Such an embarrassment, I mean look at what he's wearing, its totally torture to put someone in this kind of clothes:

http://en.wikipedia....TrialSaddam.jpg

This post has been edited by Renegade: 02 August 2005 - 03:34 AM

[Renegade]

Political persecution
Although exact numbers are hard to determine, several scholars have attempted to estimate the number of political killings committed by Fidel Castro's administration.

The highest estimates are given by R.J. Rummel, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Hawaii. He gives the number of 73,000 as the mid-point estimate of victims of the alleged democide by the Castro administration. His low and high estimates are 35,000 and 141,000 respectively. [1]

Dr. Armando Lago, of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy, cites the following numbers in "The Human Cost of Social Revolution":

15,000 to 18,000 executed for counterrevolutionary activities
1,000 extrajudicial assassinations
250 disappeared
500 died in prison for lack of medical attention
500 murdered in prison by guards
150 extrajudicial assassinations of women
Lago calculated these numbers "using old news accounts, U.S. and Organization of American States records and family histories." [2] Lago's study relies heavily on records of the US State Department and the Organization of American States. The US government is hostile to Cuba and the OAS has barred Cuba from participating in the organization since the 1960s.

The Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century cites different sources for its numbers, among them "Cuba, or, the pursuit of freedom" by Hugh Thomas. According to Thomas's estimate there were "perhaps" 5,000 executions by 1970. The author of the Historical Atlas summarises his findings as follows: "The dividing line between those who have an ax to grind and those who don't falls in the 5,000-12,000 range."

The "Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation" placed the number of political prisoners at "around 400" in 1998. Many of these were subsequently released. In 2001, Amnesty International estimated the number of "prisoners of conscience" as being "at least seven," but more were arrested or rearrested in 2002.

Cuba placed a moratorium on the use of capital punishment in 2001 but this ended after three years when, in 2003, three Cubans were executed for a ferry hijacking that resulted in no injuries.

In 1960, Armando Valladares was working at the Cuban Postal Savings Bank when agents of the Ministry of Communications handed him a card bearing a communist slogan and told him to put it on his worktable. The 23-year-old Valladares refused. Astonished, the agents asked him if he had anything against Castro. Valladares answered that if Castro was a communist, he did.

Armando Valladares is a highly controversial figure. His detractors contend that he was a policeman under the dictator Batista, and that he was part of a counterrevolutionary gang which carried out terrorist bombings. They charge also that he in fact plagiarized "his" poetry. [3]. Valladares was convicted on a charge of placing bombs in public places and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. His supporters contend that he was never part of the Batista police, and that his imprisonment was the result of his vocal opposition to the Castro government. The author David Horowitz has called him a "poet" and "Human Rights Hero."

Valladares claims to have been tortured and humiliated. While on a hunger strike to protest prison abuses, he claims the guards denied him water until he became delirious, and proceeded to urinate in his mouth and on his face. Valladares was released from prison after twenty-two years upon the intercession of France's Socialist President François Mitterrand.

On August 28, 1998, a Havana court sentenced Reynaldo Alfaro García, a member of the Democratic Solidarity Party, to three years in prison for "spreading enemy propaganda" and "rumour-mongering."

[edit]
Emigration
From 1959 through 1993, some 25,000 Cubans fled the island, mostly by sea in small boats and fragile rafts. At times the exodus was tolerated by the Cuban government as a "release valve"; at other times the government has impeded it. Some Cubans left for economic reasons, some for political ones, but most departed for a combination of the two. Others fled by way of the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, which is blocked on the Cuban side by barbed-wired fences and landmines. It is estimated that only one of every three or four Cubans who have attempted to escape has been successful. Thousands have died in the attempt or have been captured and imprisoned.

In 1995 the U.S. government entered into an agreement with the Cuban government to resolve the emigration crisis that created the so-called Mariel Boatlift of the mid 1990s, when Castro opened the docks to anyone who wanted to leave. The result of the negotiations was the Cuban Adjustment Act under which the United States was required to issue 20,000 visas annually to Cubans emigrants. The Bush administration has refused to comply with the act, issuing only 505 visas to Cubans in the first six months of 2003.

[edit]
Ochoa affair
In 1989, General Arnaldo Ochoa, once proclaimed "Hero of the Revolution" by Fidel Castro, along with three other high-ranking officers, was brought to trial for drug trafficking. This offense carries a maximum sentence of 20 years, but Ochoa and the others were convicted of treason, and promptly executed, largely on the basis of secret evidence. Opponents of the Castro government outside of Cuba expressed skepticism about the arrest and execution of Ochoa. In the opinion of former Brigadier-General Rafael del Pino, who had been a close personal friend of Ochoa since the early days of the revolution, the arrest and execution was an attempt to keep a different high-ranking Cuban official from defecting. Del Pino himself defected from Cuba in May 1987.

[edit]
Cason affair
Main Article: Cason affair In March 2003, the government of Cuba arrested dozens of journalists, librarians, and human rights activists, and charged them with sedition due to their alleged contacts with James Cason, head of the US interest section in Havana. The accused were tried and sentenced to prison terms ranging from 15 to 28 years. In all, 75 journalists, librarians, and dissidents were given lengthy sentences averaging 17 years each. Among those sentenced were poet and journalist Raul Rivero, economist Martha Beatriz Roque, and Christian activist Oscar Elías Biscet. Amnesty International described the closed-door trials as "hasty and manifestly unfair." [4]

Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque denied these accusations and responded: "Cuba has the right to defend itself and apply punishment just like other nations do, like the United States punishes those who cooperate with a foreign power to inflict damage on their people and territory."[5]

During the closed-door trial, evidence was presented that the defendants had received funds from the US Interests Section. Cuban officials claim that the goal of this funding was to undermine the Cuban state, disrupt internal order, and damage the Cuban economy.

Defenders of the actions by the Cuban government point out that other nations have similar laws forbidding citizens from accepting money from foreign governments when it would be applied towards the subversion of domestic political order. For his part, Cason denies offering funds to anyone in Cuba.

On November 29, 2004, the Cuban government unexpectedly released three dissidents arrested in the March 2003 roundup: opposition leader Oscar Espinosa Chepe, Marcelo Lopez, and Margarito Broche. The action followed a meeting between the Spanish ambassador and Cuba's foreign minister.[6] In subsequent days four more dissidents were released: poet Raul Rivero, Osvaldo Alfonso Valdes[7], journalist Edel Jose Garcia[8], and journalist Jorge Olivera [9]. Seven other prisoners had previously been released for health reasons. Sixty-one of the 75 original inmates remain behind bars.

[edit]
Persecution of Gays
Homosexuals are not permitted to join the Communist Party, because being gay is assumed to be contrary to communist ethics. Homosexuality can have an adverse impact on a person's professional career in a society where all senior appointments depend on membership in the country's sole legal party. Cuba tolerates neither lesbian nor gay newspapers, nor LGBT organisations. The Cuban Association of Gays and Lesbians, formed in 1994, was suppressed in 1997 and its members were arrested. Being gay is illegal if it causes a "public offence"; this vague law alas led to the arrest of men who are effeminate.

Oh ya, Castro is a flawless man of the people! Btw I guess your golden boy hates gays more than Bush does, who woulda thought.

Hypocrit.

This post has been edited by Renegade: 02 August 2005 - 03:43 AM

[Renegade]

Military Units to Aid Production or UMAP’s were established by the Cuban government in 1965 as a way to eliminate bourgeois and counter-revolutionary values in certain segments of the Cuban population.

Homosexuality and religious conviction was seen by Fidel Castro as a corrupt byproduct of capitalism and the moral decay it causes and counter-revolutionary. Between 1965 and 1968, homosexual men and others who were considered to be "counter-revolutionary" were incarcerated in UMAP (Military Units to Aid Production) forced labor camps in an attempts to turn them into "real" men. Castro claimed that this policy was necessary for those "people who have committed crimes against revolutionary morals."

Supplied with information from local CDR’s (Committees for the Defense of the Revolution), Cuban police arrested tens of thousands of men that Castro had labeled "the scum of society". The official reason the men were detained was to check the validity of personal ID cards. The names and locations homosexuals, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses and members of other Protestant religions were recorded. Between 1965 and 1968, these individuals were then incarcerated in UMAP forced labor camps. The Cuban government, and Castro in particular, believed that hard work would rid these individuals of their bourgeois, individualistic, and counter-revolutionary tendencies.

The camps were closed down in 1968 following protests to the government by the Cuban Writers and Artists Federation although these individuals were banned from most areas of employment in Cuba.

The fun don't stop. Btw this isn't to say that I don't think the guy had balls to tell America to screw off, just merely pointing out hes just a bastard too.

This post has been edited by Renegade: 02 August 2005 - 03:51 AM

[floppydisk]

There's too much anger in this thread. It needs to be sealed up and thrown into the deepest pit in the ocean.

[Renegade]

There's too much anger in this thread. It needs to be sealed up and thrown into the deepest pit in the ocean.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Calm down, nobody is actually angry.