quote:

---

Guzman (who gained notoriety as the nemesis of ex-dictator Augusto Pinochet):

"It was made evident that Miami was not a proper venue for the [2001] trial because the jury was highly pressured and even frightened," said the Chilean judge.

Guzman said the defense attorneys for the Cuban Five emphasized the improper conduct of the US government prosecutors during the trial, "There was neither impartiality nor objectivity on the part of the jury," biased by the pressure of the prosecution for a guilty verdict, he added.

---

Some of the arguments ...

quote:

---

the Defense, demonstrated irrefutably that the improper conduct of the Government during the entire legal process against the five constituted a flagrant violation of due process that influenced the entire proceeding, primarily by the way in which the Prosecutor invented the charges, promoted a hostile environment and manipulated the evidence and the jury.

Other key arguments of the Defense that demonstrate the arbitrariness of the process is lack of evidence to sustain the two main accusations "conspiracy to commit espionage and conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree" and the imposition of completely irrational and unjustifiable life sentences. The Government itself admitted during trial that it could not present a single secret document to prove espionage and that it faced an "insurmountable obstacle" to prove the charge of murder.

---

However, this is the most disgraceful point against the imprisonment of the 5 anti-terrorist investigators:

quote:

---

Throughout the tainted process the Government admitted that its real concern was to protect the anti-Cuban terrorist groups that operate with total immunity in Miami and to punish those who fight against them.

---

I guess the "War on Terror" has some exceptions, eh? In the case of Cuba, it's the "War of Terror" as that fake Kazakh comic Borat said.

Granma - Press Release of the lawyers for the political prisoners

Interview before the hearing with defence lawyer Leonard Weinglass

Free the Five website - all sorts of information

Episode 1 thread

Episode 2 thread

[ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I strongly object to the title of this thread. There are no caps.

---

Close the SOA

[ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I strongly object to the title of this thread. There are no caps.

Please continue.

---

Yeah well every time I see the title of this thread I silently think to myself "MUSHROOM! MUSHROOM!"

[ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: Américain Égalitaire ]

[ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I'd be willing to outsource this task to Amnesty International, but for some inexplicable reason, they're not able to take the job:

quote:

---

Visits

AI last visited Cuba in 1988 and has not been allowed into the country since.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

I'd be willing to outsource this task to Amnesty International, but for some inexplicable reason, they're not able to take the job:

---

At your linked article, AI says: "At least 69 prisoners of conscience remained imprisoned for their political opinions."

I searched in vain for a report of AI's visit to the part of Cuba known as Guantanamo Bay, where some 355 detainees remain mostly without charge, trial, or benefit of Geneva Convention treatment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
If you want to start a thread about the horrors of Guantanamo - go ahead, but this is 100% irrelevant to the fact that Cuba is a repressive one-party police state. Two wrongs don't make a right.

---

Well Stock, I was just testing the significance of Stephen's comment about AI not being allowed into Cuba. If they haven't been allowed into Guantanamo either, then maybe it's a vaccination issue? I dunno.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Oh, you can defend Cuba if you like. But criticising what's going on in Guantanamo (a subject about which AI has a lot to say) is not the same thing as defending Cuba. It's changing the subject.

---

Exactly. How many times does it have to be said that two wrongs don't make a right? And more particularly, that someone else's wrongs don't justify your own.

[ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: Doug ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:

Yeah well every time I see the title of this thread I silently think to myself "MUSHROOM! MUSHROOM!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

Exactly. How many times does it have to be said that two wrongs don't make a right?

---

Don't know, but your repeat button is stuck "on", so I guess it's a few more times yet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Oh, you can defend Cuba if you like. But criticising what's going on in Guantanamo (a subject about which AI has a lot to say) is not the same thing as defending Cuba. It's changing the subject.

---

No, I responded to your post. You made a great big deal out of Cuba allegedly disallowing AI visits. Does the U.S. permit AI visits everywhere?

I asked if you could find me a report on such a visit. Instead, you find me AI condemning Guantanamo. That's non-responsive. If you don't know the answer to my question, it's permissible to say "I don't know".

Are you and Doug also adherents of Stockholm's view that anything other than insults and jokes at Cuba's expense constitute thread drift?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Again, it's changing the subject. Much as it would be if a thread on Guantanamo were littered with quotes about how awful things are in [insert hobby horse here].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[QB]
Are you and Doug also adherents of Stockholm's view that anything other than insults and jokes at Cuba's expense constitute thread drift?

---

Not at all - as long as it's actually discussing Cuba.

quote:

---

It does mean that maybe you should be more hot and bothered by the monster than by the mouse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Pretend we're in a different thread. Has AI visited Guantanamo?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:
as long as it's actually discussing Cuba.

---

Stephen Gordon said there's no point visiting Cuba because they won't let you learn anything anyway. He then suggested AI hasn't been allowed there since 1988. I asked whether they had been allowed to part of Cuba known as Guantanamo. The aim of my question was to gauge the significance of AI being allowed or not to visit a location.

I didn't introduce AI. I didn't raise the issue of whether its access to a location is indicative of anything or not. I've asked a question to clarify his attack on Cuba. It's a question of information. Unlike many of the "questions" asked on this board, I actually don't know the answer to it.

All I know is that the wrong answer is: "It's irrelevant. We're talking about Cuba refusing AI visits. Anyone else refusing AI visits can't be part of this discussion."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
It's always the same sad refrain. People provide incontrovertible proof of human rights abuses in Cuba and the response is something along the lines of "Yes, but the Americans overthrew the Mossadeq government in Iran 50 years ago".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Pretend we're in a different thread. Has AI visited Guantanamo?

---

Michael Moore tried to visit Gitmo and get some doctoring for the sick 9-11 workers. It was a no-go though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
If you want to make the point that forbidding visits from AI is not a bad sign, go ahead.

---

I don't want to make that point at all. I can't see why anyone would deny AI the right to visit anywhere they want unless they've got something to hide, or unless AI has somehow behaved itself badly. You haven't provided us with any context, so who know?

That's one reason why I'm trying to evaluate the significance of your bringing up AI and access in this thread. In response to my simple question, you seem to be very reluctant to say either:

1. "I don't know."

OR

2. "Here it is."

I think those two responses pretty well exhaust the universe of possibilities among reasonable discussants.

But when you say, "Hee. I'm not gonna answer! The Gods of Relevancy and Thread Continuity forbid it! I won't even tell you whether I know the answer or not!" - you'll have to forgive some skepticism on my part.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

What incontravertable proof? The "prisoners of conscience"? Cuba claims they're employees of the CIA and that sounds eminently plausible to me.

---

What context do you need? Do I really have to go through AI's entire site, note the cases where they've been denied access (and yes, it does looks as though they're not allowed to visit Guantanamo), note the cases where human rights violations are more prevalent, calculate the various conditional probabilities, apply Bayes Rule and provide an estimate for p(Human rights violation|AI refused access)?

Is that really necessary?

[ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Again, it's changing the subject. Much as it would be if a thread on Guantanamo were littered with quotes about how awful things are in [insert hobby horse here].

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
If you want to make the point that forbidding visits from AI is not a bad sign, go ahead.

---

Is it a good sign that Amnesty simply describes its grievance with Cuba's arrest of the "dissident journalists" as,

"“prisoners of conscience detained solely for the peaceful exercising of his rights to freedom of expression and association”?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[cross-posted with Doug]

What context do you need? Do I really have to go through AI's entire site, note the cases where they've been denied access (and yes, it does looks as though they're not allowed to visit Guantanamo), note the cases where human rights violations are more prevalent, calculate the various conditional probabilities, apply Bayes Rule and provide an estimate for p(Human rights violation|AI refused access)?

Is that really necessary?
[ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

---

Threads proliferate when people DISAGREE and DEBATE. If someone posts about the horrors of what the US has done in GUantanamo - the thread goes no where, because just about all of us on babble agree that US actions there are immoral - hence there is nothing to discuss. We are all on the same side.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

is that really sufficient, given the role of the subjective prior?

---

It's all anyone can do. If you have a dogmatic prior, then learning is impossible, no matter what the evidence.

Jesse Helms and the Minnesota farmers were invited to examine Cuba's agricultural cooperatives, and so are Canadian farmers and health care groups organizing trips to Cuba to examine the system up close and personal.

We don't believe for a second though the Yanks will allow similar public access to what are U.S. taxpayer-funded gulags for torture and human rights violations in general at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

It's all anyone can do. If you have a dogmatic prior, then learning is impossible, no matter what the evidence.

To my mind, refusing access to AI is a signal that human rights violations are going on. This information will revise upwards any non-dogmatic subjective belief about the probability that Cuba's government is violating human rights.

---

I agree that it's all we can do. But I think we need to be honest about what we're doing. It's not just mathematics!

If you think (as I do) that AI has some biases that would affect what it sees and does not see with respect to certain matters (like the role of the CIA and its significance), then the probability that the government of Cuba is violating human rights is not revised upwards by said refusal of access.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Is there *any* imaginable evidence that could get you to revise your opinion?

---

Certainly. You don't know me or my history but I've changed my mind quite a few times and on fundamental issues.

What about you? Would anything lead you to revise your opinion?

[ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Is there *any* imaginable evidence that could get you to revise your opinion?

---

Ya get yourself down to Cuba and bring us back some hard evidence of AI's human rights concerns. Because a former CIA specialist on Latin American affairs said the Cason affair in Havana had CIA written all over it. So without jumping to conclusions on the issue, AI has simply chosen to spew U.S.-based rhetoric about Cuba.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
How about: Cuba lets AI in, and AI reports that whatever is going in in Cuba is not out of line from what is going in (say) Canada.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
... yes, it does looks as though they're not allowed to visit Guantanamo ...

---

Good. Thank you.

Now the next question is: Why doesn't Cuba allow visits by AI?

Or more specifically, does AI say, or has it been told, why it has been denied access?

You can see why that's important. If they were caught selling contraband Rolexes, for instance, that might change the context. Or running messages for the CIA. Or being drunk and disorderly after all-night parties.

Or, Cuba didn't like their report in 1988 and decided to avoid further criticism - because they'd rather hide their treatment of prisoners than face open scrutiny.

Do you have any answers? Because the bald fact of having been allowed to visit until 1988, but not thereafter, raises more questions than it answers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Sure is. Cuba won't even let AI get on the field.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Good. Thank you.

Now the next question is: Why doesn't Cuba allow visits by AI?

Or more specifically, does AI say, or has it been told, why it has been denied access?

You can see why that's important. If they were caught selling contraband Rolexes, for instance, that might change the context. Or running messages for the CIA. Or being drunk and disorderly after all-night parties.

Or, Cuba didn't like their report in 1988 and decided to avoid further criticism - because they'd rather hide their treatment of prisoners than face open scrutiny.

Do you have any answers? Because the bald fact of having been allowed to visit until 1988, but not thereafter, raises more questions than it answers.

Unless of course the subject bores you (as you very comical allusion to Bayesian analysis would appear to indicate), in which case I do beg your pardon and hope that the issues you raise for discussion in the future are ones that you personally find more worthwhile.

---

Actually, I take Bayesian methods very seriously indeed; enough to use it in my own work. It's the only rational model for learning.

This, of course, is inexcusable on Canada's part, and the gravity is of course multiplied by the fact that Canada has no business detaining Afghan nationals on foreign territory in the first place.

On the domestic front, although AI has concluded that:

quote:

---

"Counter-terrorism laws and practices were inconsistent with human rights standards,"

---

I have been unable to determine whether AI has sought to investigate the situation of prisoners held in Canada in such circumstances through site visits, and if so, if such access has been accorded.

Judging from the situations in Guantanamo and Afghanistan, however, we have at least two examples of countries which are sometimes referred to as "democracies" which do not provide open access for AI visits to detention facilities.

This does not mean that Cuba is right to refuse such access. On the contrary, as I have said, barring any impropriety on AI's part, why would Cuba not welcome such visits?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
As I said: a signal. Not proof, but something that should revise previously-held opinions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
As I said: a signal. Not proof, but something that should revise previously-held opinions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

Well, what revises previously held opionions and in what direction is something that depends in part on your presuppositions....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

So let's hear *your* suppositions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

So let's hear *your* suppositions.

---

So what do you think you'll find in Havana besides a lot of coco taxis, leggy brunettes, and healthy, happy people ?.

quote:

---

So what do you think you'll find in Havana besides a lot of coco taxis, leggy brunettes, and healthy, happy people ?.

---

I've been to Havana. Quite the contrary i saw a lot of very poor, desparate people begging for dollars so they could buy the most basic consumer products and prostituting themselves to tourists...plus looking over the shoulders at all times because they knew that being seen talking to a tourist would mean an interrogation at the police station.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
If you see any healthy, happy people in Cuba, chances are they have relatives in Miami sending them money every month.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
If you see any healthy, happy people in Cuba, chances are they have relatives in Miami sending them money every month.

---

A real provocateur and baiter would make some sensible-sounding statements, then come out smoothly with something like the above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

IOW's, Amnesty would rather pick an unfair fight with tiny Cuba than bite the hand that feeds. And it's a lop-sided battle, don't you think, Stephen?.

---

Have a look at what they have to say about the United States before you go saying that: http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Regions/Americas/United-States-of-America

I think Amnesty does a reasonable job of being objective and has a reputation for that.

[ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: Doug ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
If you see any healthy, happy people in Cuba, chances are they have relatives in Miami sending them money every month.

---

Through the years there have been posts on topics of clear oppression and horror (such as the ongoing ethnic cleansing of blacks in the Dominican Republic) yet it's a miracle if only 10 people respond. But when Cuba is mentioned the "defenders of freedom" come out in droves (in between their holidays in the "free" DR).

Is Cuba perfect? No. But ask most Latin Americans who have felt the boot of capitalist or American imperialism which country is their inspiration for true independence and solidarity: Cuba is at the top of the list.

Until recently, Cuba did something only one other nation within the Western hemisphere has ever done: it told the American's to get stuffed. That's why it's targeted and it's example must be relentlessly attacked by every person in support of the colonial order. Venezuela and Bolivia are now being vilified.

BTW, the other country was Haiti and they suffered over 60 years of an embargo, countless invasions and even a US imposed constitution (drafted by FDR) that re-introduced slavery.

Here's an article that many who claim to be "leftists" should read:

Progressive Cuba-Bashing

[ 22 August 2007: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

And the US has a new lackey - the government of Hungary. Last December this same government sent representatives to Miami to meet up with the local Batista followers and terrorists. Following that, "it received the worst of the Miami fauna in Budapest".

quote:

---

Instead of concerning itself with trying to treat its Romany minority, the object of discrimination, as human beings, the Hungarian government is granting "political asylum" to a group of illegal Cuban emigrants. It is lying and prostituting the term. Like its patron, it knows very well that these people are not persecuted in Cuba; far less "figures from the Cuban opposition." They are, simply, economic emigrants who probably do not qualify for visas from the U.S. government on account of their criminal record or educational level. Maybe that is the reason that the Empire is passing them on to its lackey, with Hungarian language courses, winter clothes and their rent covered for a year included?

---

quote:

---

A sure way to tell when the elites are worried people are starting to question their capitalist system: They unleash the "social democrats", "liberals" and other "leftists" to do their dirty work on red baiting topics like Cuba, Stalin, North Korea, etc

---

Oh yes, we can certainly attirbute (without evidence) any concerns about Stalin, North Korea and their dirty deeds to "elites".

I myself must certainly have been "unleashed" by some elite which had previously held me hostage somewhere.

And yes, there can be no doubt that the elite of capitalism are trembling over the vast popularity of Stalin and friends. I think most people in Kitsilano or Barrie are just dying to unfurl their Kim Jong-Il banners; luckily they won't do it, because of the nefarious activities of social democrats like myself.

And yes, "redbaiting". That is illegal on babble. So, people like extremely lonely worker can attribute my views to some "elite" which has unleashed me, but I can't point out anything about why he is so solicitous of Castro, Stalin, and Kim Jong-Il.

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
A sure way to tell when the elites are worried people are starting to question their capitalist system: They unleash the "social democrats", "liberals" and other "leftists" to do their dirty work on red baiting topics like Cuba, Stalin, North Korea, etc. It's pathetic to still see these diversions succeeding.

---

quote:

---

I only wish that that all the Castro apologists would be as willing to acknowledge that there are very real human rights abuses in Cuba as well.

---

... we both know that you've made a truckload of other claims as well: that Cuba is a dictatorship, that there's no democracy whatsoever, that there is a Castro cult of personality, and so on, and that you've chosen to repeat those unsubstantiated claims like a broken record and looked the other way when challenged by evidence and claims to the contrary.

In a word, I don't believe you. You've been in the habit of just repeating the same claims over and over again, often in the same thread, and often right after evidence and arguments are provided to the contrary. I'm quite willing to acknowledge that there are human rights abuses in every country of the world, including Cuba. But that's not the point.

quote:

---

.. we both know that you've made a truckload of other claims as well: that Cuba is a dictatorship, that there's no democracy whatsoever, that there is a Castro cult of personality,

---

These are all facts that no sane person could contest. To deny the above is like trying to claim that the world is flat.

quote:

---

People on the "left" have an internationalist duty of "solidarity" with those in the crosshairs of imperialism.

---

People on the "left" also have an internationalist duty of "solidarity" with those in the crosshairs of dictatorship and human rights violations.

[ 23 August 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

These are all facts that no sane person could contest.

---

Stockholm, you do realize that you're substantiating my argument, don't you? You did READ my argument, eh, and not just skim over the big words like "unsubstantiated", "broken record", and "evidence" ?

quote:

---

People on the "left" have an internationalist duty of "solidarity" with those in the crosshairs of imperialism.

---

That's why I will do everything in my power to prevent the US or others from invading Cuba or Iran.

But I don't believe that being in "the crosshairs of imperialism" justifies every policy of the Cuban or Iranian governments.

Even more strenuously, I oppose those who want me to be silent for strategic reasons, all the while claiming that Cuba or Iran are "socialist" just because the US opposes them.

Iran may be in Bush's "crosshairs" right now. So, do we have to shut up if they bring in David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan to say that the Holocaust was a hoax by a cabal of Jews?

Or do we retain our mental independence, and refuse to cover up the truth about Iran or Cuba?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Just as importantly, I don't think the pro-Cuba group on babble uses a fair definition of imperialism. They just oppose US policy, no matter what its merits. That means that when someone like Milosevic or Stalin crushed independent states, that gets defined as something else; "not-imperialism". So, the anti-imperialist rhetoric is just a screen behind which they hide.

---

That's one way to trivialize the real phenomenon of imperialism. Re-define it. Pretend it doesn't exist. Ascribe it to new prospects, any prospects. Water it down until it means nothing, until it means anything, ... until it means whatever we want it to mean.

I don't see how any definition of imperialism blocks anyone from criticizing Stalin, Milosevic or anyone else. What a red herring and what a diversion and what a caricature and what a way to argue.

quote:

---

Jeff, perhaps when you're done venting about Kim Jong Il and "Uncle Joe" Stalin on this Cuba thread, you could bring to bear your legal expertise on the issue of the Cuban Five political prisoners in the USA.
I'm particularly interested in your views of imprisoning anti-terrorist investigators like the Five while freeing terrorists like Luis C. Posada and others. It would be nice to know that your views can be distinguished from the views of the US government on this issue.

---

I didn't know Stalin was "Uncle Joe" to you.

As for my views on Posada: He should be deported to Venezuela, where he escaped custody.

My views on the Cuba Five:

Years ago, I signed a statement in support of the Cuban Five. I appeared on a panel with the Cuban ambassador to do so. I believe there were flaws in the original trial which justify a retrial, but after the time they have been in custody, I think they ought to be just sent home.

On the appeal, the Cuban Five are asserting that their application for a change of venue was wrongly denied. While I think they are correct in law in so asserting, it is important to note, if only in passing, that no such idea...the possibility of a change of venue...exists in Cuban law. The same is true of the right to a jury trial, the right to have the trial open to the public, and a dozen other important rights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I don't see how any definition of imperialism blocks anyone from criticizing Stalin, Milosevic or anyone else.

---

From the linked thread:

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
. . . I don't have any objection to criticizing the foreign (or domestic) policies of the former SU or of China, past or present. But if you want to use "imperialist" as a useful term, then simply using it as a handy general term for oppressive relations, or as a general insult, is bound to confuse your readers who might be used to a different, more precise usage. Then you're really in Humpty Dumpty land . . .

---

[ 23 August 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
How is the definition of "imperialism" a justification of the horrific policies of the US towards Cuba anyway?

---

quote:

---

jeff house: On the appeal, the Cuban Five are asserting that their application for a change of venue was wrongly denied. While I think they are correct in law in so asserting, it is important to note, if only in passing, that no such idea...the possibility of a change of venue...exists in Cuban law. The same is true of the right to a jury trial, the right to have the trial open to the public, and a dozen other important rights.

---

Some of that is going to relate to the different legal systems. There are probably few private legal practices in Cuba either, but that hardly seems a fair criticism for a socialist country.

Another general comment: from the San Francisco Bay Guardian:

quote:

---

A great deal of attention was given to the 40-year-old embargo that the United States maintains against this small island nation. Aspects of the Cuban system viewed as "draconian" by human rights organizations are justified by Cubans as national security measures necessitated by U.S. aggression. The embargo, which Cubans believe is more aptly referred to as a "blockade" due to its extraterritorial aspect, keeps Cuban society in a state of perpetual siege, and is viewed by the Cuban government as an act of war. Even human rights groups concede that the U.S. embargo, a form of human rights abuse in and of itself, impedes Cuba's ability to adopt more permissive polices in the area of political freedoms. Many Cubans view their system as more democratic than what the United States would impose, and view it as amenable to change, where necessary, as time and circumstances permit.

---

I take that to mean that the Cubans could and would improve their legal system in ways that Canadians would approve of once the embargo and war-like acts of the US came to an end. I don't think it's fair to the Cubans to evaluate their legal system in isolation from the situation they find themselves in.

The issues of change of venue, jury trial, public trials seem a lot less important than the death penalty which Cuba still has. I don't think it is enforced very often, but I would find fault with that, as more enlightened Cubans probably do, much more than with, say, not being able to choose a jury instead of a judge in a trial. The de facto moratorium ended in 2003 with 3 executions but I do not know if any more have been carried out since. I'm a little surprised you left that out, Jeff. In any case, I think the Cubans have a system that combines "lay" judges along with the more professional judges in the running of typical trials.

I'm going to pick one of the items you mentioned.

Jury trials relate to the Anglo-Saxon common law traditions and not to the tradition of Civil Law. So not every country, not even every "Western" country has the option of jury trials for all situations. Furthermore: "The positive belief about jury trials in the UK and the U.S. contrasts with popular belief in many other nations, in which it is considered bizarre and risky for a person's fate to be put into the hands of untrained laymen." In Great Britain we have the following:

quote:

---

Recently, in British, Lord Goldsmith, the government's Attorney General, has been actively pressing forward with the Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill in Parliament, which seeks to abolish jury trials in major criminal fraud trials. The Bill was subject to sharp criticism from both sides of the House of Commons, but passed its second Commons reading in November 2006. The Bill follows the Government's earlier, unsuccessful attempt to pass measures allowing trials without jury in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

---

And when will the hundreds imprisoned illegally at Guantanamo Bay Cuba be offered a change of venue, or even legal counsel for that matter ?.

[ 23 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

A short investigation by me, a non-lawyer, leads me to believe that there are arguments on both sides and that, therefore, this is hardly as "black and white" as I first imagined.

---

You picked the issue of jury trials, and conclude that there may be some argument for limiting jury trials. There isn't really much argument among progressive jurists on that, though. In Canada, there is a Charter right to a jury trial in serious cases.

However, the Cuban Five's main argument is that the JURY they chose was likely to be too anti-Castro, too anti-Cuba, to be fair.

So they wanted a change of venue to a place where the public is less prejudiced.

Fine, except then it is hard to argue that Cuban trials, which are tried before state-appointed judges only, are fairer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

So, by all means complain about American injustice.

---

Ok, thanks for the invite:

Texas executes 400th inmate in 25 years

quote:

---

Texas reached a milestone last night when a man who murdered a convenience store worker became the 400th person executed by the US state since it resumed capital punishment in 1982.

Johnny Ray Conner, 32, who was convicted of the fatal shooting in Houston in 1998, was the 21st prisoner put to death by lethal injection in Texas this year.

Another three Texas inmates are scheduled to die by lethal injection next week, and five more executions are scheduled in September.

---

A sister of Johnny Ray Conner is consoled after his execution.

[ 23 August 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
So, by all means complain about American injustice. But then let us know what you think about Cuba's even more unfair criminal legal system.

---

And what about Jean-Bertrand Aristide's permanent change of venue all the way to another hemisphere?. It seems even democratically-elected leaders aren't safe with the American CIA KGB'ing the world.

There have been thousands of people abducted around the world by the CIA and just never heard from again or stashed away at Gitmo where lawyers fear to tread except in Hollywood movies.

The truth? You want the truth ? You can't haaandle the truth!!!

[ 23 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

jeff house: You picked the issue of jury trials, and conclude that there may be some argument for limiting jury trials. There isn't really much argument among progressive jurists on that, though. In Canada, there is a Charter right to a jury trial in serious cases.

---

Good for Canada. We're not under siege, however. I wasn't able to find anything from the Cuban perspective on this issue. However, I would agree with you, in regard to Cuba, that trials involving a possible death penalty should allow the choice of a jury trial. That seems pretty common.

quote:

---

However, the Cuban Five's main argument is that the JURY they chose was likely to be too anti-Castro, too anti-Cuba, to be fair.

---

The other very important point was that the specific jury was "frightened and intimidated" by the conduct of the prosecution. That's pretty serious as well.

quote:

---

Fine, except then it is hard to argue that Cuban trials, which are tried before state-appointed judges only, are fairer.

---

I'm not arguing that Cuban trials are fairer. At least, I don't think I am. In any case, you might want to abandon the cold war rhetoric of "state appointed judges". Not only are Canadian judges "state appointed" as well but, perhaps more importantly, there are no non "state-appointed" judges in a country that doesn't have the private practice side in their legal system. Of course an excellent case could be made for robust Ombudspersons in their system, because of that.

quote:

---

It is an extremely rare event when someone is acquitted in Cuba. When I asked babblers about this, someone came up with a SINGLE acquittal, TEN years ago. So, by all means complain about American injustice. But then let us know what you think about Cuba's even more unfair criminal legal system.

---

The Acquittal rate could be the result of a lot of factors and not just the fairness of the Cuban legal system. A lot of spurious or unnecessary prosecutions could be avoided by the Cubans. They may not, in fact, have the same sort of adversarial legal system that we take for granted.

quote:

---

This year, 50,600 local candidate nomination meetings will take place through Sept. 26, an increase of over 9,000 from the 2005 elections. By law, each voting precinct must present a minimum of two and a maximum of eight candidates.

Reus said a unique aspect of the Cuban electoral system is that any citizen of voting age has the right to nominate or be nominated for office.

---

quote:

---

Reus said a unique aspect of the Cuban electoral system is that any citizen of voting age has the right to nominate or be nominated for office.

---

However, it is the duty of the government, whoever forms it, as mandated by the constitution, to continue to build socialism in that country. That's a good thing.

quote:

---

However, it is the duty of the government, whoever forms it, as mandated by the constitution, to continue to build socialism in that country. That's a good thing.

---

There are other methods of insuring the permanence of private property and obsequiousness towards the US than writing them into the constitution. That's the beauty of bourgeois democracy. People believe anything is possible when, in fact, very little is possible outside capitalist orthodoxy without massive mobilization of the citizenry. Just ask Chileans of 1973. Or Guatemalans of 1953. Or Iranians of 1953. Or ...

And, of course, certain people on "the left" are antagonistic to mobilizing the citizenry and preach parliamentary cretinism as the sole means of social improvement.

______________________

But I find that the usual suspects, the Communist-Party-of-Cuba-Is-Perfect group here on babble, will descend far into stupidity to uphold their policy preferences.

So, does the Cuban Constitution demand that the government create "socialism" and name the Communist Party alone as the leading party? Well, they'll tell you that that is JUST fine.

Edited to say, okay, I haven't looked at this thread for days, and just saw Jeff's insults on the TAT page, but now I see others are being rude and snarky too. So how about everyone watch the personal attacks. Sorry for singling you out, Jeff.

[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
That is a complete negation of democracy. The moment that a constitution declares one political party and philosophy to be the only acceptable one - it basically makes any elections into a complete sham.

---

Well, this is rich coming from you, after your support of the undemocratic actions and the subversion of democracy by the CPC, where they were declaring basically their party and philosophy is the only acceptable one and have tried to make our elections a complete sham.
---------------------------
In more Cuban news:

quote:

---

Fidel Castro, the Cuban president, has predicted that Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama will team up to win the 2008 US presidential election.

"The word today is that an apparently unbeatable ticket could be Hillary for president and Obama as her running mate," the ailing leader wrote in an editorial column in Granma, the Cuban Communist Party's newspaper.

Mr Castro, 81, who has outlasted nine US leaders since his 1959 revolution, accused the American presidential candidates of "submission" to his exiled foes in Florida and offered a favourable assessment of only one of the 10 presidents he has known: Jimmy Carter.

Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama called for democratic change in Cuba last week.

---

quote:

---

In the United States, you can have a minimum of votes and still become President. That is what happened to Bush. Having a majority of electoral votes and losing the Presidency is what happened to Gore. For that reason, the State of Florida is the prize everyone aspires to, because of the presidential votes it provides. In the case of Bush, an electoral fraud was also needed; for this, the first Cuban emigrants, who were the Batista supporters and the bourgeois, were best masters.

---

The Cubans were smart enough to avoid the fraud that passes for democracy in the USA. Good on them.

Socialism has to reflect the consensus of the people - not the fact that 50 years ago a band of rebels had more guns than did a band soldiers defending the status quo.

quote:

---

Stockhom: If a majority of Canadians want to socialist revolution, all we have to do is vote for it.

---

Has it ever occurred to you that a majority of the population ought to CHOOSE socialism and that you cannot undemocratically impose it on people who don't want it???

You Communists and Fascists are all the same. Go back and read the stuff that Hitler and Mussolini said in the 30s about the evils of "bourgeois electoralism" etc... it's like they are too lazy to do any door knocking, so they figure why not dispense with these silly inconvenint things called elections and let's just take power by force and arm our political sytem down peoples throats.

both communists and fascists find common ground in the fact that they take the attitude that if they can't win the game and control the outcome by playing by the rules - let's throw away the rules and just take power through armed insurrection - and the will of the people be fucked!

I find that to be pure, unadulterated EVIL.

[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
If a majority of Canadians want to socialist revolution, all we have to do is vote for it.

---

You mean like our conservative superminority federal government propped up by less than 24 percent of eligible voter support in Canada?.

Stockholm, Canada is a large, naturally wealthy country. If any country in the world has enjoyed favourable conditions and to live the cold war promise of prosperity, it's been Canada. In many ways, Canada is the ideal candidate country for a second experiment in neo-Liberal voodoo than was Chile in the 1970's. We've got so many pluses that it would be very hard for the ideology to fail again. And yet, it still doesn't work today any better than it did in 1929 North America or 1985 Chile.

Socialism is impossible without mass mobilization of the population and, that is why, so many so-called "leftists" are so antagonistic to such mobilization. It scares them and reveals undisguised attitudes towards genuine working class government.

I don't think any individuals on babble are evil - but i do think that one party rule and no elections and a police state is an evil form of government.

Maybe rabble ought to consider instituting a policy that demands that anyone who joins must accept freedom of speech, freedom of association, and free elections.

I believe in civil liberties, free elections and freedom of speech and i find that anytime someone expresses the view that we ought to dispense with free elections and have a one party state - it is as offensive to me as having to read an openly racist or homophobic posting.

quote:

---

Socialism is impossible without mass mobilization of the population and, that is why

---

quote:

---

I believe in civil liberties, free elections and freedom of speech

---

___________________

Before this thread is closed, I would like to remind babblers that this October will be the 40th anniversary of the death of Ernesto (Che) Guevara.

Our Che

[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
When I said "you Communists and Fascists" I was grouping the communists in babble with all the fascists in the world who all find common ground in their contempt for parliamentary democracy.

---

quote:

---

Fidel Castro may be alive, he may be dead, he may be one step away from being dead, but one can be assured that he'll go out being as mean to journalists as he ever was. Alberto Santiago Du Bouchet Hernández, a freelance journalist for the Havana Press Agency who served a year behind bars for "civil disobedience" and was released a year ago, was given two years in prison, two years in a work camp, and two years of court supervision after allegedly "illicitly" taking a handkerchief signed by Fidel. Du Bouchet says the hanky was a gift, and that the original recipient of the hanky -- a member of Castro's 26 of July Movement in 1957 -- turned on him.

---

quote:

---

By murdering Che in cold blood and then clandestinely dumping his body, the imperialist gangsters hoped and expected that Che’s physical extermination and hidden bones would be “the end of the story,” that is, the end of Che’s historic political impact and significance.

As they clinked champagne glasses – and this is literally true – in the offices of the National Security Agency of the Lyndon Johnson White House upon hearing confirmation of Che’s death, Washington’s political officers truly thought that Che would be quickly forgotten, at most faintly remembered as a minor historical footnote. How different reality turned out!

It is quite clear that today, 40 years later, the life and example of Ernesto Che Guevara resonates greater than ever with each new generation of youth and working people, particularly throughout the Americas, and with all who understand that a better world is possible and who are ready to fight for it. More than any other figure in contemporary history Ernesto Che Guevara embodies the uncompromising anti-imperialist struggle for social justice, social equality, and national liberation…by any means necessary.

---

So, in answer to Stockholm's rhetorical and spiteful question, go to the offices of the NSA in Washington to celebrate such things. And that's pretty well where enemies of (current) Cuban democracy belong.

Incidently, there are some credible allegations that the Bolivian Communist Party had a role in the betrayal of Che Guevara. So Stockholm's predictable red-baiting is misplaced here; Che was no Communist.

[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Do some research on what Gen. Franco thought of free elections - sounds identical to what our Castro apologists say.

---

Your comparison isn't even close. Franco wasn't even close to being the most popular leader in Spain in 1936.

Franco's fascists were losing war after the 1936 elections, but military support from Hitler, Mussolini, and U.S. corporations which backed Hitler, changed the outcome of the civil war. Mussolini and Hitler sent 6,000 trucks to Franco's fascists, but 12,000 were supplied by Ford, General Motors and Studebaker.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Our Che

---

quote:

---

In January of 1959 I worked under the well known leader of the Purging Commission, Ciro Redondo Column, fortress of La Cabaña. I was a recent law school graduate and had the enthusiasm of one who witnesses his own generation assume power.

. . .

In those days, Guevara was visible in his black beret, cigar in mouth. Cantinflas-like face and bandaged arm in sling . . . Many people congregated in his office and engaged in lively discussions about the revolutionary process. However, his conversation used to be full of irony, he never showed any alteration in temperament or paid any attention to different opinions. He reprimanded in private more than one colleague; in public, he chastised us all: “Don’t delay these trials. This is a revolution, the proofs are secondary. We have to proceed by conviction. They are a gang of criminals and murderers. Besides, remember that there is an Appeals Tribunals”

This Appeals Tribunal never decided in favor of the appeal. It simply confirmed the sentences. It was presided by Commander Ernesto Guevara de la Serna.

. . .

Nevertheless, in La Cabaña, until June of 1959, about six hundred prisoners were executed, plus an indefinite number of prison sentences.

---

[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

So, in answer to Stockholm's rhetorical and spiteful question, go to the offices of the NSA in Washington to celebrate such things. And that's pretty well where enemies of (current) Cuban democracy belong.

---

quote:

---

Nevertheless, in La Cabaña, until June of 1959, about six hundred prisoners were executed, plus an indefinite number of prison sentences.

---

quote:

---

Your comparison isn't even close. Franco wasn't even close to being the most popular leader in Spain in 1936.

---

There are no free elections here. There are staged contests where always, every single time, without exception, the capitalist party wins.

[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

How is this any different from communists refusing to have elections and ruling by force because they also know that they can't win a free election?

---

But Marxists and socialists were part of the Popular Front coalition who won in Spain's 1936 elections. Fascists were the one's who didn't respect those democratic choices not communists. Do you see the weak point you're not making ?.

And socialists won elections thgroughout Latin America during the cold war. And where democracy was not allowed to happen, Marxist and socialist insurgencies threatened civil war to unseat U.S.-backed stooges in Central and South America during the cold war through to today. This is what's been happening and continuing today in case you haven't noticed.

Hitler's thugs stood menacingly over German voters as they cast ballots in 1936 elections as did fascists with Salvadoran elections in the 1980's and 90's. Marxist and socialist opposition didn't actually participate in that country's unfair and unfree elections because their names were on a Salvadoran army hit list!

[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

.. the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

---

quote:

---

But Marxists and socialists were part of the Popular Front coalition who won in Spain's 1936 elections. Fascists were the one's who didn't respect those democratic choices not communists. Do you see the weak point you're not making ?.

---

[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:

You just don't get it do you. Franco overturned a democratic election because he didn't like the results. Similarly, communists are afraid to allow free elections in Cuba because they know they might lose. Ergo Franco and Castro are the same. Both authoritarian dictators ruling by force and refusing the let the people have any say in how they are governed.

---

And I'm saying this ergo logic is entirely disconnected from your original proposition that both communists and fascists loathe democratic choice as per 1936 elections in Spain. Because Marxists and socialists were a part of the popular coalition who won that election! Marxists and socialists were willing participants in democracy in 1936 as well as the civil war to restore democratic choice. Do you see the folly in that comparison now ?.

In fact, just as it was in Spain, U.S. imperialists tried to instigate civil war in Cuba with Bay of Pigs. As it turned out, the Cuban mafia and exiles gave the CIA bad information that Cubans would join them in counter-revolution. Cuban support for the revolution and rejection of U.S. political interference is why the CIA and exiles haven't tried it again since.

[ 29 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]