Cuba @ MindSay 
bush
A Cuban taekwondo athlete and his coach were banned for life after Angel Matos kicked the referee in the face following his bronze-medal match disqualification.
Cuban coach Leudis Gonzalez offered no apology for Matos' actions during the men's over-80 kg (176 pounds) match.
Matos was winning 3-2, with 1:02 in the second round, when he fell to the mat after being hit by his opponent, Kazakhstan's Arman Chilmanov. He was sitting there, awaiting medical attention, when he was disqualified for taking too much injury time. Fighters get one minute, and Matos was disqualified when his time ran out.
Matos angrily questioned the call, pushed a judge, then pushed and kicked referee Chakir Chelbat of Sweden. Matos then spat on the floor and was escorted out.
Seven years after the Bush administration declared its “war on terrorism,” the first trial of an accused terrorist is now underway at Guantanamo Bay. The Gitmo trial involves the new-fangled “judicial” system that the president and the Pentagon put into place after 9/11, without even the semblance of seeking a constitutional amendment. Keep in mind that this is their model of what an ideal judicial system is all about.
The first and foremost thing that one will notice about the Gitmo system is the group of people who are deciding the guilt or innocence of the accused, especially compared to the group of people doing the same thing in the federal judicial system our ancestors brought into existence with the Constitution.
In the judicial system that the Bill of Rights guarantees, the accused has the right to have regular people in the community, chosen at random, to decide his guilt or innocence.
The reason our ancestors expressly guaranteed trial by jury in the Bill of Rights was twofold: First, they understood that this right was essential to a free society and, two, they believed that the federal government would inevitably attract people who hated losing control over federal prosecutions to regular citizens from the community.
Our ancestors’ concerns and beliefs were well-founded. The fact that the president and the Pentagon have established an ideal “judicial” system in Cuba that denies the accused the right of trial by jury is powerful evidence that this is what federal officials would do here in the United States in the absence of a Bill of Rights, especially in drug cases.
Who is deciding the guilt or innocence of the accused in the trials being held at Gitmo? U.S. military officials! And who is bringing the charges against the accused? You got it — the U.S. military! In other words, the same organization that is accusing a person of a crime is also deciding whether the accused is guilty of the crime.
By the way, it’s actually quite appropriate that the president and the Pentagon have set up their ideal “judicial” system in Cuba. Guess who decides the guilt or innocence of accused terrorists, including those with ties to the CIA, on Fidel Castro’s side of Cuba. You got it — Cuban military officials, just like in the model “judicial” system established by the president and the Pentagon on the other side of the island.
As the Gitmo proceedings unfold, Americans are going to have the opportunity to witness what America’s federal judicial system would look like in the absence of the Bill of Rights. Hopefully, the Gitmo spectacle will give the American people a renewed understanding and appreciation for why our ancestors were so determined to secure passage of the Bill of Rights.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
by Jacob G. Hornberger
A rare Gallup poll conducted in 2006 in Havana and Santiago, Cuba, reflect that Cubans have a good grip on reality regarding the two root causes of the horrible economic misery under which they have long been suffering.
The first cause is Cuba’s socialist economic system. According to a New York Times report of the poll, “80 percent said that they backed a market economic system that included the right to own property and run businesses.”
The second cause is the cruel and brutal embargo that the U.S. government has enforced against the Cuban people for almost five decades. According to the Times, “Most Cubans in that survey also attributed their economic woes to the American trade embargo.”
While U.S. officials blame Cuba’s economic woes on socialism and Cuban officials blame Cuba’s economic woes on the embargo, the truth is that they are both right. The Cuban people have had the economic life squeezed out of them by the twin jaws of the vise — Castro’s socialism and the U.S. embargo.
Of all the failures of U.S. foreign policy, the embargo against Cuba must rank among the top. From the very beginning of the embargo, the purpose has been regime change. The idea has long been to squeeze the Cuban people into ousting their president Fidel Castro from power and installing a Cuban puppet who could be controlled by Washington officials.
What is sad about the Cuban embargo is not only the horrible economic damage it has caused the Cuban people but also that the embargo adopted anti-capitalist methods to fight communism and socialism. Some Americans have convinced themselves that the U.S. embargo constitutes economic control on the Cuban people. Not so. The embargo is actually a control on the American people. The embargo places harsh criminal and civil penalties on Americans who travel to Cuba and spend money there.
Freedom of travel and the right to spend one’s own money the way he sees fit are fundamental rights that preexist government. They go to the essence of the inherent and unalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. Yet, with the embargo the American people permitted their federal officials to establish the same type of harsh economic controls on them that Fidel Castro established on the Cuban people.
Was there a better way to fight socialism and communism in Cuba? Absolutely — with freedom. If Americans had not permitted their government officials to impose the Cuban embargo, the American people would have been free to travel into Cuba, talk to people, help Cubans accumulate wealth, and expose Cubans to diverse ideas, especially ideas on liberty. What better way to influence foreigners than to let the American private sector flood into a country? Wouldn’t freedom have been a better way to move Cuba in a positive direction than by fighting socialism with socialism?
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Agence France-Presse
First Posted 10:45:00 02/21/2008
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20080221-120247/Raul-Castro-Cubas-number-two-could-lead-toward-reform
HAVANA -- Interim president Raul Castro looked well placed to ascend to Cuba's helm indefinitely, after his ailing brother Fidel Castro announced this week that he would formally relinquish power after almost 50 years.
But it was still far from certain that Raul Castro would assume the presidency for good -- a decision that will fall within days, at Sunday's National Assembly meeting.
Also in the running for taking over leadership of the communist island are various top officials from Cuba's "younger generation" such as Vice President Carlos Lage, 56, and Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque, 42.
But Raul, 76, remains the odds on favorite.
After decades as defense chief, he emerged a year and a half ago from his 81-year-old brother's shadow to temporarily take the helm of the regime.
The younger Castro brother said last month that Cuba's National Assembly would elect the country's next president on February 24, as speculation began to grow that Fidel Castro might not be its choice for the first time in almost five decades.
The current interim president took over from his elder brother on a "temporary" basis in July 2006 while Fidel Castro recovered from surgery. But Fidel has not been seen in public since his first intestinal operation.
Analysts describe Raul as tough but practical, quiet and low-profile compared to the more charismatic and scholarly Fidel, who is a lawyer by training, famous for a fierce grasp of detail and for stamina allowing him to hold forth for hours on end during public speeches.
As number two in Cuba's Council of State, Raul Castro was constitutionally designated to take over power in case of Fidel's "absence, illness or death."
As minister of defense, he oversees an institution that is primarily designed to defend against a potential US invasion.
From the early days of the Cuban revolution, when he helped organize the insurgency from the rugged mountains of Sierra Maestra, Raul Castro has shaped Cuba's Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR) into a complex institution.
Some Cuba-watchers are not optimistic that Raul Castro can follow in his brother's footsteps for long without the elder Castro's political skills; others argue he has deftly, if quietly, managed the armed forces.
Before the July 31, 2006 announcement of Raul's temporary appointment, Cuba's state-run media sought to build up his public image.
"From the first days of the revolutionary struggle, he has won the historical right to lead the continuation of the process, something that is natural for the Cuban people," Granma, the Communist Party newspaper said.
Raul Castro was born on June 3, 1931, in Biran in the eastern province of Holguin, to a Spanish father, Angel Castro, and a Cuban mother, Lina Ruz.
A student of economics and a member of the Communist Youth Movement, Raul Castro was jailed alongside his brother following their 1953 assault on the Moncada military barracks, in what turned out to be a failed attempt to topple the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista.
After being freed from jail, the two brothers went together to Mexico to prepare the landing of the boat "Granma," loaded with rebels, on Dec. 2, 1956 in Cuba.
When the revolution triumphed in January 1959, Raul Castro became second-in-command.
While managing the military, he has faced considerable challenges, including the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.
Following the dissolution of Cuba's main financial backer, Cuba's military has formed a series of money-churning businesses, including a tourism corporation that runs a domestic airline, hotels, retail outlets and marinas.
He also has played an important role in setting domestic and budgetary policies.
Cuban authorities describe him as a disciplined and energetic leader, and a doting grandfather who likes to climb mountains and go camping.
US analysts and Cuban exiles, however, portray him as a brutal hardliner.
A former US Central Intelligence Agency analyst, Brian Latell, who authored the book "After Fidel," calls Raul "a Stalinist," who is "as brutal or more brutal than Fidel Castro."
Copyright 2008 Agence France-Presse. All rights reserved.
By Congressman Ron Paul
In the name of clamping down on "terrorist uprisings" in Pakistan, General Musharraf has declared a state of emergency and imposed martial law. The true motivations behind this action however, are astonishingly transparent, as the reports come in that mainly lawyers and opposition party members are being arrested and harassed. Supreme Court justices are held in house arrest after indicating some reluctance to certify the legitimacy of Musharraf's recent re-election.
Meanwhile, terrorist threats on US interests may be more likely to originate from Pakistan , a country to which we have sent $10 billion.
Now we are placed in the difficult position of either continuing to support a military dictator who has taken some blatantly un-Democratic courses of action, or withdrawing support and angering this nuclear-capable country. The administration is carefully negotiating this tight-rope by "reviewing Pakistan 's foreign aid package" and asking Musharraf to relinquish his military title and schedule elections.
By the time he complies with the requests of the White House sufficiently to continue to receive his "allowance," courtesy of the American taxpayer, his mission will be accomplished. A more friendly Supreme Court will be installed and enough of the opposition party will be jailed or detained to assure an outcome of the elections that will meet with his approval. All the while, our administration lauds Musharraf as a trusted friend and ally.
So much for a War on Terror. So much for making the world safe for democracy.
Free trade means no sanctions against Iran , or Cuba or anyone else for that matter. Entangling alliances with no one means no foreign aid to Pakistan, or Egypt, or Israel, or anyone else for that matter. If an American citizen determines a foreign country or cause is worthy of their money, let them send it, and encourage their neighbors to send money too, but our government has no authority to use hard-earned American taxpayer dollars to mire us in these nightmarishly complicated, no-win entangling alliances.
When we look at global situations today, the words of our founding fathers are becoming more relevant daily. We need to understand that a simple, humble foreign policy makes us less vulnerable and less targeted on the world stage. Pakistan should not be getting an "allowance" from us and we should not be propping up military dictators that oppress people. We should mind our own business and stop the oppressive taxation of Americans that makes this meddling possible.
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]