Intellectuals condemn execution in cuba. - ... raising the f

[metalero]

well known intellectuals as saramago, chomsky, galeano, zinn put themselves in the same line as washington and the old-right-wing school condemning cuba for the execution of three "dissidents"...

Many critics of Cuba speak of “principles” as if there were only one set of principles applicable to all situations independent of who is involved and what are the consequences. Asserting “principles” like “freedom” for those involved in plotting the overthrow of the Cuban government in complicity with the State Department would turn Cuba into another Chile – where Allende was overthrown by Pinochet – and lead to a reversal of the popular gains of the revolution. There are principles that are more basic than freedom for U.S. Cuban functionaries , that is , national security and popular sovereignty. There is, particularly among the U.S. progressive left, a certain attraction to Third World victims, those who suffer defeats ,and an aversion for successful revolutionaries. It seems that the U.S. progressive intellectuals always find an alibi to avoid a commitment to a revolution. For some it is the old refrain “Stalinism” – if the state plays a major role in the economy; or it can be mass mobilizations – that they dub “plebicitary dictatorships”, or it can be security agencies which successfully prevent terrorist activity which they call a “repressive police state”. Living in the least politicized nation in the world with one of the most servile and corrupt trade union apparatus in the West, with virtually no practical political influence outside a few university towns, the practical intellectuals in the U.S. have no practical knowledge or experience of the everyday threats and violence which hangs over revolutionary governments and activists in Latin America. Their political conceptions, the yardsticks they pull out to condemn or approve of any political activity, exists nowhere except in their heads, in their congenial, progressive, university settings where they enjoy all the privileges of capitalist freedom and none of the risks which Third World revolutionaries have to defend themselves against. A little modesty, dear prestigious, critical, freedom preaching intellectuals. Look deep inside and ask yourself if you would like to be pirated by a Miami-based terrorist organization. Ask yourself if you would enjoy sitting in a café in a major tourist hotel in Havana when a deadly bomb goes off – greetings from the terrorists taking a beer with the President’s brother, Jeb.

[redstar2000]

Chomsky? Zinn? Are you sure??? :o

:cool:

[Larissa]

I'm sorry this is in Spanish, I'll try to look for the English version. This is James Petras' reply to the Intellectuals' opinions on this matter.

Gentileza. Pedro Gellert, Méjico

DE CÓMO ALGUNOS INTELECTUALES DE OCCIDENTE LE HACEN EL JUEGO AL IMPERIALISMO
La responsabilidad de los intelectuales: Cuba, los Estados Unidos y los
derechos humanos.

James Petras| EE.UU.

De nuevo, los intelectuales han decidido intervenir en un debate, esta vez
sobre el imperialismo estadounidense y los derechos humanos en Cuba. “¿Qué
importancia tiene el papel de los intelectuales?”, me pregunté a mí mismo un
soleado sábado por la tarde (el 26 de abril de 2003), mientras paseábamos
por la madrileña Puerta del Sol y el eco de los gritos contra Castro de
varios centenares de manifestantes resonaba en la plaza casi vacía. A pesar
de una docena de artículos y columnas de opinión de conocidos intelectuales
en los principales periódicos de Madrid, de las horas de propaganda en radio
y televisión y del apoyo de burócratas sindicales y jerifaltes de partidos,
sólo acudieron a la convocatoria unos ochocientos manifestantes, la mayor
parte de ellos exiliados cubanos. “Está claro”, me respondí, “que los
intelectuales contrarios a Cuba tienen poco o ningún poder de convocación,
al menos en España”.

Pero la impotencia política de los escritores contrarios a Castro no
significa que los intelectuales en general no representen un papel
importante; tampoco la falta de resonancia popular significa que carezcan de
recursos, sobre todo si cuentan con el apoyo de la máquina guerrera y
propagandística estadounidense, que amplifica y disemina sus palabras en
todo el planeta. Para poder adoptar una decisión en el debate que bulle
entre intelectuales sobre los derechos humanos en Cuba y el imperialismo
estadounidense, vale la pena tomar distancias y considerar el papel de los
intelectuales, el contexto y las principales cuestiones que enmarcan el
conflicto entre los Estados Unidos y Cuba.

El papel de los intelectuales

El papel de los intelectuales consiste en clarificar las cuestiones más
importantes y definir las amenazas a la paz, a la justicia social, a la
independencia nacional y a la libertad en cada período histórico, así como
en identificar y apoyar a los defensores de los mismos principios. Los
intelectuales tienen la responsabilidad de distinguir entre las medidas
defensivas tomadas por países y pueblos sometidos al ataque imperial y los
métodos ofensivos del poder imperial en su campaña de conquista. El
establecimiento de equivalencias morales entre la violencia y la represión
de los países imperiales conquistadores y los del Tercer Mundo sometidos a
ataques militares y terroristas es el colmo de la doblez y de la hipocresía.
Los intelectuales responsables examinan críticamente el contexto político y
analizan las relaciones entre el poder imperial y sus funcionarios locales a
sueldo *los denominados “disidentes”*, en vez de otorgar un fíat moral
basado en sus pocas luces y en sus imperativos políticos.

Los intelectuales comprometidos que pretenden hablar con autoridad moral,
sobre todo los que presentan como garantía su crítica del imperialismo,
tienen la responsabilidad política de desmitificar el poder y el estado y la
manipulación de los medios, sobre todo en lo relativo a la retórica imperial
de violaciones de derechos humanos por parte de estados independientes del
Tercer Mundo. En los últimos tiempos hemos visto cómo demasiados
intelectuales “progresistas” occidentales apoyaban o bien guardaban silencio
ante la destrucción estadounidense de Yugoslavia y la limpieza étnica de más
de 250.000 serbios, gitanos y otra etnias en Kosovo, y se tragaban la
propaganda estadounidense de una “guerra humanitaria”. Todos los
intelectuales de los Estados Unidos (Chomsky, Zinn, Wallerstein etc...)
apoyaron el levantamiento fundamentalista en Afganistán *financiado por el
Pentágono contra el gobierno civil prosoviético, con el pretexto de que la
Unión Soviética había “invadido” el país y los fanáticos fundamentalistas
eran “disidentes” que defendían la “autodeterminación”*, estratagema
propagandística confesada y satisfactoriamente ejecutada por el jactancioso
antiguo consejero de seguridad nacional Zbig Bryzinski. Tanto entonces como
ahora, intelectuales prestigiosos blanden sus cartas credenciales pasadas
como “críticos” de la política exterior estadounidense para prestar
credibilidad a su denuncia poco informada de las presuntas transgresiones
morales cubanas, y comparan la detención en Cuba de funcionarios pagados por
el Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores estadounidense y la ejecución de tres
secuestradores terroristas con los crímenes de guerra del imperialismo
estadounidense. Los practicantes de equivalencias morales aplican un
microscopio a Cuba y un telescopio a Estados Unidos, lo cual les presta una
cierta aceptabilidad entre los sectores liberales del imperio.

Imperativos morales y realidad cubana: la moralidad como falta de honradez

Los intelectuales están divididos en lo relativo al conflicto entre los
Estados Unidos y Cuba: Benedetti, Sastre, Petras, Sánchez-Vázquez, Pablo
González Casanova y muchos otros defienden a Cuba; los intelectuales de la
derecha, entre ellos Vargas Llosa, Savater y Carlos Fuentes, como era de
esperar, han publicado sus diatribas habituales contra Cuba, y un pequeño
ejército de intelectuales asimismo progresistas *Chomsky, Saramago, Galeano,
Sontag, Zinn y Wallerstein* se ha unido el coro de condenas, agitando sus
posiciones críticas anteriores en un esfuerzo por distinguirse tanto de los
opositores de la derecha como de los cubanos a sueldo. Es este último grupo
de “progresistas” el que le ha causado mayor daño al floreciente movimiento
antiimperialista y estas líneas críticas van dirigidas a ellos.

La moralidad basada en la propaganda es una mezcla mortal *en particular
cuando los juicios morales provienen de prestigiosos intelectuales
izquierdistas y la propaganda emana de la administración ultraderechista de
Bush.

Muchos de los críticos “progresistas” de Cuba reconocen, de pasada y en
términos generales, que los Estados Unidos han sido un agresor hostil contra
la isla, por lo que “generosamente” le conceden a este país el derecho a la
autodeterminación, pero luego se lanzan a una serie de acusaciones
infundadas y de falsificaciones desprovistas de cualquier contexto especial
que hubiera podido servir para clarificar las cuestiones y proporcionar una
base razonada a... “los imperativos morales”.

Lo mejor es empezar por los hechos más fundamentales. Los críticos de la
izquierda, sobre la base del etiquetado del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores
estadounidense, denuncian la represión del gobierno cubano de individuos,
disidentes, periodistas, dueños de bibliotecas privadas y miembros de
partidos políticos implicados en actividades políticas no violentas que
intentan ejercer sus derechos democráticos. Lo que los “progresistas” no
pueden o no quieren reconocer es que los detenidos eran funcionarios a
sueldo del gobierno estadounidense. Según la Agencia de Desarrollo
Internacional (AID), que es la principal agencia federal de subvenciones y
préstamos para la implementación de la política exterior estadounidense, el
Programa USAID destinado a Cuba (resultante de la ley Helms-Burton de 1996)
ha canalizado desde 1997 más de 8,5 millones de dólares US a los opositores
cubanos del régimen de Castro, destinados a publicaciones, encuentros y
propaganda favorable al derrocamiento del gobierno cubano, en coordinación
con ONG, universidades, fundaciones y otros grupos (véase Profile of the
USAID Cuba Program, en el sitio web de AID). El programa U.S.AID, a
diferencia de su estilo habitual, no envía los pagos al gobierno de Cuba,
sino a su clientela cubana de “disidentes”. Los criterios para la
financiación son meridianos: todo aquel que desee recibir pagos y
subvenciones debe haber manifestado un claro compromiso favorable al “cambio
de régimen”, propiciado por los Estados Unidos, hacia el “mercado libre” y
la “democracia”, sin duda similar a la dictadura colonial estadounidense en
Irak. La ley Helms-Burton, el Programa U.S.AID, los funcionarios cubanos a
sueldo y el manifiesto progresista de los intelectuales “condenan la falta
de libertad, el encarcelamiento de disidentes inocentes, y piden un cambio
democrático de régimen en Cuba”. Se trata de extrañas coincidencias que
requieren un análisis. Los periodistas cubanos que han recibido 280.000
dólares de Cuba Free Press no son disidentes, sino funcionarios a sueldo.
Los grupos de “derechos humanos” cubanos, que recibieron 775.000 dólares de
la tapadera de la CIA “Freedom House”, no son disidentes, dado que su misión
consiste en promover la “transición” (el derrocamiento) del régimen cubano.
La lista de subvenciones y pagos a “disidentes” (funcionarios) cubanos por
parte del gobierno estadounidense es larga y detallada y accesible a todos
los críticos progresistas morales. Lo que debe contar es que los opositores
encarcelados por el gobierno cubano eran funcionarios a sueldo del gobierno
estadounidense, pagados para poner en práctica los objetivos de la ley
Helms-Burton según los criterios del U.S.AID y bajo la dirección de James
Cason, el jefe de la Sección de la US Interest Section en La Habana. Entre
el 2 de septiembre de 2002 y marzo de 2003, Cason mantuvo docenas de
reuniones con sus “disidentes” cubanos, tanto en su casa como en su oficina,
para darles instrucciones y directrices sobre qué escribir y cómo reclutar,
mientras que pronunciaba arengas públicas contra el gobierno cubano, de
manera muy poco diplomática. USAID proporcionó a los funcionarios cubanos a
sueldo de Washington equipos de comunicación electrónica, libros y otros
materiales de propaganda, así como dinero para financiar “sindicatos”
favorables a los Estados Unidos a través de la tapadera denominada “American
Center for International Labor Solidarity”. No se trata de bienintencionados
“disidentes” que desconocen quién les paga y cuál es su papel como agentes
imperiales, puesto que el informe de USAID (en la sección titulada “The US
Institutional Context”) señala que el Programa de Cuba está financiado a
través del Fondo de Apoyo Económico, cuyo objetivo consiste en apoyar los
intereses económicos y de política exterior de los Estados Unidos mediante
ayudas financieras a aliados [sic] y a países en transición hacia la
democracia”.

Ningún país del mundo tolera o etiqueta de “disidentes” a aquellos entre sus
ciudadanos que están a sueldo y trabajan para promover los intereses
imperiales de un poder extranjero. Esto es sobre todo verdad en los Estados
Unidos, donde el apartado 18 de la sección 951 del U.S. Code establece que
“cualquiera que dentro de los Estados Unidos acepte trabajar bajo la
dirección o el control de un gobierno o funcionario extranjero podrá ser
sometido a procesamiento penal y una condena de diez años cárcel”. Salvo
que, desde luego, esté inscrito como agente extranjero a sueldo o trabaje
para el gobierno israelí.

Los intelectuales “progresistas” estadounidenses han abdicado de sus
responsabilidades como analistas y críticos y aceptan sin poner en
entredicho que el Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores de los Estados Unidos
califique a sus funcionarios a sueldo de disidentes que luchan por la
“libertad”.

Algunos defensores de los agentes-disidentes protestan porque estos
funcionarios fueron condenados a “sentencias escandalosamente largas”. De
nuevo, la miopía empírica da lugar a moralizaciones mendaces. Cuba se halla
en pie de guerra. El gobierno de Bush ha declarado que el país está en la
lista de objetivos militares susceptibles de invasión y de destrucción
masiva. Y, por si acaso nuestros intelectuales moralistas no están al
corriente, Bush, Rumsfeld y los halcones sionistas de la Administración
cumplen lo que dicen. La total falta de seriedad de Chomsky, Zinn, Sontag y
los dictados morales de Wallerstein se deben a que no logran reconocer la
amenaza inminente de una guerra estadounidense con armas de destrucción
masiva, anunciada por adelantado. Esto resulta particularmente oneroso si
consideramos que muchos de los detractores de Cuba viven en los Estados
Unidos, leen la prensa estadounidense y son conscientes de hasta qué punto a
las declaraciones militaristas suelen seguir acciones genocidas. Pero a
nuestros moralistas no les preocupa el contexto ni las amenazas inmediatas o
futuras contra Cuba, pues prefieren ignorar todo para demostrarle al
Departamento de Estado que no sólo se oponen a la política exterior
estadounidense, sino que también condenan a cada país, sistema o líder
independiente que se oponga a los Estados Unidos. En otras palabras, señor
Ashcroft, cuando castigue usted a los “apólogos” del “terror” cubano,
recuerde que nosotros somos diferentes, también condenamos a Cuba y también
exigimos un cambio de régimen.

Los críticos de Cuba no hacen caso de que los Estados Unidos han puesto en
marcha una estrategia politicomilitar de dos vertientes, con el objetivo de
controlar el país. Washington proporciona asilo a piratas del aire, hace
todo lo posible para desestabilizar la economía turística de Cuba y trabaja
estrechamente con la terrorista Cuban American Foundation en sus intentos de
asesinato de líderes cubanos. Hay nuevas bases estadounidenses en la
República Dominicana, Colombia y El Salvador y un campo de concentración
cada vez mayor en Guantánamo, y todo ello con el objetivo de facilitar una
invasión. El embargo estadounidense es cada vez más intenso, con el apoyo de
los regímenes derechistas de Berlusconi en Italia y de Aznar en España. La
actividad agresiva y abiertamente política de James Cason, de la Interest
Section, similar a la de sus seguidores cubanos entre los
funcionarios-disidentes, forma parte de la estrategia interior diseñada para
minar la lealtad cubana hacia el régimen y la revolución. Nuestros
prestigiosos críticos intelectuales han decidido ignorar la conexión
existente entre ambas tácticas y su convergencia estratégica, pues prefieren
darse el lujo de emitir prédicas morales sobre la libertad en todas partes y
para todos, incluso cuando un Washington psicópata coloca el cuchillo en la
garganta de Cuba. No, gracias, señores Chomsky, Sontag y Wallerstein, Cuba
actúa con toda la razón cuando les pega a sus atacantes una patada en las
pelotas y los envía a que se ganen honradamente la vida cortando caña.

La pena de muerte para los tres terroristas que secuestraron un bote es un
duro tratamiento, pero igual de dura era la amenaza que pesó sobre las vidas
de cuarenta pasajeros cubanos que afrontaron la muerte a manos de los
secuestradores. De nuevo, nuestros moralistas olvidan hablar de los actos
temerarios de piratería aérea y de otros complots descubiertos a tiempo. Los
moralistas no logran entender por qué estos terroristas desesperados buscan
escapar de Cuba de manera ilegal. La Administración de Bush ha eliminado
prácticamente el programa de visados para emigrantes cubanos que deseen
marcharse. Los visados han disminuido desde 9000 durante los cuatro primeros
meses de 2002 a 700 en 2003. Se trata de una táctica sutil para alentar
actos terroristas en Cuba y luego denunciar las duras sentencias, que a su
vez hacen cantar el coro de los que dicen sí en el rincón del amén de la
progresía intelectual estadounidense y europea. ¿Es simplemente ignorancia
lo que hay tras estas declaraciones morales contra Cuba o es algo más, un
chantaje moral destinado a obligar a sus colegas cubanos a rebelarse contra
su régimen, su gente, so pena de afrontar el oprobio de intelectuales
prestigiosos y de verse todavía más aislados y estigmatizados como “apólogos
de Castro”? Por un lado están las amenazas explícitas de Saramago de
abandonar a sus amigos cubanos y de abrazar la causa de los funcionarios a
sueldo de los Estados Unidos. Por el otro, las amenazas implícitas de no
volver a Cuba y de boicotear sus conferencias. ¿Es una cobardía moral el
salir en defensa del imperio y meterse con Cuba justo cuando ésta se
enfrenta a una amenaza de destrucción masiva por haber encarcelado agentes a
sueldo, decisión que cualquier país del mundo hubiera tomado? Lo que resulta
francamente vergonzoso es que hagan caso omiso de los enormes logros de la
revolución cubana en el empleo, la educación, la salud y la igualdad, de su
heroica oposición, basada en los principios, a las guerras imperiales *Cuba
es el único país que lo dice claramente* y de su capacidad de resistir casi
cincuenta años de invasiones. ¡¡Eso no cuenta nada para los intelectuales
estadounidenses, eso es escandaloso!! La actitud de los intelectuales es una
desgracia, una marcha atrás en busca de respetabilidad después de haberse
“atrevido” a oponerse a la guerra estadounidense junto con otros treinta
millones de personas en el mundo. Éste no es el momento de “equilibrar” las
cosas condenando Cuba, pidiendo un cambio de régimen o apoyando la causa de
los funcionarios-disidentes cubanos “adictos al “mercado”.

Vale la pena recordar que los mismos intelectuales progresistas apoyaron a
“disidentes” financiados por Soros y por el Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores
de los Estados Unidos en la Europa del Este y en la Unión Soviética. Los
“disidentes” entregaron el país a la mafia rusa, tras lo cual la esperanza
de la vida disminuyó cinco años (más de 10 millones de rusos murieron de
forma prematura tras la ruina del sistema sanitario nacional), mientras que
en Europa Oriental los “disidentes” cerraron los astilleros de Gdansk,
ingresaron en la OTAN y proporcionaron mercenarios para la conquista
estadounidense de Irak. Brilla por su ausencia entre estos partidarios
actuales de los “disidentes” cubanos cualquier reflexión crítica sobre los
resultados catastróficos de sus diatribas anticomunistas y de sus
manifiestos a favor de los “disidentes” que hoy son soldados del imperio
estadounidense en Oriente Próximo y en la Europa central. Nuestros
moralistas estadounidenses no han reflexionado nunca *lo repito, nunca* de
manera crítica sobre sus fracasos morales pasados o presentes, ya que, mire
usted, están a favor de la “libertad en todas partes”, incluso cuando la
gente “equivocada” toma el poder y el “otro” imperio lo asume y millones de
seres mueren de enfermedades curables y florecen las redes de esclavitud
blanca. Su respuesta es siempre la misma: “Esto no es que queríamos,
deseábamos una sociedad libre, justa e independiente, pero cuando exigíamos
un cambio de régimen y apoyábamos a los disidentes nunca sospechamos que el
imperio se quedaría con todo, se convertiría en la única superpotencia y de
dedicaría a colonizar el mundo”.

Los intelectuales moralistas deben aceptar la responsabilidad política de
las consecuencias sin esconderse tras tópicos morales abstractos, ni en el
caso de su complicidad pasada con el auge de imperio ni en el de sus
escandalosas declaraciones actuales contra Cuba. No pueden alegar que
desconocen las repercusiones de lo que dicen y de lo que hacen. No pueden
pretender inocencia después de todo lo que han visto, han leído y han
escuchado sobre los proyectos estadounidenses de guerra contra Cuba.

La autora y promotora principal de la declaración anticubana en los Estados
Unidos (firmada por Chomsky, Zinn y Wallerstein) es Joanne Landy, que se
declara “socialista democrática” y que desde hace cuarenta años aboga por el
derrocamiento violento del gobierno cubano. En la actualidad es miembro del
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), una de las principales instituciones que
desde hace medio siglo han asesorado al gobierno estadounidense en política
imperial. Landy apoyó públicamente la invasión estadounidense de Afganistán
y de Yugoslavia, así como a la organización terrorista albanesa KLA,
responsable del asesinato de dos mil serbios y de la limpieza étnica de
cientos de miles de serbios y otros grupos en Kosovo. No sorprende en
absoluto que la declaración escrita por esta camaleónica extremista de
derecha no contenga mención alguna a los logros sociales de Cuba y a su
oposición frente al imperialismo. Preciso es señalar, además, que a lo largo
de su ascensión a posiciones influyentes en el CFR, Landy fue una opositora
visceral de la revolución china, de la vietnamita y de otras revoluciones
sociales.

Por mucho que se jacten de su conciencia crítica, los intelectuales
“progresistas” han pasado por alto la indeseable política de la autora que
promovió la diatriba contra Cuba.


El papel del intelectual en la actualidad

Muchos críticos de Cuba hablan de “principios” como si fuesen algo único y
aplicable a todas las situaciones, con independencia de quién esté implicado
y de las consecuencias. La aplicación de “principios” como el de la
“libertad” a los responsabilizados de la planificación del derrocamiento del
gobierno cubano en complicidad con el Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores de
los Estados Unidos convertiría a Cuba en otro Chile *donde Allende fue
derrocado por Pinochet* y conduciría a una inversión de las ventajas
populares de la revolución. Hay principios más básicos que la libertad para
funcionarios cubanos a sueldo del imperio, y son la seguridad nacional y la
soberanía popular. Existe una cierta atracción, sobre todo entre la
izquierda progresista estadounidense, por las víctimas del Tercer Mundo, por
quienes sufren derrotas, así como una aversión por los revolucionarios que
tienen éxito. Al parecer, los intelectuales estadounidenses progresistas
siempre encuentran una coartada para evitar comprometerse con la revolución.
Si el estado juega un papel importante en la economía o tienen lugar
movilizaciones de masas, sacan el viejo estribillo del “estalinismo” y
hablan de “dictaduras plebiscitarias”; y si las agencias de seguridad
previenen satisfactoriamente la actividad terrorista, hablan de “estado
policiaco represor”. El hecho de vivir en la nación menos politizada de la
tierra, con uno de los aparatos sindicales más serviles y corruptos de
Occidente y sin ninguna influencia política fuera de los campus
universitarios, hace que los intelectuales de los Estados Unidos no tengan
ningún conocimiento práctico o experiencia de las amenazas cotidianas y de
la violencia que pende sobre los gobiernos revolucionarios y sobre los
activistas en América Latina. Sus conceptos políticos, los criterios que
esgrimen para condenar o aprobar cualquier actividad política, no existen en
ninguna parte excepto en sus cabezas, en su agradable y progresista entorno
universitario, donde disfrutan de todos los privilegios de la libertad
capitalista y no corren ninguno de los riesgos contra los que los
revolucionarios del Tercer Mundo deben defenderse. Un poco de modestia,
queridos intelectuales prestigiosos, críticos y predicadores de libertad.
Hagan introspección y pregúntense si les gustaría caer en manos de una
organización terrorista con sede en Miami. Pregúntense si les resultaría
agradable estar sentados en el café de uno de los principales hoteles
turísticos de La Habana y que de pronto estallara una bomba, un regalito de
los terroristas que toman cerveza con Jeb, el hermano del Presidente.
Piensen en lo que es la vida en un país que está en el número uno de la
lista negra del régimen imperial más violento que ha existido desde la
Alemania nazi. Si lo hacen, quizá sus sensibilidades morales atenuarían sus
condenas de la política de seguridad cubana y podrían contextualizar sus
escrúpulos morales.

Quiero concluir estas líneas estableciendo mis propios “imperativos
morales”, dedicados a los intelectuales críticos.

1. * El primer deber de los intelectuales de Europa y de América consiste en
oponerse a sus propios dirigentes imperiales que pretenden conquistar el mundo.

2. * *El segundo deber consiste en clarificar las cuestiones morales
implicadas en la lucha entre militaristas imperiales y la resistencia
popular/nacional y en rechazar la postura hipócrita que compara el terror de
masas del uno con las restricciones justificadas y a veces excesivas de
seguridad del otro.

3. * *El intelectual crítico debe establecer normas de integridad política y
personal con respecto a los hechos y cuestiones antes de emitir juicios
morales.

4. * *El intelectual crítico debe resistir a la tentación de convertirse en
“héroe moral del imperio” por el hecho de negarse a apoyar las luchas
victoriosas populares y los regímenes revolucionarios, que no son perfectos
y que carecen de todas las libertades puestas a la disposición de los
intelectuales impotentes e incapaces de amenazar al poder (que, por eso
mismo, gozan del derecho de reunión, de discusión y de crítica).

5. * *El intelectual crítico debe negarse a ser el juez, el fiscal y el
jurado que condena a los progresistas que tienen el coraje de defender a los
revolucionarios. El ejemplo más ridículo de esto ha sido el burdo ataque de
Susan Sontag contra el novelista y premio Nobel colombiano Gabriel García
Márquez, al que acusó de falta de integridad y de ser un apólogo del terror
cubano [sic]. Sontag profirió su acusaciones difamatorias en Bogotá
(Colombia). Las brigadas de la muerte colombianas, que trabajan con el
régimen y con los militares, han matado a más sindicalistas y periodistas
que en cualquier lugar en el mundo, y lo hacen por mucho menos que por ser
“un apólogo” del régimen de Castro. Se trata de la misma Sontag que fue
partidaria entusiasta de la invasión imperial estadounidense y del bombardeo
de Yugoslavia, apóloga del régimen fundamentalista bosnio y testigo
silenciosa de la matanza y de las limpiezas étnicas de serbios y otras
etnias en Kosovo. ¡Menuda integridad moral! El inestimable sentido de
superioridad que poseen los intelectuales de Nueva York hace que Sontag
pueda señalar con el dedo a García Márquez y se quede convencida de que ha
hecho una gran declaración moral.

6. * *Los intelectuales de Europa y de los Estados Unidos no deberían
confundir su propia inutilidad política y su posición inconsecuente con las
de sus colegas los intelectuales comprometidos latinoamericanos. Hay lugar
para el diálogo constructivo y el debate, pero nunca para los ataques
personales ofensivos contra individuos que viven amenazados a diario.

A los intelectuales críticos les resulta fácil ser “amigos de Cuba” en los
buenos tiempos de celebraciones, cuando los invitan a dar conferencias Es
mucho más difícil ser “amigo de Cuba” cuando un imperio totalitario amenaza
a la isla heroica y pone sus pesadas manos sobre los defensores.

Es en tiempos como los actuales *con guerras permanentes, genocidios y
agresiones militares*, cuando Cuba necesita la solidaridad de los
intelectuales críticos, solidaridad que está recibiendo de todas partes de
Europa y, en particular, de América Latina. Ya va siendo hora de que
nosotros, en los Estados Unidos, con nuestros ilustres y prestigiosos
intelectuales progresistas, de sensibilidades morales majestuosas,
reconozcamos que hay una revolución vital, heroica, que lucha para
defenderse contra el gigante del norte y, modestamente, dejemos de lado
nuestras importantes declaraciones, apoyemos esa revolución y nos unamos al
millón de cubanos que acaban de celebrar el 1 de mayo con su líder, Fidel
Castro.

Tomado de Rebelión.
*


(Edited by Larissa at 12:52 pm on May 11, 2003)

[Urban Rubble]

I think if Castro wasn't so quick to send people off to the firing squads it might help our cause just a little. People hear about that and they automatically think "Oh, another dictator killing people, fucking communism". He should just send them out to them Isle of Pines for a few years, or decades.

[CubanFox]

I support Fidel. Let it be known that if you try to hijack ships, you die.

[Donut Master]

It would be exactly like Chomsky and Zinn to oppose the recent executions, and I would agree with that stance myself. We can't have the death penalty in a truely communist state. Cuba should have locked these terrorists up for life, capital punishment is barbaric and unecessary. It doesn't matter how many virtues the Cuban government may have, I won't overlook the flaws just because they are outnumbered by the pros.

[Severian]

Here's the statement signed by Chomsky, Zinn, and others. (http://home.igc.org/~jlandy/cpd/antiwar/cuba_stmt.html)

In its first paragraph it says "We condemn the arrests of scores of opponents of the Cuban government for their nonviolent political activities," which is just plain false, they were arrested on charges of being paid agents of Washington, not for their ideas, statements, writings, etc. It goes downhill from there.

As for the executions of the hijackers, one can agree or disagree, and no doubt there are many honest supporters of the revolution who are opposed to executions, period.

But to "condemn" them without making any mention of Washinton's role in encouraging hijackings and illegal departures, the Cuban Adjustment Act the fact that Washington has only granted 550 visas in the last 5 months even though they are obligated to grant 20,000 a year under their migration agreement with Cuba, the fact of repeated recent hijackings, the fact that a number of the hijacked planes have been seized and will not be returned, the refusal to extradite or seriously punish hijackers, or the fact that a number of recent hijackers are walking the streets of Miami...

That is, without showing any awareness of the situation that impels Cuba to take this action. That is joining Washington's propaganda campaign. The writers of the statement disagree with Washington's methods - such as the embargo - but agree with its stated goal of "democratic change" which, let's face it, is a code phrase for bourgeois democracy.

And what's up with a statement that mentions the execution of hijackers and the imprisonment of "dissidents" in the same breath? What do the two have to do with each other? When was the last time someone was executed for a political crime in Cuba?

By mentioning them in many repetitions side-by-side, however, the impression is built up that Cuba does execute "dissidents", just as mentioning Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden together again and again has produced the impression in many people's minds that the two are somehow linked. It's a classic misleading propaganda technique.

But then, there was never any reason to think that Chomsky, for example, was a supporter of the Cuban revolution, and he predicted its imminent downfall a decade ago.

[jjack]

Quote: from Urban Rubble on 8:23 pm on May 11, 2003
I think if Castro wasn't so quick to send people off to the firing squads it might help our cause just a little.

I think there are two important things to remember in this case. First of all, "Castro", or more realisticly the Cuban government, aren't quick to send people off to the firing squads. I believe that, prior to these executions, the death penalty hadn't been used for years, almost a decade even.

Second, these weren't dissidents. They were terrorists. The only oppressive structure they fought against was the one that says it's not appropriate to threaten people's lives if you don't get what you want.

[YKTMX]

For supporters of Cuba, what would you say to defend the concentration centres for gay people, the prostitution, the poverty, the lack of democracy. Fidel had created nothing even approaching socialism in his own country, he is just using the same philosphies as America in terms of national security, attacking political opponents etc etc. If he wants to be vindicated, he should do more to improve the lot of oridnary cubans and stop building fucking hotels for western tourists.

[Donut Master]

I am still against capital punishment in Cuba, although I do see many problems with this statement, now that I have read it. I basically agree with what Severian said.

[Umoja]

Capital Punishment should never be supported, and most modern "free" nations have either banned it, or kept it but restricted it so much that it's nearly banned. I don't think it's wise for anyone in the entire leftist spectrum anywhere in the world, to support Cuba just because it's Cuba.

[sc4r]

Its really simple. Cuban socialism survives because it takes a fairly hard line against the attempts at sabotage that Rioght wing America and CANF throw at it.

Multiple other basically socialist popular governments have come to power in Latin America, but in nearly every case they have been disrupted and eventually overthrown by sabateurs and terorists working from within.

OK the fact that Cuba is an island helps, but make no mistake if cuba goes soft on terrorists it too will succumb.

Liberals tend to oppose the death penalty completely and on principle. I dont, there is no reason to put the lives of these individuals who have threatened the lives of others and threatened society itself on such a pedestal.

Comsky, Zinn et al are being consistent in condemning the executions, they condemn all death penalties. These people live soft well protected lives. They may be humane and considerably more insightful than many others in the same system, but they do not empathise with the difficulty of maintaining a Socialist state in the face of the opposition such states face.

Socialism is not about being nice to everybody. It is about demanding human dignity and fair treatment and about forcing a very reluctant elite to give up their perquisites. They are not going to volunteer to do this , or volunteer to accept democratic decision. They are lucky to be given a chance to abide by Cuban rules; if they wont do so then harsh measures are a regrettable neccessity.

A pure heart may be a socialist asset. In the current world order a soft one is not.

[metalero]

i think there´s nothing wrong with opposing the death penalty. in the past 12 months, according to intl amnesty there have more than 1000 executions in the world, but none of them have caused more scandal than these three in Cuba. what the "progressive intellectuals" failed to acknowledge (or ignore) is that these "dissidents" where paid agents who were kidnapping with guns a boat full of people, including children. this was one of many other attempts of kidnapping and sabotaging than in other cases have caused the dead of innocent civilians, it´s an effort from washington and the cuban mafia in miami to create chaos, another attempt to isolate politically the island. why these intellectuals didnt speak when putin send to kill the chechen rebels and caused the dead of more than 100 hostages in the recent kidnapping of a theather? or when guerrillas kidnapped the japanese embassy in peru and the army entered by force and executed the guerrillas captured inside the building? or when bush while gobernor of texas excuted more than a 100 people including women, a minor and a menatlly disabled? Cuba has assumed UN resolutions that prohibits the death to woman and minors. these terrorist had open trial with defense in cuba, and the judicial prcedures where held as written in cuba penal code. why these intellectuals dind´t wait for the cuban governement to explain the situation? why they lauchend instant accusations, if they already know the economical, political and armed hostilities to which cuba have been subdued? Castro himself, in the recent interview (found at pagina/12.com) admitted that it was a harsh decision that would cause moral sadness among many friends of the revolution and even cuban citizens and members of the goverment who share a same humanistic view on the death penalty. but one different thing is to pretend that a revolution stays quiet while is attacked by terrorist, as also is that these intellectuals follow instantly the propaganda of the burgois media.

[Harmless Games]

I agree with Donut, we cannot overlook the con's of this goverment just because they are all that is left of our Social revolution. Capital Punishment is wrong, but this story has also been blown very baddly out of proportion by the U$ Goverment. I dont know quite where i stand yet.

[canikickit]

I'm against the right of a government to kill a person, be it their citizen or not. I am fully in favour of harsh recriminations against these individuals.
Throw them in jail for a couple of decades. Better yet, send them to work in the kitchens of a foreign embassy.

[redstar2000]

Frankly, I find it appalling that Chomsky and Zinn signed this piece of crap; one can only assume that it was some sort of "clever" maneuver to "enhance" the credibility of their criticisms of U.S. imperialism.

If that was the case, it was, like most "clever" maneuvers, just incredibly stupid. The American media will, as always, ignore their criticisms of United States policy while giving massive publicity to their "solidarity" with pro-capitalist "dissidents" and executed terrorists.

So what was it? A strategic career move? Advancing senility? Hired testimony?

I know, it doesn't really matter all that much. They fucked up, major league...and the reason is essentially irrelevant.

It's just disappointing to me personally to see two guys I had a lot of respect for behave no better than some servile lacky at the Washington Post or The New York Times.

This doesn't invalidate the worthy things they have done in the past, but it certainly casts a deep shadow over anything they may ever say again.

It's a damn shame.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:40 pm on May 12, 2003)

[sc4r]

I agree redstar. With most of it anyway.

Chompsky, Zinn et al are bleeding heart liberals. They would like to see all the worlds wrongs put right by the power of the pen. They genuinely think that they can do it. They are wrong in my view.

They are also subjected to all the propaganda and hysteria that goes on in the west about Cuba. They can buy into criticisn a sodt target as easily as anyone else. However I suspect that they also criiticised all of the things you metioned, these criticisms were not, however, much published. The right, who profess to despise these people, suddenly become near acolytes whenever they say anything they would like said.

A question for all those so worked up about this. Exactly why do you see the death penalty as so completely revileable under all circumstances ? Because causing the death of another human being is so detestabale ? If so look elsewhere - there are a billion other cases awaiting your attention ahead of these ones.

[Donut Master]

Why does it have to be "all or nothing" when it comes to agreeing with Cuban policy? Why can't we take it issue by issue? There are many things about the Cuban government I agree with, as well as things I don't, of which capital punishment is one.

I recognize this has been blown WAY out of proportion by the U.S. media, considering that the U.S. conducts far more executions than Cuba ever will, and it's measures to protect "national security" have led to a serious supression of civil liberties that dwarfs anything Cuba has done recently when the two countries are compared.

This doesn't change the fact that I am still against the death penalty. It has no place in a humane, socialist system.

I have said before that I dissaprove of that statement signed by Chomsky and Zinn. Why they signed it, I am unsure, but it was a rather stupid move. They didn't have to sign this trashy spew of anti-Cuban propaganda just to express their anti-death penalty views, so I am guessing they did it for political reasons, as Redstar hypothesized. Regardless, I still have great respect for them.

[WUOrevolt]

Cuba should not have the death penalty or should it arrest political opponents of the revolutionary government. Castro has a bad reputation among me and my fellow communists for doing that. I am 100% against the death penalty and censorship. They are both right-winged ideas

[Severian]

I'd say Chomsky and Zinn signed it because they agreed with it. It's in line with Chomsky's overall politics, at least, I know less about Zinn's.

I agree with one of Donut Master's points: one does not automatically have to agree with everything that Cuba does, and it is possible to express disagreement on particular actions while continuing to support the revolution.

Incidentally, Castro acknowledged this in a recent speech, including that there are Cuban supporters of the revolution who don't agree with this decision.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Donut Master on 1:30 am on May 14, 2003
Why does it have to be "all or nothing" when it comes to agreeing with Cuban policy?

It doesn't. But there is pschological trick at work here which makes it very dangerous to indulge in expressing disapproval. Its a trick western governments want you to fall for and its very very insidious.

Cuba is under great pressure and permanent attack. It requires a quite fantastic degree of dedication for it to survive. Every small weakening of resolve or expression of distaste makes it a little easier for the west to sustain the attack and a little easier to persuade you that maybe it would not be a bad thing to see it go, or change a little. CANF would love to see its operatives allowed a freer reign to carry out its purpose.

Even in this header we can see it. What are you opposed to? Cuba having the death penalty ? or the death penalty? If its the latter there are literally hundreds of nations who would be ahead of Cuba for Criticism. But what you will say is 'I'm opposed to the death penalty in Cuba'. Which easily translates to some as 'I'm actually opposed to Cuba , at least a little'. And so it goes, steadily by degrees your resolve weakens. Soon it would be 'I'm opposed to the laws restricting capitalist propaganda'; then 'more representative democracy would be good'; then ' there should be a many party system'.

When a nation is established and secure it can afford the luxury of having its supporters criticise its details. When it is precarious like Cuba it cannot.

By all means retain your opposition to the death penalty. But keep quite about your disapproval for its use in Cuba at least until Cuba makes the top ten of nations which use it. You only have so much time for protest. Dont waste that time protesting about a minor offender particularly when the minor offender can ill afford any opposition and does not need its supporters adding in even a small way to the clamour of its opponents.

Cuba is not perfect, It could be a great deal more perfect though if it did not have to worry so much about survival against nations which are far less perfect. It cannot become perfect and survive today. Think about the best that can be achieved and how to improve what is being achieved - that (sensible) course is not furthered by engaging in even restrained Cuba Bashing.

(Edited by sc4r at 2:41 pm on May 14, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quote: from sc4r on 2:34 pm on May 14, 2003

Quote: from Donut Master on 1:30 am on May 14, 2003
Why does it have to be "all or nothing" when it comes to agreeing with Cuban policy?

It doesn't. But there is pschological trick at work here which makes it very dangerous to indulge in expressing disapproval. Its a trick western governments want you to fall for and its very very insidious.

Cuba is under great pressure and permanent attack. It requires a quite fantastic degree of dedication for it to survive. Every small weakening of resolve or expression of distaste makes it a little easier for the west to sustain the attack and a little easier to persuade you that maybe it would not be a bad thing to see it go, or change a little. CANF would love to see its operatives allowed a freer reign to carry out its purpose.

Even in this header we can see it. What are you opposed to? Cuba having the death penalty ? or the death penalty? If its the latter there are literally hundreds of nations who would be ahead of Cuba for Criticism. But what you will say is 'I'm opposed to the death penalty in Cuba'. Which easily translates to some as 'I'm actually opposed to Cuba , at least a little'. And so it goes, steadily by degrees your resolve weakens. Soon it would be 'I'm opposed to the laws restricting capitalist propaganda'; then 'more representative democracy would be good'; then ' there should be a many party system'.

When a nation is established and secure it can afford the luxury of having its supporters criticise its details. When it is precarious like Cuba it cannot.

By all means retain your opposition to the death penalty. But keep quite about your disapproval for its use in Cuba at least until Cuba makes the top ten of nations which use it. You only have so much time for protest. Dont waste that time protesting about a minor offender particularly when the minor offender can ill afford any opposition and does not need its supporters adding in even a small way to the clamour of its opponents.

Cuba is not perfect, It could be a great deal more perfect though if it did not have to worry so much about survival against nations which are far less perfect. It cannot become perfect and survive today. Think about the best that can be achieved and how to improve what is being achieved - that (sensible) course is not furthered by engaging in even restrained Cuba Bashing.

(Edited by sc4r at 2:41 pm on May 14, 2003)



Outstanding post Comrade. Our fellow comrades must understand the difference between "ideals" and "ideals in action".

To abolish the Death Penalty in Cuba would ease the pressure on subversionists. And these individuals are subversionists as their efforts have forced the party to make political decisions in their regards. They have quite simply ceased being criminals of the state and have become criminals of the party. Their sentences were indeed just.

Edit:
Spelling

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 6:57 am on June 15, 2003)

[CienfuegosJnr]

Castro is at war 24/7
You would too if you had shortages of electricity blah blah ... and your cousin in Florida had every thing-
P.S 'INTELUCTUALES SON FRESAS-- WEY ''

[Urban Rubble]

You know what, I don't get where people's opposition to the death penalty comes from.

The only problem with it (that I see) is that someone who is wrongly convicted may be put to death, OR it may be misused.

I honestly believe murderers and child molsetors should be killed, Shit, I'd give the injection myself.

[kadamangudy]

Thats just the problem. A question of guilt in one execution out of a 1000 is to much. The possibility of an innocent person getting executed is to big a risk. There is NO excuse for executing someone who is innocent. The USA has many questionable executions see:
http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6

[Collective]

Personally, I am opposed to the death penalty. From what I've read many Cubans oppose the death penalty also and as Felipe Perez Roque said, it is not the philosophy of the Revolution. When I heard a high ranking Cuban official talk here in Britain the other week he said that all progressive people around the world should oppose the death penalty and Fidel has stated that the issue of abolishing it will be raised in parliament.

However, its use in Cuba must be put into perspective. Those 3 people executed were not 'dissidents', they were terrorists. All had criminal records involving violent and anti-social crimes. They hijacked a ferry full of innocent people, risked their lives at sea and threatened to kill them or throw them overboard unless they got their way. These terrorists were attempting to reach the US where they'd be offered safe haven and not be punished.

The United States has declared that any migration crisis would be a national securtiy issue, effectively threatening military action. These hijacking, if unpunished, could have triggered an emigration crisis. In a country with an economic crisis, the US offering benefits to Cubans and with the US authorities turning down many legal visas (20,000 are supposed to be allowed each year), a mass migration could be a real possibility. Therefore the decision to execute these 3 men was taken reluctantly and in the belief that the lives of 3 terrorists were worth sacrificing to prevent a future conflict in which millions of Cubans would die.

When put into context this episode is not a sign of the opressive nature of the Cuban government, not at all. It shows a government motivated by humanitarian concerns being forced to make such decisions because of imperialist agression.

An alternative created to this piece of rubbish signed by idiots like Chomsky can be found at the following address

http://www.porcuba.cult.cu/index_eng.php#

Cuba should abolish the death penalty in my opinion. For a state with such respect for humanity to use it is saddening but it just shows the position imperialism forces Cuba into. But just because I oppose the death penalty it doesn't mean I'll criticise Cuba for using it like this. When weighed up the defence of the Revolution and Cuba is more important than 3 terrorists.

[Charlie]

Though I fundementaly disagree with the death penalty, the issue has ben blown way out of proportion. These people were terrorists, and I'm sure the yanks would have done the same thing if they captured a few terrorists trying to hijack a plane for example. The US have killed thousands of people, almost all innocents, in their self-proclaimed war on terror, so why is it such a horrible thing when a communist state kills but a few convicted terrorists? It's extremely hypocritical of all the nations behind this war on terror to condemn Cuba for it's actions, especiall the USA.

[Che Jexster]

I'd like to ask Red Star why he presumes to offer one of 3 negative reasons for Chomsky and Zinn's statements without even aknowledging the fact that it is consistent with their beliefs. I also believe that it is no less idealistic for Chomsky et al to wish to rid the world of violence and oppression with a pen than to rid the world of violence and oppression with violence and oppression. I agree that the issue was blown completly out of proportion by the US but that does not condone inhumane actions on the part of the Cuban government. I'd like to make it clear that i fully support the Cuban government as a whole and feel its done some wonderful things for its people but that does not mean it is infallible and shouldnt be criticized for its short comings. I do realize that their hardline approach toward right wing leaders has kept it from failing as many other governments have but by using this argument to justify the execution of people one could argue that the hardline approach of the capitalist and imperialist (hardline anti-left action) foreign policy helped them to avoid being brought down and it is therefore alright.
In conclusion
Let's all agree not to fuck each other over (including all forms of violence) and maybe the world will cease to be so fucked.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Urban Rubble on 12:06 am on June 21, 2003
You know what, I don't get where people's opposition to the death penalty comes from.

The only problem with it (that I see) is that someone who is wrongly convicted may be put to death, OR it may be misused.

I honestly believe murderers and child molsetors should be killed, Shit, I'd give the injection myself.


I'm with you on this. To me it comes across as nothing more than a desire to live in a warm and woolly utopia where everything is perfect. Sure I'd like to live there too; but the fact is, we are a zillion miles from it right now. Indulging ourselves in wishes that everything were perfect, and condemning everything that isn't, is not going to advance us towards perfection one jot.

Every single person lives under a death sentence from the second they are concieved. Whats the huge deal with applying it if a person has demonstrated that they are a menace to others ?

something like 5-10,000 people die every single day from unnatural causes which they did nothing at all to bring about. Yet here we are werriting about the 'injustice' that leads to three who were without a shadow of doubt actually engaging in an action which endangered many people directly; and is in support of the very ideology which leads to those thousands of deaths.

And if some are convicted incorrectly -
well thats regrettable of course and something we should strive to avoid; but living is not a guranantee of safety, mistakes happen, and this particular issue is not remotely one that should rank very high up the priority scale. Maybe when we have cut the numbers being killed by wilful neglect down to 'only' dozens every day we can start worrying about the few miscarriages of justice which may kill a few more.

Lets face it. It's a warm woolly liberal issue because it makes them sound so bloody perfect and saintlike. It is not a practical issue.

Wanting everything to be perfect rather misses the point that everything is not. It's exactly the same attitude that leads to Right wingers opposing positive discrimination. They will not , for whtever reason, accept that when huge injistices are being done then you have to balance the scales gradually by tilting them in a corrective direction. You simply cannot go direct to 'perfect'.

Sorry got carried away Urban M8. Obviously this is not directed at you.

(Edited by sc4r at 12:56 am on June 30, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 12:59 am on June 30, 2003)

[elijahcraig]

Castro runs a stalinist state in Cuba, so I oppose any of his executions of "counterrevolutionaries".

[Che Jexster]

We are all under a death sentence the second we are born, but the most abhorrent thing in my mind is death and the inability to reach ones potential. My political philosophies revolve around me feeling that we should all just be able to live happily not for some blind patriotic or ideological goal. It may be idealistic but you guys are socialists/communists. I think Sartre's view on life to be the best analysis of political theory and philosophy coming together and he believed that socialism was the greatest form of government because it allowed the average person the most freedom (from the confines of the class structure) and the greatest infringement on someones rights you can make is on their freedom to live.

[Joe McCarthy]

Quote: from YouKnowTheyMurderedX on 7:46 pm on May 12, 2003
For supporters of Cuba, what would you say to defend the concentration centres for gay people, the prostitution, the poverty, the lack of democracy.

I just heard about the UMAP "concentration camps" and I would also really like to hear how someone would defend them beyond "it's western propaganda", "they were capitalist terrorists", etc. although i don't suspect anyone will try to defend them, but will try to deny they existed or say the persecution of gays in 60's cuba wasn't as bad as it is said to have been, which could be true.

(Edited by Joe McCarthy at 8:05 am on June 30, 2003)