Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Cuba Calculates Cost of 54yr US Embargo At $1.1 Trillion

isilrion Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... (536 comments)

So your argument is that Cuba can make it illegal for the US Government to hire people?

Not at all. I haven't seen the "US government" jailed for hiring people. Therefore, whether the Cubans have the right to outlaw certain actions of the US government or not is irrelevant. In this case, they didn't even try. How do you imagine that would work?

He chose to do things while in the US that are completely legal under US Law. In fact most of them are actually required by US Law.

And he chose to do them in Cuba, where US law doesn't apply, and, *gasp*, Cuban law applies.

And again, you're bringing up the strawman of unconditional release. I have never argued that Cuba's only choice was unconditional release.

So, what conditions is Cuba allowed to request before the release? Because you insist on releasing him even before negotiations have taken place. Do you want them to demand conditions after they release him? If that is not unconditional, I don't know what it is.

As I said before, if they wanted to release him the time for negotiations would have been back in early 2010.

Because NicBenjamin says so? I gave you an example of a guy who wasn't released by the US until around five years after the arrest. And as you said earlier, very eloquently, there are not a lot of comunications channels between Cuba and the US. I really doubt Cuba turned down any oportunity for (meaningful) negotiation.

the objective standard used is "what did those other guys do when they had a similar spat four years ago?"

Oh, good, then. The closest case to this between Cuba and the US have been the Cuban Five. And we know what the US did. If there is another more similar case where the US acted differently, please enlighten me.

Read the charges against him. He got 30 years for transmitting classified information, and five for failing to register as a foreign agent.

Goalposts moved. I read the charges. So, your contention is that he was charged under two laws for the same action, and Gross was charged under only one? As far as I know, Cuba has no law requiring the registration of foreign agents, but it has one forbidding crimes against the state by foreign agents. Go figure.

Also, I doubt that the russian guy did his planning in US soil. As per your first argument in your reply, are you saying that the US can make it illegal for the Soviet Government to hire people?

8 hours ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Remote Support For Disconnected, Computer-Illiterate Relatives

isilrion Re:Dial up can still access gmail (334 comments)

We've never been to Asia. I've been thinking about going on vacation abroad with them. In your opinion, is Baekdu Mountain worth the trip? They always go to Florida, I would expect them to be bored by now. Maybe I can convince them to go elsewhere... but I don't think they are big fans of mountains.

2 days ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Remote Support For Disconnected, Computer-Illiterate Relatives

isilrion Re:Dial up can still access gmail (334 comments)

Wow, thanks. Saving that page now. I'm feeling tempted to send them an autorun.reg attachment. I'll try it in my computer first, though. (Also, I didn't realize how braindead window's autorun "feature" is. I really hope gnome/kde devs don't want to imitate that).

Actually, if I can send them a .reg file by email, I could try to add a few more things (like showing extensions). I wonder if I can also send them some kind of group policy update to prevent their do-gooder friends from re-enabling the extension hiding "feature". In any case, thanks!

2 days ago
top

Cuba Calculates Cost of 54yr US Embargo At $1.1 Trillion

isilrion Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... (536 comments)

enter as a tourist while (not so) secretly being an american agent [Status as an American Agent is determined by the American government, and is therefore something "the US decided to do"]

No, it isn't, unless your claim is that Gross was a slave of the US government. He had a choice. He chose to accept several millions in exchange for the risk. And now he is paying for his choice.

If your conclusion that Cuba clearly had jurisdiction for every charge you mention was in any way valid, don't you think you could come up with a single example of a non-citizen being sent to prison for years for being a foreign agent?

How other countries choose to deal with the threats is irrelevant to what makes sense for Cuba to do, and ignoring the particular context of Cuba's actions is naive at best. Most, if not all of those you claim to have been released, have been released after negotiations have taken place, not unconditionally. Every single case that ended with an agent swap necessarily serves as the example you ask for (the agents arrested by the first country are held until the second country has something to offer in return). So far, that's also the case with Gross, only that, because the US refuses to negotiate, the negotiations have not yet taken place.

Also, Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher, russian agent captured by the US, tried, convicted, sentenced to 30 years, served several years in prison before he was exchanged. Yu Xin Kang, Chinese, convicted by the US to 18 months. I suppose that now you are going to move the goalposts and demand some other conditions. It will be very easy to demand a condition that I cannot satisfy, after all, non-citizens don't make very good spies, and it is even rarer for a country to outright refuse to negotiate for the release of their agents. I'm curious to see what new demands you come up with.

2 days ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Remote Support For Disconnected, Computer-Illiterate Relatives

isilrion Re:It doesn't make sense (334 comments)

That is an enlightened reply. I appreciate the time you took in writing it. You made me realize a few issues I had forgotten in the original post that makes part of this unworkable (they wont accept having to be at home to check the email, they usually dial-up from other places, I had forgotten about that). You are correct that from their perspective, everything is working (when something fails, e.g., they manage to erase a password or delete/reorder an icon, they blame it to the "computer being old"). I readily forget that... I must not.

2 days ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Remote Support For Disconnected, Computer-Illiterate Relatives

isilrion Re:It doesn't make sense (334 comments)

Hmm, so you are saying it is not really an ISP. It is only an email provider. And so we are not really talking about something like a 3rd world country, it is not so much a matter of infrastructure but of control (Cuba perhaps?).

Correct (with some nuances irrelevant for the situation being discussed). I'd rather avoid satellite solutions, just to ensure that I (and my family) stay entirely within the law. I used that email service for years and that ISP was pretty decent (given the restrictions). If you are savvy enough, you can do with those 15Mb much more than what one would expect. The breakdown is just the combination of my family being "not savvy" with the restrictions. If they had TCP conectivity but were illiterate, I could try to leave the some "backdoor" (vnc, ssh, remote desktop, whatever) and coordinate with them to "fix" their issues. Most of the issues, btw, are "the [ISP name] went away", meaning "I deleted or moved the desktop icon". I have done that with relatives not in Cuba. Or, if they lacked a TCP connection but were savvy, I could just communicate with them and tell them what to fix.

This slashdot topic was a long shot. I had some ideas in mind, most too complex / brittle to be worth implementing and I wanted a opinions from a savvy crowd. I should have asked years ago! There was a suggestion of a Wifi-dial-up modem combo device + a tablet that I hadn't thought of, and while it doesn't cover all my "requirements", it may be a sufficient improvement over the current situation to be worth trying. In any case... I have almost a year to think about it and prepare, and now that I was given some ideas worthy of consideration, I'm grateful. I hope at least one comes to fruition.

3 days ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Remote Support For Disconnected, Computer-Illiterate Relatives

isilrion Re:It doesn't make sense (334 comments)

Sigh. Original poster here. I'm not trolling. There are many viruses that transmit via email attachment (click_here_for_a_pretty_photo.exe) and USB drives. I am not the only person they comunicate with. As to where the nigerian/spammers got their email, it has leaked over the years.

3 days ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Remote Support For Disconnected, Computer-Illiterate Relatives

isilrion Re:Chromebook (334 comments)

Absurdly enough, I hadn't even thought about trying to teach them to run a script manually. Even for that I needed a fresh perspective :D. One problem down (I think). Thanks!

3 days ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Remote Support For Disconnected, Computer-Illiterate Relatives

isilrion Re:Standard remote access (334 comments)

There's no other service provider?

Kind of. That's the only service provider they have access to. Over there, there are no ISPs offering services to the public. Your employer is your ISP (if you have one at all): they buy a bunch of modems and phone lines to give access to their employees. They typically had so little bandwidth that they are forced to restrict access. There are some "cybercafes" with high prices, long lines, and that I doubt will offer better service than dial-up (for what I've read, you are not even allowed to download your messages to a usb drive). Their employer is considered to be one of the "best" providers, go figure.

3 days ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Remote Support For Disconnected, Computer-Illiterate Relatives

isilrion Re:Dial up can still access gmail (334 comments)

Oh, I remember that. I thought they had implemented something better. Yep, over there, you give up long before the "Hi! You're a second class citizen" message. I recall that I used some python module that crawled gmail when it was really bad, and that there was some 3rd party "gmail lite" website that creeped me out but people used it nonetheless.

Apparently /. doesn't let me post too frequently. I've got pretty interesting suggestions in this thread, I won't be able to thank them all or clarify their questions. In case I can't and they come back and read /this/ response: Gmail is not an option. It would be ideal (imap or pop3), but everything beyond their local email servers is firewalled. They can browse a handful of sites via a squid proxy server in their network, but gmail (or any other competing "open" email provider) isn't among them.

3 days ago
top

Cuba Calculates Cost of 54yr US Embargo At $1.1 Trillion

isilrion Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... (536 comments)

I had prepared a huge reply, going over all your "arguments" and straw-man accusations, and then I realized it didn't make sense to continue. You have to be trolling me:

So Cuba, by charging this guy, claimed jurisdiction over what foreign governments could decide to do;

For crying out loud, no, they didn't claim jurisdiction over what the US decided to do. They claimed jurisdiction over what Gross decided to do in Cuba, which was to enter as a tourist while (not so) secretly being an american agent acting on plans to overthrow/destabilize the government. It seems you are incapable of comprehending that. That is not a mere opinion, that is fact. All parts of that sentence are factually true, not even you deny it, yet you refuse to accept that it is true. I have had to state this in (nearly?) every post I've replied, and you still won't acknowledge what the charge was. If you are not willing to acknowledge even factually true statements, it is stupid on my part to even try to argue the rest of your points. If you have evidence that he wasn't in Cuba when he was arrested, or that he wasn't acting as an american agent, or that his actions weren't meant to destabilize the goverment, go ahead and present them, preferably to Gross' lawyer.

3 days ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Remote Support For Disconnected, Computer-Illiterate Relatives

isilrion Re:Missing Information (334 comments)

Oh, good point. I wish I could edit the original post. They use POP3 + SMTP. The ISP runs a Horde+IMP webmail server, but it is a used only as a last resort (too complicated/slow/expensive over dialup). They do need persistent storage, those 15 Mb fill up very quickly. CDs/CD drives last long enough, I'll look into that live-cd solution. I hadn't thought of it. And unfortunately... yes, I'm serious.

3 days ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Remote Support For Disconnected, Computer-Illiterate Relatives

isilrion Re:Chromebook (334 comments)

On another note: where do they live that they don't have access to slightly higher-speed 3G internet? I've travelled through third world countries, and cell-phone-internet seems to be almost omnipresent in some form or another.

The cellphone provider there (only one, uggh) just recently began selling email access (just to their own pop servers), over 2G, I think, at about $1/Mb. No mobile internet. Roaming from another provider can cost up to $20/Mb. That's why I'm focusing on working with what they have.

3 days ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Remote Support For Disconnected, Computer-Illiterate Relatives

isilrion Re:Sorry (334 comments)

Is there a way to plug a dial-up modem to an ipad? I've thought about getting them a wifi router connected to a usb modem (is that even possible?) and somehow giving them a way to dial out, but that seems even harder. Still, if you know of a system for that (e.g., if openwrt has usb modem + ppp support), I'll look into it. At this point, no idea is a bad idea!

3 days ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Remote Support For Disconnected, Computer-Illiterate Relatives

isilrion Re:Standard remote access (334 comments)

Unfortunately, SSH or VNC require a direct TCP connection. They are firewalled (I should have called them "ESP: email service provider" rather than ISP), except for that mail server. We can't even jabber/irc/anything.

3 days ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Remote Support For Disconnected, Computer-Illiterate Relatives

isilrion Re:Dial up can still access gmail (334 comments)

My really question is this. How do they get viruses? most viruses require a constant high speed connection. without it the virus itself can't do much.

There are two main ways: email attachments and USB drives. Almost every USB drive in that I've seen in that country has an Autorun.inf that installs one virus or another (sneakernet: usb drives are the main form of data transmission over there). I disable autorun every visit... but either I'm doing it wrong, or the "techs" they hire enable it again.

3 days ago
top

Ask Slashdot: Remote Support For Disconnected, Computer-Illiterate Relatives

isilrion Re:Dial up can still access gmail (334 comments)

Original poster here... apparently I clicked "Post anonymously". Oops.

Their "ISP" (note the quotes) wont allow web access other than to the web interface (running Horde/IMP) of their email server. They are stuck with SMTP/POP3.

Gmail optimizes for low bandwidth links.

I didn't know that! Is it something I need to configure? When I visit and manage to access the internet for a few minutes, gmail has been unusable (even google's search page takes over a minute to load. Uggh). So hints on how to optimize gmail for very slow links are helpful, not for my folks, but for me.

Thanks!

3 days ago
top

Cuba Calculates Cost of 54yr US Embargo At $1.1 Trillion

isilrion Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... (536 comments)

Has it ever occurred to you that it's possible Cuban Law is simply wrong on this point?

Has it ever occurred to you that the Cubans have the right to defend themselves? Because that's the right you are denying them. When the US interest are attacked, you don't ask for justification to invade your attacker. Yet when Cuba is, you claim that Cuban law is "wrong" for wanting to defend themselves.

Since you're talking about practice the actual letter of the law is irrelevant. What matters is convictions. Name one whose been convicted. Seriously. Name a single person convicted of being an unregistered foreign agent who was not a citizen of the US.

The Cuban Five. Notice how I ignore the "not a citizen of the US part". Being a citizen of the US had nothing to do with the convictions: they were convicted for failing to register as agents, for "conspiracy to commit espionage" (even though the prosecution couldn't prove that any secret document was leaked) and "conspiracy to commit murder" (even though they had no way of knowing the outcome).

You set up arbitrary rules that effectively stop Cuba from defending themselves (like being free to enter the US without registering and being citizens). You asked earlier, that's what I meant by arbitrary. The Cubans don't play by those rules, because those "rules", besides made up, imply "just sit there and do nothing while we invade you." You cannot unilaterally make up a rule that benefits you and then claim foul when the other party unilaterally decides to ignore it.

You realize you;re talking about thought crimes. He didn't have to do anything, but those thought he thought while he was in Washington DC were anti-Cuban, so he can be charged with thinking them while he was in Havana.

Sigh. Again. He acted in Cuba. And it's rich that you speak about thought crimes, given that the "conspiracy" charges are essentially thought crimes too, and you don't seem to have any problem with those, as long as they are not directed against your agents. But again, irrelevant, he wasn't convicted for sitting in DC thinking about what he was going to do. He was convicted for going to Cuba and doing his part in the conspiracy.

In international relations when something pisses you off you don't bitch about in press releases for 25 flights, and then go straight for the jugular.

Read some history. They didn't "bitch about it in press releases for 25 flights", they denounced it, repeatedly, to the US authorities, only to be ignored until they took action.

If you're Cuba, and you want the thaw to continue, your job is let them get away with most of it and demonstrate you aren't trying to piss the US off in the rare occasions you do respond.

What else can I say. Read that document. That's just one decade. They have suffered through 6. They have gone through diplomatic channels repeatedly. And whenever they respond, some of you claim that they shouldn't have. Of course they wanted the Cubans to react, the thing is, the outcome would have been the same if they had reacted to any of the previous or future incidents.

Don't be ridiculous. Might has nothing to do with it.

Of course it has. You claim that the US has every right to keep provoking them, and that they don't have any right whatsoever to respond, under the threat of further violence or continuing embargo. And even if they don't do anything, the US still claims the right to harden the embargo (Torricelli act, 1992).

Note that both the exiles in the planes, and the Congressmen who insisted Gross be sent on his mission; wanted Cuba to over-react. It was their plan. Either the Cubans are too stupid to see that, or Cuba's plan is to continue the embargo indefinitely.

You are being purposedly dense. It is unreasonable to expect the attacked to just "take it" for 50 years, and then blame them when, after giving ample warning, they defend themselves. Of course it was part of the plan. It has always been part of the plan for the last 50 years: don't you dare to defend yourself in any of those incidents, or else.

Arresting Gross would always have resulted in drama. That's a given. You don't get a press release saying "we got a spy," followed by a week of secret negotiations, and a secret deal.

I just said that Cuba couldn't make the first move (or rather, that making a public first move would have ensured that no negotiation was possible). To think otherwise is to ignore 55 years of controversy.

If they wanted to avoid drama they actually should have let him through.

And there you have it, again. The only acceptable answer is to let the US do whatever they want. Everything else is unnacceptable.

Offtopics

or sentence one of your guys to 15 years hard labor, or whatever.

Same "your" as the "you" in the preceding sentence: the US. Gross is the guy sentenced to 15 years.

Sorry, I'm even more confused now. I missed something about Gross being "my"/"our" guy. If you think this was an important part of the argument, please rewrite it (or ignore it if it isn't important). In any case, Gross was not sentenced to hard labor (??), there is no such thing in Cuba. He has spent his sentence in a hospital---the Cubans really don't want anything bad to happen to him.

If the charges are bogus then jurisdiction doesn;t really matter.

Except that they claimed jurisdiction (and dismissed the lack-of-jurisdiction claim) before testing if the claims were bogus. The US, or at least that prosecutor and judge, claimed jurisdiction over the russians. So, the US does what you claim is wrong for the Cubans to do (claim jurisdiction over actions ocurring abroad), even though the Cubans didn't do it and the US do it continously.

4 days ago
top

Cuba Calculates Cost of 54yr US Embargo At $1.1 Trillion

isilrion Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... (536 comments)

I think the core of our disagreement rests on your conception that it is legal for countries to ban hostile agents. This is not the case.

And there you go again, denying Cuba's sovereignty. You may not like it, but it is Cuba's law. If you are a foreign agent acting in Cuba with the purpose of overthrowing the government, you can be convicted in Cuba. Even if the US, and even if no other country, has a law prohibiting crimes against the state (which I doubt!), Cuba can still have that law. It is not "my conception". Cuba has that law. You don't like it? You deal with Cuba, rather than just cover your ears and shout "lalala I can't hear you you have no such law".

We require foreign agents of all powers, even Canada, to register with the authorities, so they can be charged for not registering

So, in practice, your law bans covert agents like Gross. You convict them for failing to register, the Cubans convict them for being covert agents.

But if we banned agents of a "hostile power" we'd be de facto banning other countries from being hostile powers, which even we acknowledge can't be done.

That is nonsensical. Banning hostile agents in your territory has no influence whatsoever over anyone who is not in your territory. And, as you said earlier, you already outlaw being a covert agent of a foreign country.

The logical extension of this is you can't convict foreign agents to multi-year jail terms simply for being part of a plan to oppose your government.

Again, it was not only for planning. It was for acting on those plans. If he had taken violent action (say, murder or bombings), would you agree with the attacked's sovereignty to convict him? If so, what's so different with a non-violent, but also illegal action, with respect to the attacked's sovereignty?

The remedy for such plans in international law isn't that the agent gets nabbed, it's that the attacked country gets lots of sympathy for it's retaliation against the attacker's government.

Cuba retaliating against the US. That's rich. The closest thing Cuba can do in retaliation to the US is... arrest the agent.

Then they blow a plane out of the sky

...during their 26th attempt to violate Cuba's airspace. I do not condone shooting down the plane in international waters, but you are again being disingenous. They didn't "shot down the plane because they like the embargo". They (over)reacted to a long string of provocations, crafted precisely to increase tensions. "The group saw its defiance of Cuban law and Cuban airspace as an example of civil disobedience for Cubans on the island. (...) Several times during the past year, including on Jan. 9 and again on Jan. 13, Hermanos flew over Havana dropping leaflets (...) Many observes believe that Basulto and other hard-line exiles, unhappy with the relatively light sanctions by Washington, are determined to raise tensions between Havana and the US even further to provoke more stringent reprisals from the Clinton administration. (...)"

or sentence one of your guys to 15 years hard labor, or whatever.

(Hard labor? "our" guys? I do not know what are you talking about. I don't know who "your" refers to.)

And he's much less likely to try because ending the embargo doesn't actually help the US, and the Cubans have a history of being very passive and easy to get along with until you ease up on the embargo.

This is obviously a "might makes right" situation. US provokes, provokes, provokes again, and when the Cubans finally react, you say that "the cubans are easy to get along with until you ease up on the embargo". The collorary is that, in your view, the Cubans should ignore all hostilities and just let themselves be invaded.

and then it's applied to US Citizens or to foreign agents who get freed as a deal before trial. You will note the latter is exactly what I was expecting Cuba to do for Gross.

(Sorry for changing the order. I wanted to address this the last, because any discussion on this is irrelevant if Gross is not actually guilty). Let's be honest now. The moment Cuba proposed an exchange, it would have backed up Obama into a corner, as it would have appeared that they took an "innocent hostage" to extract some concession. As evidence of that, you are still claiming Gross' innocence. I do not know if or how Cuba reached out privately before the trial, but publicly demanding anything would have guaranteed condemnation. Unfortunately for everyone, Obama let himself get backed into a corner anyway. Rather than acknowledging that Gross was an agent (which would have allowed him to negotiate), he opted for "evil cubans taking innocent hostage, must release him unconditionally." By not demanding concessions up-front, the Cubans gave Obama the opportunity to negotiate without appearing to sacrifice his integrity, and he turned it down.

Nearly offtopic:

As for our attempt to impose the DMCA on Russians, you will note it failed miserably. And we actually had a somewhat decent chance of success, given that some Americans were using the tool in a way that was arguably illegal. You'll also note that we got our asses handed to us in Court.

To my recollection (I don't real legalese, unfortunately), the american courts never recognized a lack of jurisdiction, just that the charges were bogus. If that's true, that means that the court did believe that they had the right to convict the programmer and his employer for actions done entirely outside the US.

5 days ago
top

Cuba Calculates Cost of 54yr US Embargo At $1.1 Trillion

isilrion Re:$1.1 Trillion over 54 years... (536 comments)

It's pretty fucking dishonest to claim Cuba was only "minorly deterring" foreign agents with a 15-year sentence and then argue he has never implied "a 15-year sentence is not only typical, but minimal."

I apologize then. I did not claim that the sentence was "minor", just that the deterrent effect is minor. I was agreeing with you when I used the word "minor". I do not think that any jail sentence would be a deterrent remotely comparable with getting the US to the negotiation table. In fact, if you go back, you'll see I said exactly that, it is preferable to negotiate (again, agreeing with you), than to keep him jailed, but given that the US (and you) refuses to even acknowledge his crime, this deterrent, as minor as it is, is better than no deterrent at all. Again, I did not mention the sentence in any of my statements, on the contrary, since my first post, I expressed sadness. From other posts in this thread I've learned that Gross knew much more than I thought at first, but even then I'm saddened.

As I said, if you had any other explanation for thinking that I had said that, I was glad to hear it ("please share"). You did. I withdraw the accusation regarding the dishonesty, at least with regards to this point, but please re-read my statement(s) until you convince yourself that I never mentioned his sentence and that I just merely agreed with you regarding the non-optimality of the situation.

a) being an agent of a hostile power, b) having a goal of overthrowing the Cuban government, and c) smuggling communications equipment.

No, I did not accuse him of (a). He was accused and convicted (not by me) of being an agent of a hostile power in Cuban territory. I cannot fathom why you keep dropping that part of the accusation.

If Cuba could ban a), then the US could legally execute the entire Cuban bureaucracy because they are all agents of a power that is hostile to us.

To do that, they would need to enter Cuba and kidnap them/drone them. That is not comparable at all with what happened with Gross. Gross entered Cuba. He was arrested in Cuba. Again, I cannot imagine why you ignore that it happened in Cuba, not in the US. That said, the US has a history of doing exactly that (drone strikes, extradition, invasion, coups, assasination plots. Castro has been in the receiving end of many failed assasination plots by the CIA). While I would not dare to guess why they haven't launched a drone, it is ironic that you present US inability or unwillingness to take on these extraterritorial actions as proof of anything, given that the US is both able and willing to do so (at least in other cases). But again, this is offtopic, given that Gross was in Cuba.

then any Cuban charges based on Gross's being a CIA contractor are clearly ridiculous BS.

Did he stop being a contractor while he was in Cuba, doing what the CIA was paying him to do? That would be tough to prove. I wonder what makes you think that after all that planning, he resigned, but kept the money, then travelled to Cuba to act on those plans (even though he was supposedly no longer a CIA agent), then went back to the US, re-joined USAID, did more planning, resigned again, repeating until he was caught. Even if he had done that (which again, seems unlikely), it would be silly not to consider him a de-facto agent.

Ukraine clearly can't charge all the Russian soldiers invading it with crimes in Criminal Court,

Can't or won't? If Ukraine choses to not charge them/convicte them and gets some concession out of it (e.g., troop exchange), good for them. That option is, for now, closed to Cuba.

therefore Cuba does not have the right to charge US CIA contractors for plotting it's demise.

Cuba did not charge Gross for "plotting it's demise" while in the US. Cuba convicted Gross for acting on those plots while in Cuba. How is that hard to understand?

Words like "obligation" don't really mean much in relation to a) international law, or b) my argument. Under international law literally no country is ever obligated to do anything.

Finally. Then we agree. Cuba can charge him for violating Cuban laws and has no obligation to change its laws to satisfy you. The only concern for the Cubans is the balance between their self-interest and the humanitarian implications of their actions.

There is no Starfleet sitting in orbit waiting to zap people for non-compliance.

(+1 for the start trek reference)

The way you zap people for non-compliance is you get pissed at them and ratchet up tensions. Most of the time this fails to get them to change their ways, but it's all we can do until we actually have One World Government with a Starfleet.

Indeed. Therefore, as we agreed earlier, keeping Gross, while better than releasing him unconditionally, is a non-optimal solution, the optimal solution being getting the US to the negotiation table.

In this case, as I have proven, most of what Cuba charged Gross with are things it has no legal right to charge him with.

No, you haven't. You have purposedly ignored both the "in Cuba" part in all the charges, and that the US does not respect that rule either[1].

The remaining charge, smuggling computer equipment (the only thing he did on their soil)

Your entire point hinges on this (and that Cuba has no right to charge him for what he did outside of Cuba). I have expressed no opinion regarding the parenthesized part. But the first, no, that was not the only thing he did in Cuban soil. He was working as a USAID agent with the purpose of overthrowing the government in Cuban soil. Before proceeding, can we agree on this?

The US response to that has to be a cooling of relations, which (in Cuba's case) means and end to embargo-ending talk.

There was no embargo-ending talk. Instead, there were several ongoing attempts to overthrow the government (Gross, Piramideo). The US chose this, and you have provided no evidence whatsoever supporting that, had Gross not been caught, they would have started talking about ending the embargo (instead of the more likely scenario, keeping with the provocations until some other schmuck got caught and then using him as a excuse).

Which means either Cuba is full of people who are dumber then me, or they wanted to eliminate all talk of ending the embargo.

Or, more likely, they did not see any unexistent talk about ending the embargo or any other meaningful topic and took the only action available to them to (slightly) deter further agression, but haven't given up on negotiations. I have to ask: what are you proposing they do? You said earlier that it was not to release him unconditionally. But the Cubans have no power to force the US to negotiate, and you disagree with keeping him jailed. What action could the Cubans do to disprove, in your eyes, that they don't want to end the embargo?

[1] Here is an example of a foreigner arrested (fortunately not convicted) during a visit to the US for actions comitted entirely in his country. Added as a footnote because it is offtopic.

about a week ago

Submissions

top

ISO announces radical reforms

isilrion isilrion writes  |  more than 6 years ago

isilrion writes "Geneva, 1 April 2007. The International Organization for Standardization announced at a press conference that its processes are "broken" and "need radical reform". ISO president Håkan Murby told journalists that "the Microsoft OOXML process was a near-disaster and we want to make sure such a thing never happens again."

Murby outlined three major reforms that he promised would prevent the "near failure of the process" as he described it. First, all national technical committees are to be fully outsourced to Microsoft. Second, new ISO standards would be kept secret until published. Third, all countries that voted "NO" on OOXML would be banned from future participation.

(Just a small contribution for your april's fools day)"

Link to Original Source

Journals

isilrion has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>