War On Terror Over—Cuba Chapter


Yesterday, according to the Miami Herald, the U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, announced the creation of a task force of federal agencies to target Cuba embargo offenders more aggressively—whether they violate travel bans, business restrictions or limits on currency remittances to relatives on the island. Whatever the value of the embargo was decades ago, it dissipated when Cuba's chief patron, the Soviet Union, collapsed. At this point, nothing could have a more subversive effect on Castro's dictatorship than flooding the island with hundreds of thousands of American tourists each winter.

The Herald goes on to report:

When asked why the task force was being created now, Acosta dismissed any suggestion that it was driven by next month's U.S. elections or the recent disclosure about Cuban leader Fidel Castro's health crisis.

Yeah, right.

NEXT: How To Decide if Hastert/Foley Should Go/Have Gone

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Once the travel ban is over, I probably won’t want to go to Cuba anymore. Half of the allure is the adventure one must go on to get there.

  2. So, instead of the customs agent confiscating and “destroying” my cubans, I’ll instead be strip-searched, beaten and imprisoned indefinitedly as an enemy combatant.

    Sounds about right to me. Because god knows, if I was allowed to bring back those three cigars from that Jamaican dutyfree shop, it would lead to Cuba becoming a world superpower.

    ”The purpose of these sanctions is to isolate the Castro regime economically and to deprive the Castro regime of the U.S. dollars it so desperately seeks,” Acosta said at a news conference.

    And as we all know, sanctions work wonders! Sanctions are such a weasely, sniveling way of waging war…because the damage they cause hurts the innocent populace first and foremost. Their suffering indirectly leads to minor inconvenience for the dictator in question. I’m sorry, but there are few things I find more immoral than punishing the businesses of Cuba for the crimes of Castro. It’s like poisoning your neighbor’s children to get revenge on him.

  3. well. theres two kinds of embargo. Theres one the population thats the target of the embargo supports- the only one I can think of is the embargo against aparthiede South Africa, supported by a huge number of those S Africans who benefitted ZERO from the Regimes trade & investment, and the one against, say Cuba, or Iraq, when the ONLY people who suffered were the locals. In the first instance, besides causing S Africa to develope its own world class weapons industry, it seriously hurt the dingbat ruling elite.In fact, it bought about thier collapse. In the latter: it only allows the Gvt we are ostensibly opposed to tighten its grip, while as far as the ruling class goes theres still a chicken in every pot.
    Lets see. If we blockade the Norks, Comrade Kim will…..wither away? Or will the peasants do that.
    It aint rocket science, or carved in friggin stone dogma.
    Thats the trouble with hard & fast rules.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.