And where are all the "people in the US who are rising up in protest over the squelching of their human rights to travel wherever they choose"?
So why are all the leading 2004 Democratic presidential candidates AGAINST your freedom to travel?
DUers ought to know the Democratic Party’s record on this issue before jumping to naïve conclusions or bashing Bush for what the Dems are doing themselves.
In the historic votes in the House and Senate last month Lieberman and dozens of other dems voted with the minority AGAINST your freedom to travel to Cuba, all the other candidates were absent for the vote but here’s where they stand:
Democratic Presidential Candidates on Cuba
Of the ten current democratic hopefuls, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is the only one who supports an end to the embargo.
Much more...
http://www.lawg.org/pages/new%20pages/Misc/prez-candidates1.htmWesley Clark also pandering to the extremist right wing minority:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=250379#250431 Clinton first eased the travel restrictions in 1997 allowing CNN to open a bureau there and other US journalists the freedom to go for the first time in nearly 40 years and just in time for the Pope’s historic visit to Cuba in January 1998.
It was strictly as a result of the Pope pleading with Clinton that he eased the restrictions further to allow educational “people to people” exchanges according to the US State Dept’s web site at the time.
Bush is just enforcing a law passed by Clinton's America in 1996 in a fit of ignorant hysteria that evidently persists to this day, and commonly known as the Helms-Burton Act:
According to the language of the act itself, its purpose was to increase economic pressures on the island so as to replace Fidel Castro with a transitional government that would lead the island to full democracy.
THE HELMS-BURTON ACT: A LOOSE CANON?
By Wayne S. Smith
http://ciponline.org/loosecan.htmSince 1985, we have stated publicly that we will encourage and openly finance dissident and human rights groups in Cuba; this, too, is in our interests. The United States isn't financing all those groups--only the ones that are best known internationally.
Those dissidents and human rights groups in Cuba--that are nothing but a few people--are only important to the extent that they serve us in a single cause: that of destabilizing Fidel Castro's regime.
Through those two policies--economic pressure and human rights--we want to force the overthrow of Fidel Castro and then install a transitional government that we like--to reinstate the people we want and, thus control Cuba once again.
--Wayne Smith, former head of the US Interests Section in Havana
http://members.attcanada.ca/~dchris/CubaFAQ112.htmlCuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act of 1996
P.L. 104-114
One Hundred Fourth Congress
of the United States of America
An Act
To seek international sanctions against the Castro government in Cuba, to plan for support of a transition government leading to a democratically elected government in Cuba, and for other purposes.
Full text:
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/ar/us-cuba/libertad.htmAny wonder why the Dems don't want you to see and judge Cuba for yourself either!