Senate votes to end restrictions on travel to Cuba

[Judi Lynn]

Senate votes to end restrictions on travel to Cuba


By JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press Writer


Defying a threatened presidential veto, the Senate joined the House Thursday in moving to end four-decade-old restrictions on travel to Cuba.

"It is not constructive at all to try to slap around Fidel Castro by imposing limits on the American people's right to travel," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.

The Senate voted 59-36 to bar the use of government money to enforce current travel restrictions. Last month a nearly identical measure passed the House, setting up a showdown with the administration, which says President Bush will veto a $90 billion Transportation and Treasury Department bill if contains the Cuba language.

"The administration believes that it is essential to maintain sanctions and travel restrictions to deny economic resources to the brutal Castro regime," the White House said in a statement.

The Treasury Department estimates that about 160,000 Americans, half of them Cuban-Americans visiting family members, traveled to Cuba legally last year. Humanitarian and educational groups, journalists and diplomats are also allowed visits, but thousands of other Americans visit illegally, by way of third countries, risking thousands of dollars in fines and imprisonment. (snip/...)

http://gainesvillesun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031023/APN/310230808&cachetime=5

[DisgustipatedinCA]

1. Wow!

Why isn't this on the front page of the Washington Post and New York Times?

I guess the jerkoff will be able to veto his first bill. I wonder if the Senate will muster enough votes to override.

[Judi Lynn]

2. Hi, DisgustipatedinCA

It just happened an hour ago, roughly, so we'll have a little while left to see if any of the big lib'rul papers will pick it up!

It's BIG news.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

3. Already I'm having dark fantasies about a veto turnover

I'd really also like to see the Miami Mafia taken down a notch or two. Don't know about you, but I get tired of every Democrat in every Presidential election toadying to these thugs and selling their souls in the process.

I'll bet that SOB occupying the White House is having a temper tantrum over this; I sure hope so.

[qwertyMike]

4. Veto

I think * will veto it.
It's Florida. REMEMEBER?????

[Osolomia]

19. Did Bush pre-empt this vote in the Senate and so won't veto it?

This results of the vote in the Senate today comes as no surprise, it's been predicted for years. The surprise is that the Republican leadership actually allowed the vote to take place.

But just the other day you may have noticed that Bush tightened the travel restrictions on American-Americans and ordered Homeland Security to enforce the ban.

The amendments that have just been passed in the House AND the Senate are to stop funding OFAC's enforcement of the travel ban are they not? So what if Bush does not veto them? Doesn't it just mean that HS instead of OFAC is enforcing the travel ban?

Ones step forward, three steps backward and dem leadership is no where to be seen.

[Judi Lynn]

5. I know nada about legislation but I heard it's in an amendment

attached to the Transportation bill. I truly don't know what has to be done to veto this one issue, but I think I've heard he would have to veto the entire Transportation bill.

Is that correct? I really don't know.

Otherwise, I wonder if it can be vetoed directly, is a 59-36 vote sustainable against a veto? It was rumored earlier this year that the Senate could override a veto on this.

If only the Democratic Democrats who are Presidential candidates and missing had shown up. Noticed Lieberman, by god, the Cuban American National Foundation chore boy went out of his way to be there.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

6. That's correct. There's no line item veto, thank god

He'd have to veto the entire bill.

And yeah, Bush could veto any bill that reached his desk, but with 59-36 numbers, he might get it overridden in the Senate. O Happy Day that would be.

[UnapologeticLiberal]

7. This is great news

But I will not get my hopes up, because I got really excited when they passed this amendment in the House last year but then they dropped it when Bush threatened to veto the bill. But at least we know the Senate also favors lifting the ban.

[0007]

8. Ya'll get ready for junior speech

outlining Castro as a terrorist and a good friend of Hugo Chavez and intelligent report of WMD in Cuba.

junior I predict will end said speech with a pledge to veto

[Osolomia]

9. 3 cheers to the 59 Senators who dared to take a stand!

But now that I look at the roll call vote I'm confused:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion To Table Dorgan Amdt. No. 1900 )
Vote Number: 405 Vote Date: October 23, 2003, 11:58 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Motion to Table Failed
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1900 to H.R. 2989 (Head Start bill )
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the enforcement of the ban on travel to Cuba.
Vote Counts: YEAs 36
NAYs 59
Not Voting 5

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00405

[Judi Lynn]

10. Thanks for zipping that roll call in here, Osolomia

Oh, I see! Before they could do a normal vote, Ted Stevens, Republican, Alaska, staggered forward and recommended they TABLE the amendment, so the vote they did on the proposed tabling, apparently served in reverse as the vote for the amendment? Is that right?


Looks like 2 Republicans didn't vote, and these Democrats:

Boxer, Edwards, Kerry.

It would have looked GREAT with 62 votes, f'r crying out loud.

[Osolomia]

11. If Lieberman and Graham could be there to vote against your freedom

then why couldn't Edwards and Kerry be there to stand with the majority in defiance with Bush? The House vote was held the night of the Dem debate so Kucinich etc. weren't there for that either. Cool huh!

You're right, a nay vote is actually for your freedom, a yeah vote against it.

YEAs ---36
Alexander (R-TN)
Allen (R-VA)
Bunning (R-KY)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (D-FL)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)

NAYs ---59
Akaka (D-HI)
Allard (R-CO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Miller (D-GA)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 5
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burns (R-MT)
Edwards (D-NC)

[Judi Lynn]

12. Just can't understand Lieberman's position on this

Apparently Graham knuckles under because he feels he has to get along with the "exiles" to get elected each year.

Just looked at the Miami Herald's website, and they don't have a SYLLABLE on this news.

Do you remember that when Elián was rescued, the Cuban "exile"-operated, yet American taxpayer-funded Radio Marti, (created to send Cubans NEWS they claim they don't get 90 miles away) refused to inform the Cuban listeners that he was with his dad for a l-o-n-g time? What a joke.

[Osolomia]

15. If Dems had voted with the majority it could have been veto proof

To my knowledge although I'm not sure about this, you need two thirds of the votes to override a presidential veto.

The Dem Senators who voted with the minority against your freedom to travel:

Corzine (D-NJ)
Graham (D-FL)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reid (D-NV)

Not voting
Boxer (D-CA)
Edwards (D-NC)
Kerry (D-MA)

[NewJerseyDem]

28. It is only an amendment

What matters is how they vote on the final bill. The question will be how many votes there are to pass the appropriations bill and I don't know how many senators will vote against the final bill just because of this provision in it. So, we will have to wait awhile to see how this develops.

[MaineDem]

13. Damn, now I have to thank Susan Collins

She surprises me every so often. The other day with her late term abortion vote and now this.

And she once said she support everything the President suggested. Is she turning?? Hmmmm

[Judi Lynn]

14. This article has a propaganda ort which might send Cuba travellers off!

First, here's the beginning of the article:

U.S. Senate votes to deny Cuba travel ban funding




Thursday October 23, 2:30 PM EDT

By Pablo Bachelet

WASHINGTON, Oct 23 (Reuters) - Defying a White House veto threat, the U.S. Senate on Thursday approved a measure that eliminates funding to enforce a travel ban to communist Cuba.

The approval came in a voice vote after Senators voted 59-36 to overcome a procedural motion that would have effectively killed the initiative.

Supporters of the funding block said the long-standing U.S. travel ban had failed to oust Cuban President Fidel Castro and was unfair to Americans, who can travel to North Korea but not Cuba.

"For 40 years we've said 'sanctions,' and for 40 years it hasn't worked," said Sen. Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, one of six bipartisan co-sponsors of the measure. (snip/...)

Here's the astonishing lie:

(snip) The White House argues that travelers are herded into tourist enclaves, with minimal contact with locals, and their dollars used to prop up a dictatorship.(snip)

~~~~ link ~~~~

[Osolomia]

16. It's the White House that's lying not the reporter

"The White House argues that travelers are herded into tourist enclaves, with minimal contact with locals" is one of many official US government lies parrotted even by many Dems to this day!

[Judi Lynn]

25. Here's another whopper

(snip) Free-trade Republicans, mostly from farm states, have joined liberal Democrats in recent years in questioning the effectiveness of the trade and travel embargoes, saying that the Cuban president has used them to his own advantage to avoid liberalizing contacts with Americans. (snip)

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAZGXM95MD.html

Any Cuba-watcher knows this is a collossal lie altogether. All it takes is some time for people to start reading and asking questions, and they'll always be able to see through the garbage we're being fed daily.

[Spazito]

18. The White House response to this is the lamest yet from them...

and, given how lame most of their responses to almost everything, that says alot, imo.

[Osolomia]

20. NONE of the Dem prez contenders in the Senate voted for freedom to travel

NOT ONE OF THEM voted with the majority! And that doesn't seem to bother anyone around here.

The Dem Senators who stood with the minority against freedom to travel in the vote today:

Corzine (D-NJ)
Graham (D-FL)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reid (D-NV)

Not voting
Boxer (D-CA)
Edwards (D-NC)
Kerry (D-MA)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00405

NONE of the Dem prez contenders in the House of Representatives were there for the vote last month due to the candidates debates, neither has there been any reaction to these historical votes.

Go figure!

[Judi Lynn]

22. Wierd, isn't it?

Graham and Nelson probably imagine they HAVE to have Cuban support in Florida. Maybe Lautenberg and Corzine are influenced heavily for the same reason, as Cubans chose New Jersey as the OTHER state to bless with their presence. Reid, from Nevada, I've heard, opposes Cuba as if it opens to Americans again, it could attract Las Vegas tourist traffic.

Can't begin to grasp what possible excuses the others have.

[salin]

23. Graham is no longer running for President

and may or may not run again for his seat in Florida (which might explain the vote).

Lieberman... well gee, what a surprise.

Am guessing the other two are on the road rather than abstaining (but I could be wrong...)

[Osolomia]

17. 'Stop Holding Americans Hostage, Lift the Ban on Travel to Cuba'

CIP Says Victory on Senate Vote Says to President Bush: 'Stop Holding Americans Hostage, Lift the Ban on Travel to Cuba'

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Center for International Policy's Freedom to Travel Campaign issued the following statement in response to the vote in the United States Senate to lift the ban on legal travel by Americans to Cuba:

"The Senate has voted for the first time to lift the ban on travel by Americans to Cuba, and that vote is a powerful message to President Bush (news - web sites): 'Stop holding Americans hostage as means of punishing Cuba,'" said Sarah Stephens, director of CIP's Freedom to Travel campaign. "This policy is flawed, failed, and it hasn't worked for decades. We believe that Americans have a constitutional right to travel to Cuba, and that contact and commerce between our people is in both nations' interests. Travel to Cuba would create jobs and profits here in the United States, and unleash the best ambassadors we have for building understanding between our two countries."

"Coming just days after the President's speech endorsing an enforcement of the travel ban to Cuba, this is a clear vote of no confidence," added associate Anya Landau. "While the President insists on diverting resources from the Treasury and Homeland Security Departments to track and harass citizens whose only crime is exercising their basic right to travel, the House and Senate have resoundingly rejected this misappropriation of taxpayer dollars."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=669&ncid=669&e=4&u=/031023/180/5nnm6.html

[Judi Lynn]

21. Called the local office of a senator who's a Senate Working Group member

and they said the entire transportation bill would have to be killed in order to get to the Cuba travel ban amendment.

Also seemed very non-committal, being Republicans, said they have no way of guessing right now whether the veto's gonna be used or not.

[Judi Lynn]

24. Could this be substantial?

UPDATE 1-U.S. Senate votes to deny Cuba travel ban funding
Thu October 23, 2003 04:00 PM ET
(Adds two senators' comments on Bush veto threat)
By Pablo Bachelet

WASHINGTON, Oct 23 (Reuters) - Defying a White House veto threat, the U.S. Senate on Thursday approved a measure that eliminates funding to enforce a travel ban to communist Cuba.

The approval came in a voice vote after senators voted 59-36 to overcome a procedural motion that would have effectively killed the initiative.

The vote marked a victory for travel ban opponents, who argued that the long-standing U.S. travel ban had failed to oust Cuban President Fidel Castro and was unfair to Americans, who can travel to North Korea but not Cuba.

(snip) The Senate vote is significant because supporters of the travel ban had previously managed to prevent the funding measure from coming to a vote in the Senate. The House of Representative passed an identical amendment on Sept. 9, by a 227-188 vote.

Travel ban opponents say the fact that both houses of Congress have the same language makes it harder to strip out the measure, an amendment included in a larger Transportation and Treasury appropriation bill, once it goes to conference committee. (snip/...)

http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=bondsNews&storyID=3679052

[Judi Lynn]

26. Senate defies Bush on Cuban travel

Senate defies Bush on Cuban travel

Veto likely after lawmakers OK unrestricted travel to island



U.S. travel industry executives take a ride in a classic Buick followed by others through Havana on Oct. 19. The executives defied a U.S. crackdown by visiting the island to study its future business potential.


By Mary Murray
NBC NEWS

HAVANA, Oct. 23 — Let Americans travel to Cuba. That was the message delivered by the U.S. Senate on Thursday when it defied President Bush by backing legislation meant to end the ban on travel to the Caribbean island.

ECHOING A HOUSE vote last month, the Senate voted 59-36 to cut off all government money now used to enforce travel restrictions.

The measure is part of a $90 billion Transportation and Treasury Department financing bill, which the White House has promised to veto if it included any language relaxing the decades-old Cuba sanctions.

Earlier this month, President Bush tightened the travel restrictions as a way to “hasten the arrival of a new, free, democratic Cuba” by stanching the flow of American dollars to the Castro government. That policy has put the administration on a collision course with both House and Senate members from agricultural states whose constituents are anxious to capture the Cuban market. (snip/...)

http://msnbc.com/news/984224.asp?0sl=-12

[Osolomia]

27. Ah, the look of peaceful civil disobedience!

I've been looking for this photo and others like it, thanks for posting!



Notice the line up of cars behind? This was actually a historic parade along Havana's Malecon last Sunday by a few dozen high level US executives in defiance of the travel ban!

[Judi Lynn]

30. Welcome, Osolomia

Saw a terrific one with a yellow car, somewhere. probably in the same parade. If I see it, again, I'll post it.

[Mika]

29. Diaz Balart: This will be killed

On Miamicuban radio Mambi, I heard Lincoln Diaz Balart say that the amendment would be written out of the final bill during markup negotiations by the rules committee (which he is on).

Democratic?

[Judi Lynn]

31. Mika, I hope fate proves him wrong, just this one time

It's time he and his Miami Mafia got out of controlling U.S. Cuba policy.

I was curious about whether or not they're bouncing off the walls in Miami today over this news.

Jeez, I sure hope Diaz-Balart loses, BIG TIME.

[Judi Lynn]

32. Senate moves to end ban on travel to Cuba

Posted on Thu, Oct. 23, 2003

Senate moves to end ban on travel to Cuba
BY FRANK DAVIES
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - The Senate moved Thursday toward a confrontation with the Bush administration over Cuba policy, voting 59-36 to end the U.S. ban on travel to the island.

In language identical to a version passed last month by the House of Representatives, the Senate voted to block any government spending to enforce restrictions on travel to Cuba. The language was attached to a $90 billion spending bill for the Transportation and Treasury departments.

The Bush administration renewed its warning Thursday that the president is prepared to veto the bill if the provision remains, saying it would "provide a helping hand to a desperate and repressive regime."

The House has voted four times to end the ban, and the Senate has backed similar provisions twice. But House GOP leaders have always been able to strip the provision from legislation in House-Senate conferences. (snip/...)

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/7087620.htm

[lumpy]

33. Will Bush go against the US Congress and the bulk of the US pop.

and set the precedent for establishment of his dictatorship that appears to be his desire? Easing up on trade relations and sanctions with Cuba will help the US economy tremendously. It is long past due that Cuba should be recognized as a friendly neighbor.

[Osolomia]

34. What would Gore and Lieberman have done?

What would the 2004 Democratic presidential candidates do?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[Osolomia]

37. LAWG Analysis: 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. Both his rhetoric and his voting record demonstrate that he would work for change in U.S. policy. As stated in his website: “Our policy toward Cuba has failed. More than four decades of a unilateral embargo and persistently hostile and aggressive rhetoric and actions from successive administrations have created only misery for the Cuban people and have hurt, not helped, U.S. interests at large. A Kucinich administration will work for repeal of the Helms-Burton Act and the immediate lifting of the trade embargo.”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) has recently wavered in his positions on Cuba. In an interview with the Boston Globe in 2000, Kerry stated that a reevaluation of the embargo was “way overdue.” However, recently Kerry has opted to keep sanctions in place. (Cuba-USA.com News) “I think that people traveling in there weakens Castro” (Miami Herald, 9/1/03). He recently co-sponsored a bill in the Senate (S-950) that would end the travel ban to Cuba. This co-sponsorship is seen as a declaration of support for an end to that policy, but does not mean he is opposed to the embargo as a whole.

Vermont Governor Howard Dean has also wavered in his views about Cuba. Dean cites the recent crackdown on dissidents on the island and claims that Cuba has become a “political problem.” While he may have favored an ease of the embargo and travel restrictions in the past, Dean feels that now is not the right time (Miami Herald, 8/26/03).

Representative Dick Gephardt (D-MO), and Senators Bob Graham (D-FL), and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) all strongly support current policy on Cuba. Both Gephardt and Graham have voted against easing the embargo in the past. One should not expect any of these candidates to seek progressive reforms with Cuba. Senator Lieberman has aggresively courted the hard-line Cuban-American vote in the past through his full-fledged support for the embargo and his support for harsher measures against Cuba. He is one of the major non-Florida, Democratic supporters in the Senate of the embargo.

Former Ambassador Carol Mosely Braun appears to favor an ease in the embargo according to her voting record (H.R. 927, 3/5/96); however, she has not taken a campaign position on Cuba. Finally, the Rev. Al Sharpton and General Wesley Clark have not taken a stance on Cuba.

More...
http://www.lawg.org/pages/new%20pages/Misc/prez-candidates1.htm

[goforit]

35. Brutal Castro Regime?......Hello?...Whatabout the Bush Terror Regime?

Quite frankly This guy is out of the loop.
He has no concept of what he has done to this country!!!

[Osolomia]

36. NYTimes: Senate Approves Easing of Curbs on Cuba Travel

By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS
Published: October 24, 2003

WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 — In a firm rebuke to President Bush over Cuba policy, the Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly voted to ease travel restrictions on Americans seeking to visit the island.

... The vote also highlighted a widening split between two important Republican constituencies: farm-state Republicans, who oppose trade sanctions in general or are eager to increase sales to Cuba, and Cuban-American leaders, who want to curb travel and trade to punish Mr. Castro. The White House views Cuban-Americans as essential to Mr. Bush's re-election prospects in Florida.

The Senate last rejected an easing of travel restrictions in 1999, by a vote of 43 to 55. But in an indication of how much the political and policy pendulum has swung, 13 senators who voted against easing the curbs four years ago switched sides and voted for it on Thursday.

Several influential Republican senators voted against the president, including John W. Warner of Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee; and Pat Roberts of Kansas, the chairman of the intelligence committee; as did many conservatives from farming states, including James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

Senator Michael B. Enzi, a Wyoming Republican who co-sponsored the amendment, criticized what he called an American "stranglehold" on Cuba, a country of 11 million people less than 100 miles from the United States. The decades-old travel ban, he said, merely deepens Cubans' misery without providing fresh ideas to the Marxist-led nation.

More...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/24/politics/24CUBA.html?ex=1067572800&en=477b31027fe3cdc9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[Judi Lynn]

38. Thanks for this great article from the N.Y. Times

It's really more complete than any of the others so far.

This part seems to indicate something we hadn't discussed:

In the final dash to approve sweeping appropriations bills, it remains uncertain whether the White House threat is a negotiating ploy and whether supporters of looser travel restrictions could muster a two-thirds majority to override a veto.

Doesn't this mean that they have the opportunity to vote, again AFTER a veto? Looks that way to me. If so, maybe someone could persuade the missing Democrats to amble on in and vote, if it's not asking too much!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's that yellow car I told you I had seen earlier today. Woo Hoooo!


CUBAN CRUISE: Part of an unprecedented US travel delegation rolled through Havana this week. They are trying to get the US ban on travel to Cuba lifted.

(snip) from the October 23, 2003 edition


CUBAN CRUISE: Part of an unprecedented US travel delegation rolled through Havana this week. They are trying to get the US ban on travel to Cuba lifted.
JOSE GOITIA/AP



Tourism industry ups pressure to lift Cuba travel ban

By Tom Fawthrop | Special to The Christian Science Monitor

HAVANA – Cubans have become accustomed to foreign tourists in recent years, but the procession of vintage Chevrolets and cute Cuban coco-taxis ferried an unusual group along the Malecón seafront last weekend.

Three dozen US travel executives, the first American travel delegation in 40 years, hit the streets of Havana Sunday. The group was on an unprecedented mission: to explore the potential of the Cuban tourist market, but also to thumb their nose at the US government's travel restrictions to the communist island. (snip/...)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1023/p04s01-woam.html

[Osolomia]

39. Cuban travel ban infringes on right to travel By Arthur Frommer

October 24, 2003

On three separate occasions — most recently on Sept. 9 — the House of Representatives has voted overwhelmingly to repeal the travel embargo against Cuba. And yet the ban still stands, and it seems about to get tougher. On Oct. 9, in a White House statement, President Bush declared, according to MSNBC, that "too many Americans were bypassing the restrictions against travel to Cuba.

"The Department of Homeland Security will enforce the law," he said, adding that Americans also will be prevented from traveling through via a third country or by private vessel.

I have myself traveled to Cuba twice in the past four years. I went there, I am ashamed to say, legally, under license from the Treasury Department. I express that regret because I believe our government does not have the constitutional right to choose the countries that we, as freeborn Americans, are entitled to visit or not visit in peacetime. Travel is a learning activity, a means by which we expand our knowledge of the world; we travel, among other reasons, to reach our own judgments about the foreign policies of our nation. It follows that our government has no more right to prevent us from traveling to a particular country than it has to stop us from attending a lecture or reading a book.

... It is time to stand up for our right to travel in peacetime to wherever we wish. Time to build not simply a majority in Congress against the travel embargo, but a veto-proof majority. Time to proclaim that travel for learning is a constitutional right.

More...
http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?section=12&screen=news&news_id=27744

[Osolomia]

40. Engagement, Not Isolation

South Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board
Posted October 24 2003

The Senate gave President Bush a stark option on Cuba policy Thursday: Stick with a failed policy of the past, or begin charting a new course that gives the United States a role today in shaping Cuba's future.

In a 59-36 vote, the Senate approved a measure barring the use of government money to enforce travel restrictions to the Communist island. The Senate action mirrors an amendment overwhelmingly approved by the House in September.

The item is tacked onto a $90 billion bill that provides funding and directions to the Transportation and Treasury departments. President Bush has vowed to veto the bill when it shows up at the White House.

The president should think again. The lopsided votes on Capitol Hill show that ending the travel ban, which unreasonably restricts the right of Americans to travel freely, has enormous legislative support, even from members of his own party.

More...
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/editorial/sfl-editafcubasenateoct24,0,5492868.story?coll=sfla-news-editorial

[Judi Lynn]

41. Interesting comments from the Miami Herald

~snip~ Several senators said Bush's order directing Homeland Security and Treasury to step up searches of travelers to Cuba was a bad use of resources during the war on terrorism.

Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, a member of the GOP leadership, said the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control, which targets the funding of terrorism, should not be focusing on the embargo on Cuba.

GRANDMAS TARGETED

''Ten percent of the OFAC budget is used to track down little old grandmas from the West Coast who through a Canadian travel agency chose to bike in Cuba,'' Craig said. He was one of seven Republicans on the Appropriations Committee to vote to end the ban.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said the Senate ''paid very little heed to the veto threat.'' Phil Peters, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a conservative think tank, said the importance of Thursday's vote was that ``the president's arguments may work in Miami but not the rest of the country.''

If remaining spending bills are wrapped up into one omnibus measure later this year, Dorgan and Craig said, they expected the Senate to vote again to eliminate the ban. ~snip~

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/cuba/7091377.htm

[Osolomia]

42. "As a Republican, I am appalled at President Bush's decision..."

Loosen stance toward Cuba
10/24/03

As a Republican, I am appalled at President Bush's decision to tighten travel restrictions to Cuba and to allow for more dissidents to emigrate to the United States, as a way to destabilize Fidel Castro's government. His argument is that American dollars spent in Cuba only end up in the hands of the elite.

That is not true. I have visited Cuba five times recently, twice with a group of students from my school. We were able to bring 1,000 pounds of humanitarian aid that we personally distributed to local agencies and individual citizens.

We shopped and we tipped, knowing that (our money) would ultimately help working families and school children.

Bush should stop his hawkish stance toward Cuba, a nation that is not a threat to our national security. He should leave Castro alone and allow me, a Spanish teacher, to visit a country that has been a wonderful host to me and my students.

The president's comments have cost him my endorsement for his re-election.

ROBERTO J. VILLA Northwest Portland

http://www.oregonlive.com/letters/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1066997017122540.xml

A golden opportunity has been handed to the Dems on a silver platter and look at what the leaders are doing with it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=180595#181688

[Osolomia]

43. Dems are still standing with the extremist minority in Florida

and choose to ignore the majority across the country and expect to win elections that way. Go figure!

[Judi Lynn]

44. At this rate, we'll have to wait five or ten years, until the "exiles"

as a community become engulfed by incoming immigrants from OTHER Latin American countries, which is an ongoing process right now, and they finally lose their center, their clout, their force as they are finally outnumbered by Argentinians, Colombians, etc., etc.

THEN NO POLITICAL WHORES will be stumbling off to Miami to pander to them, and then to repay them for their favors, once in office.

So who wants to wait that long? Why should they keep getting away with stealing our rights? Screw that!


Florida Republican Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart


Rep.Mario Diaz-Balart, Florida Republican


Fla. Repub. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen


N. J. Dem. Rep. Robert Menendez

[Osolomia]

45. The rest of the country isn't waiting so why are the Dems?

What on Earth is the Party's problem?

Go easy on the pix, they really slow down loading the page!

[Judi Lynn]

46. I fixed the pix!

Put in little ugly ones, rather than the big ugly ones. I really wanted to ilustrate the choke-hold they have on our country, and thought it would be a snap if I posted photos of Lincoln sitting alone with George in Air Force One, etc.

Didn't remember it takes forever for those things to load.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EXCELLENT CUBA ARTICLE

Cuba in the cross-hairs:
A near half-century of terror
by Noam Chomsky
TomDispatch.com
October 24, 2003

FOREIGN POLICY


The world experienced "the most dangerous moment in human history" during the Cuban missile crisis. For Cuba, that most dangerous moment actually began soon after Fidel Castro's guerrilla forces overthrew the Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista and never really ended. Now that the Bush administration, pursuing its "war against terrorism," has once again elevated Cuba into America's cross-hairs as a newly anointed member of the Axis of Evil, this excerpt from Chomsky's new book which first appeared on TomDispatch.com seems especially relevant.]

The Batista dictatorship was overthrown in January 1959 by Castro's guerrilla forces. In March, the National Security Council (NSC) considered means to institute regime change. In May, the CIA began to arm guerrillas inside Cuba. "During the Winter of 1959-1960, there was a significant increase in CIA-supervised bombing and incendiary raids piloted by exiled Cubans" based in the US. We need not tarry on what the US or its clients would do under such circumstances. Cuba, however, did not respond with violent actions within the United States for revenge or deterrence. Rather, it followed the procedure required by international law. In July 1960, Cuba called on the UN for help, providing the Security Council with records of some twenty bombings, including names of pilots, plane registration numbers, unexploded bombs, and other specific details, alleging considerable damage and casualties and calling for resolution of the conflict through diplomatic channels. US Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge responded by giving his "assurance the United States has no aggressive purpose against Cuba." Four months before, in March 1960, his government had made a formal decision in secret to overthrow the Castro government, and preparations for the Bay of Pigs invasion were well advanced.

Washington was concerned that Cubans might try to defend themselves. CIA chief Allen Dulles therefore urged Britain not to provide arms to Cuba. His "main reason," the British ambassador reported to London, "was that this might lead the Cubans to ask for Soviet or Soviet bloc arms," a move that "would have a tremendous effect," Dulles pointed out, allowing Washington to portray Cuba as a security threat to the hemisphere, following the script that had worked so well in Guatemala. Dulles was referring to Washington's successful demolition of Guatemala's first democratic experiment, a ten-year interlude of hope and progress, greatly feared in Washington because of the enormous popular support reported by US intelligence and the "demonstration effect" of social and economic measures to benefit the large majority. The Soviet threat was routinely invoked, abetted by Guatemala's appeal to the Soviet bloc for arms after the US had threatened attack and cut off other sources of supply. The result was a half-century of horror, even worse than the US-backed tyranny that came before. (snip/...)

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=4394

[Osolomia]

47. There's no excuse for the ignorance of the Dems

and their persistent pandering to the extremist minority on this issue, no excuse for the spineless hypocrisy of the 2004 Democratic presidential candidates whatsoever. After all these years, silent complicity with Bush is still the best they can do. Pathetic!