One of Parkland’s teenage gun-grabbers, Emma González, has called for ‘[r]emoving the assault and semi-automatic weapons from our Civilian society, instituting thorough background checks and mandatory waiting periods (and raising the buying age and banning the production of high-capacity magazines” via a Sunday tweet.
She’s received 30.000 “likes” from her useful idiot followers for that as of this writing. So much for no one is talking about taking anyone’s guns.
She was following up on another tweet commenting on Sunday’s Waffle House shooting, where someone authorities had already confiscated guns from had no problem going on a shooting rampage.
“The local police say a man at the scene wrestled his gun away – looks like you don’t need to arm a teacher (or a resource officer) to stop a shooting,” González opined. “There goes the sales pitch for @SmithWessonCorp.”
Well hell. There goes the argument for armed police and armed soldiers, too.
Leave it to Opposite Day “progressives” to hail such immature naiveté, not to mention bad manners, as wisdom and visionary leadership. Fortunately, the louder and more obnoxious these armband-wearing children get, the more people are noting the reality about them – as opposed to their media-managed image.
All those in favor of Cuban-style citizen disarmament, raise your right hand!
Here’s the thing about this González ingrate – her father came here ostensibly seeking more freedom than he had in Castro’s Cuba, the communist tyrant who, upon winning power with guns, disarmed those not acting as enforcers for his regime with the chilling question:
Here’s a question for González and the rest of her band of Time Magazine cover “honorees” demanding Americans surrender what founder Tench Coxe (whom they probably were never taught about in History class) called “the birthright of an American”:
How many citizens who refuse to disarm are you willing to see agents of the state kill in order to impose your demands?
Any bets there aren’t those who would respond “All of you”…? And that any less than that wouldn’t be “Enough“?
—–
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
After months of blustery rhetoric and half measures, the White House is finally taking steps to undo another one of former President Barack Obama’s legacy-defining foreign-policy accomplishments.
The Washington Post reports that, in a landmark ruling, the Trump administration is reversing some of Obama detente with Cuba by cracking down on travel and business with the island.
Under the new rules, most individual visits to Cuba will no longer be allowed, and U.S. citizens will again have to travel as part of a licensed group, accompanied by a group representative. Americans will also be barred from staying at a long list of hotels and from patronizing restaurants, stores and other enterprises that the State Department has determined are owned by or benefit members of the Cuban government, specifically its security services.
Administration officials said that the new regulations, which go into effect Thursday, would not affect travel arrangements already made or contracts already signed, which are to be grandfathered in under existing law.
Trump was extremely critical of Obama’s Cuba policy during the campaign, but after taking office did relatively little to restrict the newly opened lines of trade and tourism opened up by Obama, who made it much easier for US tourists to visit the island, so long as they could justify the trip under a list of criteria issued by the Obama State Department.
Trump railed against Cuba during a speech he gave back in May, sparking speculation that he would threaten to punish Cuba unless it returns US fugitives like Assata Shakur, who received political asylum on the island after being convicted of killing a New Jersey state trooper and escaping from a US prison.
Trump was spurred to act over the summer after US media reported on a series of mysterious cyberattacks that targeted more than 20 US diplomats stationed in Havana, including an unusually large number of spies.
Trump expelled most of Cuba’s Washington-based diplomats, and recalled two-thirds of US personnel from Havana after blaming Cuba for not doing more to prevent the attacks, though the US has said there’s no evidence to suggest the attacks were orchestrated by the Cuban government.
But now that it seems like Trump is getting serious, expect more restrictions to follow as Trump follows through with other promises like barring US companies American from making deals with the Cuban military, which controls much of the state-run tourism industry.
Entrepreneur and TV personality Mark Cuban is one of the most visible businessmen in America (present occupant of the Oval Office aside) - though whether his reputation is warranted or not is open to debate. LIke Trump, he is a master of self-promotion - he authored a popular business book - the aptly titled “How To Win At The Sport Of Business” (Cuban owns the Dallas Mavericks) - and is one of the hosts on a popular network reality TV show, “Shark Tank.”
But first, Cuban and Bass warm up with some small talk about parenting, where Cuban readily shares his strategy for raising kids to not become, in his words, “entitled jerks.”
MC: It"s like, you want something? You have to earn it. It may be doing math. Like, with my 8-year-old, it"s math for money. You have to answer math questions to earn $1 or $5.
With my middle daughter, it"s reading a non-school book. So, I"ll give her a history book or a biography. And she"ll make $20. If it"s over 300 pages, she can make more.
And then my oldest daughter is a challenge. My 14-year-old, that"s a whole different beast. All those things worked up until this year.
So, we"re working through trying to figure out what kind of jobs she can do. So, the point being that, I want them to recognize like I did growing up, that you have to earn what you"re going to get and that it"s just not going to be waiting for you. And so, whether that amount is $5 million like I have now or $10 million when they get to 30, then who knows? We can adjust. But it"s I think now is really where it matters and the habits that I get them into now are important.
While Shark Tank doesn’t pay as well as some of his other ventures, Cuban says doing the show is a labor of love. He says he enjoys hearing stories from parents about how watching shark tank inspired their kids to become more entrepreneurial.
In one notable aside, Cuban confirmed what many dedicated “Shark Tank” fans have probably suspected for years: The producers intentionally pick some of the more outlandish pitches (remember Cougar Energy? The energy drink shot marketed toward tired, single, middle-aged woman?) to inject a little excitement into the show.
Though sometimes the silliest pitches can yield surprisingly strong returns, Cuban said.
MC: Yeah. Because it"s TV, right? So, I invested in a guy - so when I first did the show - I came on as a guest 7 years ago. And there was a guy that did a little dance - I want to draw a cat for you, right? And I gave him $25,000 for a third of his company, and all we did was draw stick figures of cats. And he charged $10 a pop. And people were buying them. And so, literally, I got probably a 50% return of my $25,000 investment.
And also, on top of that, I got hired to do 10 cats at $1,000 apiece by somebody because the silliness of it is what sold. But I made the investment, not because I wanted to draw cats, right, but because he was really good at SEO. And so sometimes you see somebody who doesn"t really know how to manifest their skill set. So, you start with them here, and we did some things there, and then we took his creativity and pushed him into other areas. And now he"s on to bigger and better things, which is great by me.
Bass then moved on to asking Cuban a few questions about how he manages his $3.3 billion.
Cuban said he doesn’t think about investing strictly in terms of monetary return. When he chooses companies to invest in, he thinks in terms of the company’s overall impact.
Moving on, Bass asked how Cuban how he thinks about passing on his wealth to his children.
Cuban says he’s considering a similar approach to Warren Buffett whereby he leaves either $5 million or $10 million to each of his children in his will, with conditions so they don’t receive the money until they’re thirty. Cuban often speaks about how his teenage work experience selling garbage bags and delivering newspapers helped prepare him for life as an entrepreneur.
Cuban: So, when I wrote my will initially, it was $5, and not till they were 30, right? So that I wanted them to go through life. And I know my wife, if she outlives me - probably will - she"ll fill in the blanks like she does today, right? Like, my kids want money today, it"s like, how are you going to earn it? I"m not that dad that says here"s a present, right, here"s a bank account, here"s a debit card, just use it, or whatever-- no. Here"s your Amazon account. Not at all.
Their conversation soon turned to global central bank policy, and how aggressive money printing by the largest CBs has helped distort the global cash-to-GDP ratio, which now stands at around 170%, compared to historical levels of just 40%...
KB: Yeah. So, when we think about-- global cash balances today are the largest they"ve ever been. So when I think about what happened is - the first QE that happened in the US, and Europe, and Bank of Japan, Bank of England had to fill a hole, right? There was there was a hole.
Given the global financial crisis - global financial institutions were insolvent. They had to print that money. They had to inject it-
MC: No question.
KB: - in the banks. And that"s something that you and I would have done if we were running these institutions. Whether or not we agree with expanding fed balance sheets, we"d have to do it. So, the second part was the part that felt good, the part where we started to see some growth, and started to see cash getting distributed. And the interesting thing is it was fed policy was unintentionally distributed to the wealthy because the wealthy are the only people that could use leverage and assets, and they don"t spend it right away.
MC: And because of this drop in the stock market, people who could afford to lease got out of the market. And because so many people lost their homes, whatever savings you had, you used to try to save your house and to try to reimagine your life, if you will, and recreate your -
KB: Exactly right.
MC: And so, you"ve got a greater disparity in standards of living, and that"s where we are today.
However, this excess liquidity created by the central banks will eventually evaporate as advances in artificial intelligence and automation trigger a deflationary spiral as they push more humans out of the labor market.
Cuban believes that - for better or worse - automation will change the world, and that companies should be proactive about engaging in it.
Ultimately, this trend will benefit tech stocks like Amazon and Apple. The biggest tech companies, Cuban said, are going to continue to swell in size, influence and profitability.
KB: - so innovational that we"ve had good deflation. But I think now, when you look at the price of just about anything in life, it"s going up. My view -
MC: See, I would disagree. Right. I think artificial intelligence is going to change everything, everything, 180 degrees. I"ve been in the tech business. I started selling PCs in 1982, right? I started selling local area networks - we were the first companies - my first start-up in 1983. I sold that, and then I started trading just tech. I started a hedge fund - started just trading tech stocks - sold that within 90 days. And then we started streaming, then first hide - all these things have happened that have changed how we do business, changed how we lived our lives, changed everything, right, the internet. But what we"re going to see with artificial intelligence dwarfs all of that.
KB: And you think it will be deflationary?
MC: Yes. Because there"s going to be -
KB: Because it displaces jobs?
MC: A lot of jobs.
KB: OK. That"s not good.
MC: Well, you can make arguments, right - it"s not a question of how it plays out over 100 years. It"s a question of how plays out over 10 years, 20 years, right? Who knows what exactly - But I can tell, at the beginning, which jobs are going to be displaced. I can tell you the real estate is going to be displaced. I"ve talked to major companies that, they"re asking me, Mark, we"re going to have all this extra real estate in all these towns. What are we going to do with it? Do you have any ideas? And I"m talking to them about -
KB: Because they"re going to be centralizing their operations?
MC: Just fewer people.
KB: Fewer people.
MC: Yeah. Just fewer people. So, the concept of you calling in to make an appointment to have somebody pick up your car to get your oil changed, right-- someone will still drive to get your car, but there"s going to be no people in transacting any of it.
KB: That"s terrible.
MC: It is what it is.
Cuban says he agrees with Vladimir Putin’s assessment that whichever country wins the AI innovation race could wind up controlling the world.
KB: Or best professors, for that matter. They"re pulling them out of school.
MC: Exactly right. And so, Vladimir Putin says the winner in AI controls the world. China puts together a future plan saying whoever dominates in AI-- and they"re subsidizing Tencent, Alibaba, et cetera, right?
KB: They know it"s a race.
MC: It is a race. We cut our Office of Technology and Science to one person who was an assistant to Peter Thiel. That"s where we stand. So, we talk about infrastructure jobs, robots are built in Germany, and they"re getting bought by Chinese companies. In some respects, I think some Japanese companies bought as well. We don"t build robots here very well, right? I just invested in my first robotics company, Hirebotics that puts robots into companies. They"re in Kansas City, I think it is, now.
But they lease and rent and sell robots into all these different types of circumstances to replace people, right? But I had to learn. I"m not saying it"s a good thing or a bad thing. It"s going to happen with or without me. But I wanted to learn what was going on. Those building up a robotics industry here, investing in our AI industry here, that"s the new infrastructure. Because if we don"t do it, and China or Russia win those wars, we"re SOL. We"re out of luck, right?
And so, when we talk about the price of assets going up - if you"re talking about intellectual assets, if you"re hiring, like we were just saying, the price is skyrocketing. Montreal has become the center of the universe for computer vision. It"s not US-based schools that are dominating any longer in those areas. We"ve got lots more kids - MIT, all different schools, right? And kids are starting to realize there"s a place for them to go. And I"m out there telling people, the first trillionaire is going to come from somebody who comes up with something -
Asked for his opinion on digital currencies, Cuban likened the inherently deflationary bitcoin to a work of art that appreciates as it ages.
But in Cuban"s view, the biggest tech stocks will eventually outperform bitcoin as they master the ability to innovate while also achieving massive scale.
KB: It"s just a digital asset that"s a collectible? Yeah.
MC: Right? And in this particular case, it"s a brilliant collectible that"s probably more like art than baseball cards, stamps, or coins, right, because there"s a finite amount that are going to be made, right? There"s 21.9 million bitcoins that are going to be made. And if enough people hold and don"t sell, and enough people borrow to buy, just like we saw in the stock market. Because look, as much as a share of stock is ownership in a company, that"s the all-time lie, right? You have no authority, no ownership.
KB: Unless you control it.
MC: Yeah. Unless you"re the controlling shareholder, or you are willing to spend a lot to make a lot of noise.
MC: It depends on what my expertise would be, right? I mean, I always tell people to focus on what you know. And if you don"t know, just put it in an SPX cheap fund, right? And maybe, now, I might say, OK, put 5% in Bitcoin or Ethereum, just red or black, right? Because it"s like artwork, but it has -
KB: A finite amount of artwork.
MC: There"s a finite amount of artwork, right, or baseball cards. But yeah, I would just tell people an SPX fund. Because I think the job of America is still business. And I think, whatever benefits will come from AI or whatever, is going to--
KB: Filter into -
MC: Yeah. And I think the FANG stock"s are going to crush them. My biggest public holding is Amazon.
...Before the conversation turned to ICOs. Cuban insists ICOs are “an opportunity” though he says he avoids the “speculative” side of the market....which is confusing because the market is a massively speculative bubble where products are rare and “pitches” are legion.
KB: And then, when you move into ICOs, how do you think about ICOs? You mentioned to me, it"s a seat license.
MC: Yeah. That"s exactly right. ICO tokens really are an opportunity - there"s two there"s two different ways to look at ICOs, right - one, as a quote unquote, "investment vehicle," which I don"t, right? Again, that"s just a scarcity play. It"s like it"s like an IPO in some respects. It"s just, if the float is small, and you can convince enough people on the road show to buy, it"s going up, right?
In summary, Cuban is categorically bullish about AI and ICOs, which is unsurprising. After all, he’s a tech guy who made his fortune selling broadcast.com to Yahoo in what turned out to be an ill-fated acquisition for the once-mighty internet giant. Still, if one has billions of dollars to invest in projects based on their purported “impact”, so-called “opportunities” in the ICO market are never in short supply.
(POPEYE) This is an interview with Col. L. Fletcher Prouty done back on August 5th 1993 in which he discusses the reality of what happened with the Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba, and the beginnings of the Vietnam war. He gives the listener a deeper look into the goings on in the background during both events, and the Kennedy Administration’s short run. This is essential information to have a more thorough understanding of the overall bigger picture, and to help understand why President John F. Kennedy was murdered. As Col. Prouty says in the interview, “The Bay of Pigs is the key to the problems that came later.”
As reporters have began to sift through the thousands of newly revealed government documents relating to the assassination of President Kennedy and subsequent investigation, we are starting to see some stunning revelations concerning not only JFK but the overall mindset of the CIA at the time in their all out war against Communism.
One of the more scary revelations to come out so far details a copy of a paper on “Pretexts” for war with Cuba that described a plan, under Operation Mongoose, to conduct false flag terror attacks in Miami, to be blamed on Cuba but actually carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency.
“Operation Mongoose” was the operational name for the CIA’s plan to topple the Castro government which we now know included purposefully killing our own citizens.
The time was 1962, the same year that brought us the now infamous Operation Northwoods, which was also a plan to kill American citizens as a pretext for war with Communist Cuba.
“On April 12th, 1962, General Lansdale forwarded to Maxwell Taylor an “advance copy” of the Joint Chiefs paper on “Pretexts” stating, I am informed that the Chiefs approve of this,” reads the document.
Keep in mind that this is an admission that the Pentagon at the time was fully on board with killing Americans if it allowed them to wage war against Cuba.
“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated),” the false flag plan reads.
“We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of a Cuban agent and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.”
While it has been long known that Operation Mongoose was a false flag pretext operation to go to war with Cuba, the fact that the CIA was going to murder Americans hasn’t been released although it has been hinted.
As James Bamford reported in his book, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency From the Cold War Through the Dawn of a New Century, “The U.S. Department of Defense report even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on [the U.S. Navy base at] Guantanamo.”
This is yet more evidence that the United States government can and does carry out false flag operations, with 9/11 being the most major example of our time.
Moving even more into the present, if the government was willing to do this is Miami, why is it so hard to believe they would do the same thing in Las Vegas in 2017?
Are the Cubans attacking US embassy personnel in Havana with sonic weapons? As relations continue to deteriorate despite no proof, who benefits to a return to Cold War with Cuba?
As previewed last night, when we reported that the US government would expel as many as 60% of Cuba"s Washington Embassy staff, on Tuesday morning the Trump administration announced Tuesday it will expel 15 Cuban diplomats from the U.S. in response to months of mysterious “health attacks” that have affected American personnel in Havana. The State Department said that the decision was made due to "Cuba"s failure to take appropriate steps to protect our diplomats in accordance with its obligations under the Vienna Convention."
A State Department official said the expulsions will ensure “we have equitable staffing levels” while still allowing the embassies to operate. The official would not confirm whether the percentage of Cubans expelled matches the U.S. staff cut in Havana. The Cuban officials were given seven days to leave Washington
The official also said the U.S. is maintaining diplomatic ties with Cuba, but warned Havana it will need its “full assurances” that U.S. diplomats will be protected in order to restore a full presence there.
“We have underscored repeatedly to the Cuban government its responsibility for the security, safety, [and] well-being” of our diplomats, the official said.
The announcement comes days after the U.S. pulled 60% of its embassy staff from the Cuban capital and is the latest sign of the worsening ties between the two former Cold War foes under President Trump.
As The Hill notes, the diplomatic tit-for-tat is a further blow to former President Obama’s effort to re-establish ties with Cuba after decades of isolation.
The move will likely please Cuban-American lawmakers in Washington, who have urged the Trump administration to expel Cuban diplomats over the attacks. But the emissaries are not being declared persona non grata, meaning they will avoid the most serious punishment for foreign diplomats.
On Tuesday, the State Department said that at least 22 U.S. embassy employees have been injured in the attacks. As reported previously, the affected diplomats had suffered loss of hearing, headaches and other symptoms. In response, the Cuban government denied it was behind any attack and has pledged to investigate the incidents. But so far, no culprit has been named. The Trump administration has not blamed the Castro government, but has repeatedly stated it bears responsibility for stopping them.
In addition to the embassy drawdown, the Trump administration has stopped issuing visas for Cubans seeking to visit the U.S. and issued a travel warning for Americans who want to visit Cuba. The U.S. also expelled two other Cuban diplomats in May over the attacks.
Meanwhile, tensions between Washington and Havana have repeatedly flared under Trump, who has been eager to undo the detente achieved between Havana and the Trump administration. Over the summer, the president rolled back part of Obama’s Cuba policy, which he criticized as a “one-sided deal.” Cuban officials have predictably warned the move would damage relations between the two nations.
Just days after the Associated Press reported that the State Department planned to withdraw most of its personnel from the Cuban embassy in Havana, the wire service is returning with another revelatory scoop about the mysterious “sonic attacks” that have caused injuries ranging from minor to life-threatening in 21 embassy personnel: Many of the diplomats targeted were US spies, partly explaining the State Department"s reluctance to discuss the attacks.
Frightening attacks on U.S. personnel in Havana struck the heart of America’s spy network in Cuba, with intelligence operatives among the first and most severely affected victims, The Associated Press has learned.
It wasn’t until U.S. spies, posted to the embassy under diplomatic cover, reported hearing bizarre sounds and experiencing even stranger physical effects that the United States realized something was wrong, individuals familiar with the situation said.
However, the AP’s government sources refused to confirm a timeline for the attacks, or provide other basic details, underscoring the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation.
While the attacks started within days of President Donald Trump’s surprise election in November, the precise timeline remains unclear, including whether intelligence officers were the first victims hit or merely the first victims to report it. The U.S. has called the situation “ongoing.”
To date, the Trump administration largely has described the 21 victims as U.S. embassy personnel or “members of the diplomatic community.” That description suggested only bona fide diplomats and their family members were struck, with no logical motivation beyond disrupting U.S.-Cuban relations.
The revelation that some of the victims were spies adds another dimension to the mystery; however, the motivations behind the attack remain as murky as the attackers’ identity. It’s unclear, according to the AP, whether the attacker intentionally targeted spies. Though if it were true, the attacks would represent an unprecedented escalation of the long-running spy games between the US and Havana.
Behind the scenes, though, investigators immediately started searching for explanations in the darker, rougher world of spycraft and counterespionage, given that so many of the first reported cases involved intelligence workers posted to the U.S. embassy. That revelation, confirmed to the AP by a half-dozen officials, adds yet another element of mystery to a year-long saga that the Trump administration says may not be over.
The State Department and the CIA declined to comment for this story.
The first disturbing reports of piercing, high-pitched noises and inexplicable ailments pointed to someone deliberately targeting the U.S. government’s intelligence network on the communist-run island, in what seemed like a bone-chilling escalation of the tit-for-tat spy games that Washington and Havana have waged over the last half century.
But the U.S. soon discovered that actual diplomats at the embassy had also been hit by similar attacks, officials said, further confounding the search for a culprit and a motive.
If disrupting US-Cuba relations was the attack’s intent, then they have clearly succeeded: The US quietly expelled two Cuban diplomats in August. And by withdrawing most of its embassy personnel and warning travelers to stay away from the island, the US is signaling a chill in travel and trade that could prevent Cubans from visiting family members in the US. The reduction in embassy staff means visa processing has been suspended indefinitely.
Of the 21 confirmed cases, American spies suffered some of the most acute damage, including brain injury and hearing loss that has not healed, according to the AP’s sources. Many of the victims provided similar descriptions to US authorities: They described hearing something that sounded like loud crickets before falling ill. However, in many of the more recent cases, victims didn’t report hearing the noises. Instead, they identified the symptoms later on, raising concerns among investigators that the attacks may be getting more sophisticated and harder to detect.
To be sure, while the State Department told the AP that all cases have been “medically confirmed,” several officials said it’s unclear whether all of the victims’ symptoms can be conclusively tied to attacks. Considering the deep sense of alarm at the embassy, it’s possible that some wrongly attributed symptoms to the attacks.
So far, the US has been unable to identify the weapon used in the attacks. Initially, the State Department gave diplomats the option of leaving Havana, but many, including some of the attack victims, opted to remain.
For his part, Cuban President Raul Castro has denied responsibility for the attacks, expressing equal alarm and promising to aid in the investigation in any way possible.
When President Raul Castro denied any culpability in February, he did so on the sidelines a meeting in Havana with five visiting U.S. members of Congress, the AP found. The U.S. had raised complaints about the attacks to Cuba just days earlier through diplomatic channels.
But the visiting lawmakers knew nothing of the attacks taking place in the country they were visiting.
Nor did they know that Castro had used the occasion of their meeting to pull aside Jeff DeLaurentis, then the top U.S. diplomat in Cuba, to say privately that his government was equally alarmed and willing to help.
But if the Cubans aren’t responsible for the attacks, who is? The list of possible state actors has more than a couple names: Venezuela, Russia and China are all probably suspects. But until the US can determine the nature of the weapon used, intelligence officials can only speculate.
The gunfire on the streets near my hotel started around 9pm last night.
The sound is unmistakable, especially at night on an otherwise quiet city street.
I had recently returned to the hotel after a few evening meetings. And coming back after dark it was as if they had rolled the sidewalks up — restaurants with no patrons, bars and clubs that were totally empty.
There was an incredibly striking woman I remember, standing in front of her restaurant playing hostess to absolutely nobody.
And with few people on the streets, it felt like some sort of zombie apocalypse.
Amazingly enough this country used to be THE wealthiest in the region. And not too long ago.
Throughout the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, Venezuela enjoyed robust growth. Low inflation. Substantial foreign investment. High wages. It was the envy of Latin America.
It was all based on one industry: oil. Venezuela has effectively been a one-trick pony for decades.
And when oil prices were strong, the government was swimming in cash. Even as recently as 2007, the Venezuelan government’s oil revenue was so high that they PAID OFF ALL FOREIGN DEBT.
Think about that: only ten years ago Venezuela had ZERO foreign debt.
But at the same time the government here had a long history of excessive spending. Social programs. Military. Fuel and electricity subsidies. Whatever it took to remain in power.
The government spent so much money that, even when oil prices exceeded $100 per barrel between 2011 and 2013, they STILL couldn’t break even.
Then oil prices collapsed. By early 2016, a barrel of oil was fetching less than $30.
Venezuela’s public finances were in shambles… so the government resorted to the same old tactics that nearly every bankrupt government has relied on throughout history.
For one, they started spending their foreign reserves– essentially burning through the public savings account.
Today Venezuela has its lowest level of foreign reserves in decades, less than $10 billion, compared to $42 billion in December 2008.
They’ve also sold off a huge portion of their gold reserves.
In late 2015 Venezuela held 373 metric tons of gold. Today that’s down to 188 metric tons, a nearly 50% drop in less than two years.
More importantly, though, the government has resorted to printing incomprehensible quantities of paper currency and vastly expanding the central bank balance sheet.
This chart is really amazing to see– the Venezuelan central bank’s balance sheet literally TRIPLED in a SINGLE MONTH between April and May of this year.
They keep printing more and more money, to the point that the currency has become totally worthless.
I remember coming here a few years ago when the black-market rate was around 8 bolivars per US dollar.
On my next trip, it took 100 bolivars to buy a dollar in the black market. And the rate kept dropping with each trip.
This time I exchanged dollars at around 27,000 per US dollar. Meanwhile the ‘official’ rate is a laughable 10:1. It’s a nearly 3000x difference.
So, depending on which exchange rate you use, Venezuela is either absurdly expensive or absurdly cheap.
A ride from the airport was about 80,000 bolivars. At official rates that’s EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS. For a taxi ride.
But at black market rates it’s less than three bucks. Quite a difference.
Last night I exchanged $100 and received this brick of cash in exchange.
Needless to say this monetary insanity makes life extremely difficult.
Anything imported is prohibitively expensive. And with the economy collapsing, domestic production is also grinding to a halt.
There’s very little economic activity. People are sitting in their homes trying to survive. Medicine is scarce. And even staples like food are running out… which is totally nuts.
Venezuela is a vast country with rich, fertile soil and abundant sources of water. There is absolutely no reason why there should be food shortages here.
Chalk up another victory for socialism and central planning.
In their desperation, people are turning to crime, prostitution… anything they have to do to make ends meet. I routinely see people picking through garbage cans eating scraps, anything they can find.
Incredibly there is still a hint of normalcy in the city, at least during the daytime.
People are out on the streets going about their lives… heading to work, taking their kids to school, playing sports, chatting with their friends.
I find it remarkable how well this place has held itself together. Venezuelans constantly display ingenuity and resilience in their ability to deal with such an epic crisis.
And the good news is that this will one day get better.
The government has nearly run out of money and is dangerously close to defaulting on its debts. At some point they’ll no longer be able to pay the armed thugs who keep the population in line.
It’s inevitable. Totalitarian governments almost invariably fall when they run out of resources to sustain themselves.
It may get worse before it gets better. But eventually this madness and oppression WILL come to an end, whether through war, revolution, peaceful means.
What I find so strange is how little optimism there is for Venezuela.
By comparison, investors are perennially excited about Cuba. People have been saying for decades that Cuba will be an investment paradise once the authoritarian regime comes to an end.
Sure, great. I’ve been to Cuba. I like it. And there will certainly be great opportunities there.
But few people apply this same logic to Venezuela. And I find that strange.
This place is huge. There is SO MUCH opportunity here. 30+ million people. Enormous reserves of natural resources. Plenty of coastline. Ports. Infrastructure. Manufacturing capacity. Strategic geography. Renewable energy.
Whether it’s next year or ten years from now, this country has the potential to some day become one of the most exciting places in the world.
They mostly come at night – the attacks from Cuba. Mostly. And many victims never noticed anything odd while others noticed a strange vibration or sound.
It all started in the fall of 2016. Several of the affected diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of Barack Obama’s reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. The Daily Mailreported that one diplomat described being jolted awake in a Havana hotel room by a grinding, blaring cacophony. When he moved a few feet across the room, the noise stopped. When he got back into bed, the agonizing sound hit him again; as if, he told doctors, he had walked through some invisible wall cutting straight down the middle of his room.
Whether they heard anything or not, the consequences have been unmistakable — symptoms ranging from nosebleeds, nausea, dizziness and severe headaches to mild brain damage and permanent hearing or memory loss. Oddly, as soon as some of the victims left Cuba, they stopped hearing noises. – Daily Mail
Or, as some say, maybe it isn’t as odd as we’d expect given the astonishing explanation that has surfaced as to why at least 21 U.S. diplomats, as well as others from Canada, have been brought low while serving in Communist Havana. Although America hasn’t officially pointed any finger at the likely culprit, Washington believes they were victims of a secret sonic weapon blasted their way by the Cuban government.
After months of investigation, U.S. officials concluded that the diplomats had been exposed to an advanced device that operated outside the range of audible sound and had been deployed either inside or outside their residences. It was not immediately clear if the device was a weapon used in a deliberate attack, or had some other purpose.
No one has lost their life because of this “sci-fi sonic weapon,” but the effects have been dramatic. Months later, some of the victims are still struggling to concentrate or even recall common words. This evidence of long-term mental damage has hardened the U.S. attitude against Cuba. Now, the repercussions are being felt in diplomatic shockwaves powering across the Caribbean sea in the direction of the Communist state. It may get real ugly real soon.
[Over] the weekend, the U.S. Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, revealed the Trump administration was taking the controversy so seriously that it was considering closing its embassy in Havana. Some U.S. senators have gone further, demanding that the government also kicks out every Cuban diplomat in America (the U.S. expelled two in May as a protest over the scandal). – Daily Mail
Several other experts are skeptical still as to this type of weapon’s existence. “There isn’t an acoustic phenomenon in the world that would cause those type of symptoms,” Seth Horowitz, a neuroscientist and author of the book “The Universal Sense: How Hearing Shapes the Mind,” told Business Insider via email. It “sounds like a science experiment,” James Carson, former head of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, told The New York Times.
Toby Heys, the leader of Manchester Metropolitan University’s Future Technology research center is also skeptical. He told New Scientistthat it’s possible for something emitting infrasound (vibrations at a frequency below what humans can hear) to cause hearing loss. But Heys said that would require large subwoofers, making covert deployment unlikely. Ultrasound devices, which operate above the range of human hearing, exist and could damage the ears, Heys said. But these sonic weapons would need to be directly targeted into the ear. “Overall, I would be pretty circumspect about the claims, to be honest — it is all very Philip K. Dick territory,” Heys said. “That said, we are living in a fairly surreal world right now.”
Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.
Please Spread The Word And Share This Post
Author: Mac Slavo Views: Read by 154 people Date: September 21st, 2017 Website:www.SHTFplan.com
Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.
After fifty years of imposing embargoes and other sanctions, the United States never managed to topple Cuba"s communist regime.
After forty years of the same in Iran, the US met with similar amounts of success.
Ongoing sanctions against North Korea have not toppled to regime there.
But, some people in Washington won"t let decades of failure dissuade them.
Last week, Congressman Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) introduced new legislation to bar Americans from importing oil products from Venezuela. The Washington Examiner reports:
[T]he Protecting Against Tyranny and Responsible Imports Act, or the PATRIA Act ... would target Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro after he stripped the country"s democratically elected national assembly of its power and authority. According to the bill, the proposed ban on imports would last until the assembly"s power is fully restored.
"The goal is to change the conduct, the character of the Venezuelan government under Maduro. I think the window is closing," Coffman told the Washington Examiner. "They are dependent upon the export of oil really to fund their government, and without that, they can"t pay their security forces."
Experience suggests there is little reason to believe that sanctions will cause the regime to give up in Venezuela. If the regime has less oil money with which to pay the military, the regime can always steal more from the average citizen to make up the difference. In other words, ordinary Venezuelans will suffer more in response to US sanctions.
Moreover, aggressive moves such as these against the Venezuelan regime have tended to only solidify support for the regime among its supporters. Both the current president Maduro, and his predecessor Hugo Chávez, were both successful in building support for themselves on a platform of opposing US meddling in Venezuelan political and economic institutions.
When the US threatens to intervene in local politics, this only strengthens the resolve and support of the regime"s supporters.
The US has already been acting in a reckless manner in this regard, as illustrated by President Donald Trump"s recent speculations about invading Venezuela to effect regime change. As noted by Daniel Politi at Slate, American threats directed at the Venezuelan regime do nothing to help the opposition:
Throughout his power grab that has accompanied Venezuela’s descent into chaos, Maduro has long warned the United States was planning to invade the country. Trump’s words seemed to play straight into his narrative, recalling a time when Washington saw Latin America as its backyard where it could intimidate governments into doing its bidding.
“Maduro must be thrilled right now,” said Mark Feierstein, who was a senior aide on Venezuela to former president Barack Obama. “It"s hard to imagine a more damaging thing for Trump to say.”
Similarly, threatening Venezuela with more sanctions — something that may make the regime even more violent and desperate — do nothing to help the Venezuelan people in general, and only energize the regime"s base.
Coffman claims the sanctions would be lifted if the Venezuelan regime were to restore the prerogatives and power of the national legislature, which has essentially been disbanded by Maduro.
In recent months, the Venezuelan regime has rapidly become more dictatorial as forces loyal to Maduro have increasingly clamped down on opposition politicians and essentially ignored the results of recent elections that have brought many opposition leaders to power in the National Assembly.
The working philosophy here, apparently, is that the imposition of sanctions will force the Venezuelan regime to democratize in response. One would be hard pressed to find examples of similar tactics actually working, however.
More astute observers might also ask why — if Coffman is so committed to democracy — he hasn"t called for similar embargoes of Saudi Arabian oil. The Saudi regime, of course, has been a dictatorship ever since its founding, sponsors international terrorism, and tolerates no religious freedom or freedom of speech. The Saudi regime, for instance, routinely arrests critics of the regime, and the regime"s spokesman has outright denied that elections should be allowed in Saudi Arabia.
If human rights are of such pressing concern to the Congressman, its unclear why Venezuela is at the top of the sanctions list.
As with all Trade Sanctions, Americans Suffer
As with any discussion of sanctions, of course, we need not even consider the strategic futility of sanctions, or the morality of foreign regimes.
Far from being a matter only of concern to foreigners, US sanctions are built on the cornerstone of limiting the freedoms of Americans.
[S]upporting an embargo means supporting the government when it fines, prosecutes, and jails peaceful citizens who attempt to engage in truly free trade. Support for an embargo also requires support for a customs bureaucracy that spies on merchants and consumers, and the whole panoply of enforcement programs necessary to punish those who run afoul of the government’s arbitrary pronouncements on what kind of trade is acceptable, and what kind is verboten. Naturally, this is all paid for by the taxpayers...
At their heart, embargoes are nothing but a specific type of prohibition. Sometimes, the government imposes prohibitions on transactions involving certain goods, such as cannabis. Other times, the prohibition extends to all transactions with people in a certain place. The fundamentals are the same, however, in that they prohibit peaceful exchange, with heavy penalties for violators.
In the case of a new embargo against Venezuela, the effect would be to place prohibitions on American importers, and thus drive up prices for oil and energy for all Americans. Government bureaucrats would be dispatched to monitor private industry to make sure they don"t violate the prohibitions. Government agents will impose fines, and make arrests if necessary. The American government will become more powerful at the expense of American consumers and American taxpayers.
Indeed, this has already been going on with smaller-scale sanctions imposed by the Trump administration against Citgo oil refineries. Thanks to the sanctions, Citgo refineries in the US, which constitute four percent of American fuel capacity, and which employ American workers, are finding it more costly to obtain the oil they need for the refineries. Both domestic and foreign suppliers must scramble to work around the new regulations in order to avoid fines and lawsuits from government regulators who oversee trade. The effect of this will be to put pressure on more marginal employees and on more marginal operations, leading to layoffs and diminished refining capacity. Ultimately, it is Americans who will pay the price.
One of the most bizarre stories this week took a more sinister turn yesterday as the US State Department officially confirmed 16 US Government employees were affected by health attacks in Cuba.
State Deaprtment spokesperson Heather Nuarte calmly explained the details, which are quite frankly stunning…
And yet most of the mainstream media seems loathed to cover this!? Happy to focus on nazis?
CBS News, however, did some digging, discovering from a review of medical records that the American and Canadian diplomats in Cuba have been diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injury – and central nervous damage – after an apparent attack with a sonic weapon targeted their homes.
The diplomats complained about symptoms ranging from hearing loss and nausea to headaches and balance disorders after the State Department said “incidents” began affecting them beginning in late 2016.
A number of diplomats have cut short their assignments in Cuba because of the attacks.
The source says American diplomats have also been subjected other types of harassment including vehicle vandalization, constant surveillance, and home break-ins.
As Axios reports, The State Department hasn’t explicitly identified the source of the attack or what person or entity might have carried it out.
“We hold the Cuban authorities responsible for finding out who is carrying out these health attacks on not just our diplomats but, as you’ve seen now, there are other cases with other diplomats involved,” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters earlier this month.
Of course, while we wish these diplomats well (if recovery is possible), the big question is – what will the repurcussions be for US-Cuba relations and what response will the Trump administration unleash? As Axios notes, the severity of the apparent injuries goes far beyond what was originally reported, so it stands to reason that President Trump’s administration might choose to respond strongly given his prior rhetoric on Cuba, especially given that the report notes that the attacks on Americans are continuing.
One of the most bizarre stories this week took a more sinister turn yesterday as the US State Department officially confirmed 16 US Government employees were affected by health attacks in Cuba.
State Deaprtment spokesperson Heather Nuarte calmly explained the details, which are quite frankly stunning...
And yet most of the mainstream media seems loathed to cover this!? Happy to focus on nazis?
CBS News, however, did some digging, discovering from a review of medical records that the American and Canadian diplomats in Cuba have been diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injury - and central nervous damage - after an apparent attack with a sonic weapon targeted their homes.
The diplomats complained about symptoms ranging from hearing loss and nausea to headaches and balance disorders after the State Department said "incidents" began affecting them beginning in late 2016.
A number of diplomats have cut short their assignments in Cuba because of the attacks.
The source says American diplomats have also been subjected other types of harassment including vehicle vandalization, constant surveillance, and home break-ins.
As Axios reports, The State Department hasn"t explicitly identified the source of the attack or what person or entity might have carried it out.
"We hold the Cuban authorities responsible for finding out who is carrying out these health attacks on not just our diplomats but, as you"ve seen now, there are other cases with other diplomats involved," Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters earlier this month.
The Cuban government has denied any involvement with the incident.
Of course, while we wish these diplomats well (if recovery is possible), the big question is - what will the repurcussions be for US-Cuba relations and what response will the Trump administration unleash? As Axios notes, the severity of the apparent injuries goes far beyond what was originally reported, so it stands to reason that President Trump"s administration might choose to respond strongly given his prior rhetoric on Cuba, especially given that the report notes that the attacks on Americans are continuing.
All specific information omitted in this article has been done in the interest of protecting the identity of the FBI’s cooperating witness.
In 1999, during President Clinton’s administration, the FBI was investigating a case where the Cuban government was directly involved in drug trafficking. It definitely was, and the ring leader was Cuban General Ramiro Valdes Menendez, a “Hero of the Cuban Revolution,” a loyal ally of Fidel Castro since 1953 when he was a member of Castro’s insurgents who attacked the Cuban Army’s Moncada Barracks. That loyalty has endured over 60 years, and the Castro brothers have rewarded Valdes with many high-level positions in the Cuban government, to include Minister of Interior, the powerful overlord of the Cuban internal security services. He’s been a member of the Cuban Communist Party’s Politburo since 1965.
Ramiro Valdes and Fidel Castro
In 2000, a highly credible FBI cooperating witness (CW), a foreign national (name and nationality are known, but omitted) thoroughly vetted by the FBI, was an eyewitness to a one-on-one meeting between Valdes and Colombian Cali Cartel chief Miguel Rodriguez Abadia in Havana, Cuba and the CW provided convincing reporting on the Cuban government’s complicity in international drug trafficking. Valdes was in the uniform pictured above during the meeting. After the CW watched Valdes and Rodriguez meet in a public setting (exact place and date known, but omitted), Rodriguez returned to the CW’s table and later that day offered the following information tied to the Cali Cartel’s drug shipments through Cuba. Here are some details. (There’s a simple explanation of WHY Rodriguez gave this information to the CW. He fully trusted the CW as a confidant because they both were planning a multi-ton shipment of cocaine to the U.S. through Mexico. The name of the Mexican organization and some of the Mexicans involved are known, but omitted.)
Cali drug shipments were originally sent to Cuba via fishing vessels, but now most of the shipments were flown into Cuba by DC-3 cargo aircraft departing air strips in Venezuela. Valdes dictated these terms to Rodriguez Abadia. Note: Castro ally Hugo Chavez was president of Venezuela at the time.
Ramiro Valdes and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
Valdes is paid 20% of the value of each shipment on a strict cash-only basis (note: type of currency not reported, but presumably dollars for the cash-strapped, heavily indebted Castro regime). This expense covered securing and offloading the drug shipment upon arrival, transporting it to the port of departure, usually Havana or Matanzas, and onloading the drugs on departing ships. Destination ports were chiefly in Europe, with the Netherlands and Spain topping the list. No drugs transiting Cuba were shipped to the U.S.
No drugs would remain on the island or sold in Cuba.
Valdes controlled the quantity of drugs flown into Cuba, which Rodriguez said was 1,000 to 1,700 kilos of cocaine per shipment, normally sent to Cuba every 10-15 days. Using the least frequent figures provided by Rodriguez to the CW – 1,000 kilos every 15 days – would mean that a minimum of 24 metric tons of Cali Cartel cocaine were moving through Cuba annually. At an $18,000/kilo wholesale price, Valdes’s demand for 20% of the value of the drug shipments for handling charges would generate a minimum of over $86 million in cash of untraceable annual revenue to the Cuban government.
Because of the potential nature of this case (the CW’s direct access to the leader of the Cali Cartel, with conclusive evidence such as phone conversations between the two taped by the FBI), its progress was briefed to FBI Director Louis Freeh and Clinton’s Attorney General, Janet Reno. It is highly likely that this particular portion of the case, the eyewitness account of the meeting between Valdes and Rodriguez, was brought to the attention of President Clinton because of the possible broad political impact on foreign policy between the U.S. and Cuba.
A few words about Cali Cartel chief William Rodriguez Abadia, pictured here.
Pretty nerdy looking guy, eh? He’s a well-educated lawyer, and, although he claims he never murdered anyone or ordered any murders, it is probably not true. Who admits to murder in a media interview, which is when he made this claim? But his father, Miguel Rodriguez Orejuela, murdered and his uncle, Gilberto Rodriguez Orejuela, did also. Plus Jose Santacruz Londono. Those three men were the founders of the Cali Cartel, the world’s most powerful and wealthy criminal organization in the 1980s and 1990s. After his father, uncle, and Santacruz were wrapped up by the Colombian National Police, William took the reins in 1995. In his own words to a U.S. reporter, “I wanted the power.”
He got just that. And more. A year later, in May 1996, he was the target of a vicious hit job during a luncheon in Cali that killed 6 people, but William survived his critical wounds. 5 years later, in 2001, he went into hiding, which coincides with his last contact with the CW (exact date known, but omitted). 5 years after that, in 2006, he surrendered to U.S. authorities, pleaded guilty to certain charges, and cooperated to reduce his sentence to 5 years instead of 20.
Something important happened shortly BEFORE that meeting in Havana between General Valdes and Miguel Rodriguez in 2000. A young Cuban child named Elian Gonzalez arrived in the U.S. in 1999 after his mother and 13 other Cubans tried to flee Cuba. Storms sank the boat they were in, Elian’s mother drowned, but Elian and one other survived, were rescued and brought to the U.S. Via court order, Elian Gonzalez was returned to the Cuban government on June 28, 2000. Who can forget this frightening picture when Elian was forcibly taken at gunpoint from his relatives in Florida and later flown to Cuba?
If the meeting between Valdes and Rodriguez had taken place BEFORE the Gonzalez case was decided, one can imagine that MAYBE Clinton and Reno would have taken a completely different legal path on the Elian Gonzalez case. But even more importantly, both Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright might have moved to a much more hardline approach to relations with Cuba. Might have. Both of them knew, from intelligence information and much publicly available information, that the Cuban government was dead broke and the Cuban economy was in shambles. It would make sense that a desperate Castro would turn to drug trafficking to raise much needed money. And Castro did just that, through his trusted friend and loyal ally, Ramiro Valdes.
Unfortunately, Clinton did nothing for several possible reasons. In the presidential campaign season of the summer of 2000, his second administration was coming to an end in a few months, and he had more important political business to attend, helping Vice President Al Gore get elected. Then there is the fact that in 1999 he eased travel restrictions to Cuba for “cultural exchanges” and approved a 2-game exhibition in Cuba between the Baltimore Orioles and Cuba’s national baseball team. A pivot to a harder line policy on Cuba would have amounted to a rebuke of his own and the Democrat Party’s longstanding efforts to improve relations with Cuba, which started with President Carter’s establishment of mutual “interest sections” in Havana and Washington DC in 1977 and ended with President Obama’s approval of formal diplomatic relations with Cuba in 2015.
Post 9/11, there is additional reporting that this case was transferred from the lead FBI field office in the southern US (specific field office is known, but omitted) to the FBI’s field office in Manhattan. Later, the Southern District of New York, which includes Manhattan, issued an indictment for William Rodriguez Abadia on November 12, 2002. The Cuban aspect of the case was explosive, and the best way to ignore or bury the Cuban angle was to send the case to an FBI office swamped with 9/11 terrorist investigations and turn it over to friendly prosecutors who would focus on leads solely based on U.S – Cali Cartel ties. As noted above, the Cuban government was helping to send the cocaine to Europe, not the U.S. Smart move by the Cubans. No U.S. laws were broken.
At the time of the case transfer, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York was either Mary Jo White (appointed by President Clinton in 1993 and served until January 2, 2002) or James Comey (appointed by President Bush and served January 7, 2002 to December 15, 2003). Comey was the U.S. Attorney when William Rodriguez was indicted. He was Director of the FBI and responsible for the highly controversial decision on the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton. Mary Jo White was chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Both were appointees of President Obama.
Today we are left with an international outlaw regime in Cuba, recognized as legitimate by the U.S. government, that has undermined our allies in Europe by helping to send huge shipments of drugs to their countries. Some very important people in our government knew this and said nothing. That is not how a friend treats friends.
(ANTIMEDIA) Even though Democrats on Capitol Hill are fighting tooth-and-nail against Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, it’s almost impossible to win the battle. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has asserted “it’s up to the Democrats” whether or not Gorsuch gets confirmed, but many political analysts interpret his statement to mean that he’ll pull their filibuster — essentially changing the rules of the Chamber.
Assuming he is confirmed, Gorsuch is likely to see a Guantanamo Bay case early in his time on the bench. The Cuba-based American prison has been one of the most hotly contested legal debates in the past two decades. It’s an ethical and legal dilemma for a number of reasons. First, most of the prisoners have not been charged, and a large segment of them have been cleared for transfer. In 2013, a Boston University article noted that only six of the 166 detainees “face[d] any formal charges.”
Many believe the way Guantanamo operates is in violation of the Geneva convention. The Bush administration took the stance that “the Geneva Conventions did not apply to ‘unlawful enemy combatants,’ such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban.” In 2006, the Supreme Court presided over Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and sided with Hamdan. Unfortunately, that did little to change the conditions in Guantanamo Bay or the way it operates.
Now the Supreme Court is once again being asked to rule on issues related to the notorious facility. The first defendant, Yemeni-born Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul, was convicted on three charges relating to his role as a propagandist for al-Qaeda. However, those are not international war crimes — remember, the government’s defense of the center was that it was used to detain war criminals. Bahlul’s lawyers posit that his offenses are not international war crimes. A Harvard Law blog outlined the case, essentially writing that Bahlul was tried for domestic crimes under a military court.
The second case, al Nashiri v. Obama, features a defendant who is facing charges for bombings he may have been involved in during 2000 and 2002. His attorneys are making a similar argument — that the statute that allows him to be tried by a military commission was not put in place until 2001. Therefore, they argue, there is no basis to try him as a foreign agent of war rather than as a civilian.
CNN reported that “the Trump administration is likely to respond within 30 days,” but if President Trump’s campaign rhetoric is any indication, it certainly doesn’t look good for Nashiri and Bahlul. During his stump speeches, Trump eloquently declared that he intended to “fill [Guantanamo Bay] up with some bad dudes.” Obama promised — and failed — to shut down the facility, though at the time he left office there were fewer than fifty detainees still being held at the Cuban base. That’s a big step down from the 680 who were at the prison in 2003.
With Neil Gorsuch on the court, conservatives will have the majority. And like Trump, Gorsuch is an admirer of Guantanamo Bay. According to the New York Times, the judge actually toured the facility in 2005 — the same year a C.I.A. memo showed two suspected terrorists had been waterboarded 266 times. Following his visit, Gorsuch wrote a letter to the warden stating his visit made the “job of helping explain and defend it before the courts all the easier.”
The New York Times also acquired a series of emails between Gorsuch and a number of lawmakers from around the time of the 2006 Supreme Court case. In the opening of those emails, Gorsuch even referenced the defendant and tried to find ways to structure a bill that might shore up the power of the military courts.
It’s likely it will be a few more months before the two Guantanamo cases will come before the Supreme Court, by which time Gorsuch will almost certainly be on the court. But if his past leanings are any indication, it seems inevitable that he will rule against the suspected terrorists. In particular, he will likely rule against their argument that they cannot be tried as war criminals when charged with domestic crimes.
