Al Neuharth: Why is China OK, but Cuba 'enemy'?

USA Today ^ | February 22, 2002 | Al Neuharth, USA Today founder

[Cincinatus' Wife]

In Beijing, Bush called China our ''partner.'' Cuba officially is our ''enemy.'' Why?

Because a small number of powerful exiles in South Florida cow our politicians into keeping the crazy Cuban policy. That was designed to castrate Fidel Castro and has failed for more than 40 years.

[Willie Green]

Or look at it this way. Does the power to regulate commerce between the states imply that the Feds can prohibit Virginia from trading with Maryland?

Yes, but the same restriction must also apply consistantly to all other states in the Union.

With foreign countries, it can be more specific and targeted.

[GuillermoX]

Heck, you're for an embargo on every country. Why should I waste time trying to show you the folly of the Cuban one?

[Demidog]

The feds can regulate trade to provide for the national defense.

That's not what the constitution says exactly. Trade and national defense are two seperate things and are listed as such in the constitution.

Lawmakers like to point to "General welfare" and claim that it allows them to steal your money in order to provide for the "less fortunate" too but that doesn't make the constitution say that or the rationale logical or moral.

Jefferson repudiated that view explicitly.

Alot of prohibitions are based on the faulty logic also that "interstate commerce" is affected. The EPA has recently claimed that the movement of migrating birds affects interstate commerce as well. The point of all this is merely to point out that logic is apparently in rare supply in the Congress.

Prohibition by definition removes the power to regulate an activity.

And to bolster that view of reality, look at what happened when Congress (at least they used an amendment) prohibited the consumption of alcohol. They lost the power to regulate alcohol sales. That power was ceded to the criminal gangs who took up the activity without regulation.

Same with drug prohibition. There is no regulation whatsoever among the criminal gangs that supply drugs in this country. Congress gave away their power to regulate when they assumed the power to prohibit.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually Demidog does have a point when he says the power to "regulate trade" doesn't mean the Feds have the power to prohibit trade. I believe, back then, regulate meant to make regular or uniform, so as one state isn't treated differently from another state. I suppose the same is true of trade with foreign nations, as in one state can't charge a larger, or lesser, tax on imports from France than any other state.

You're right about trade between the states.

With foreign countries they (The Feds) set their own tariffs.I don't think states can charge tariffs.

I suppose they (Feds) could say all imports from Cuba have a 10,000% tariff and that would have the same effect.

[Demidog]

Prohibition is not regulation. When you prohibit an activity all regulation ceases. Congress was never given the power to prohibit anything except Treason, counterfeitting and Piracy.

In fact, the Congress wasn't even given the power to define crimes. There are only three crimes against the national government and those are the ones listed. War is a crime on the whole of the nation which is why the national government is given limited power with which to provide for the defense but that defense is expected to be executed by the bulk of the citizenry.

[Willie Green]

Why should I waste time trying to show you the folly of the Cuban one?

Why should I worry if you or your family get restitution from Castro?

You want to take that attitude, fine, let Castro keep your property, see if I care.

Luis and I don't exactly get along well on this forum, but I'll stick up for his right to get his property back!

[Demidog]

I don't think states can charge tariffs.

Except the States violate this routinely when they set sales taxes on cigarrettes and fuel. California for instance says that no fuel can enter their state and must be refined in-state. They also set a very high tax on cigarrettes and then whine when people buy their cigarrettes out of state.

[breakem]

I agree with your comments except that providing for the national defense requires the government to do a lot of things. Are you suggesting that the constitution requires the government to allow open trade of uranium, computer technology and weapons systems because trade is not spelled out under national defense?

[GuillermoX]

I'm not asking you to worry about that.

But, I mean, come on...you've been on this forum espousing super protectionist policies for quite a while now, haven't you?

[GuillermoX]

And, I'll tell you, when the time finally comes to reclaim stolen property, it won't be a walk in the park.

When my dad saw the house he grew up in in Havana, there were several families living in it. You think they're going to leave without putting up a fuss?

I do hope it can be done one day, but I'm not counting any money just quite yet...

[Willie Green]

Prohibition is not regulation. When you prohibit an activity all regulation ceases.

"Prohibiton" required a Constitutional Amendement.

Regulation CAN include stoppage of trade between states.
It's a pretty stupid idea, but it could be done.
(At least they could try, I don't see any practical way they could actually control borders between states.)
That differs from "Prohibition" in that it does not restrict the trade of the same items within the individual states.

[Demidog]

Are you suggesting that the constitution requires the government to allow open trade of uranium, computer technology and weapons systems because trade is not spelled out under national defense?

Yes I am. I understand the objections to this but all of those things are also used for peacefull means. The US's objection to exports of those items do not make us safer. They merely relenquish their own power to regulate trade in that regard as products end up on the unregulated black market.

And there are always defenses to any of these things. The only reason that we do not have a missile defense system in this country is because of this myopic attitude and the virtual monopoly that exists amongst the very small list of conglomerates allowed to provide the Pentagon products which are paid for before they've even been produced. It is a closed system which defies free trade.

[Demidog]

Regulation CAN include stoppage of trade between states.

I disagree. Regulation stops the moment you prohibit something.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...butI didn't know the exact amount, and neither do you."

The figure cited wasn't just pulled out of thin air by the author of the piece I linked you to, the figure comes from a UN study into the remittance of $$$ by expatriated Cuban nationals residing in the US into Castro's Cuba.

Here's a question.

Which US corporation is CURRENTLY, ACTIVELY operating a food processing plant in Cuba?

[Polybius]

My condolances. Even if they lived, their administration sold them down the river. I've read reports about how intelligence knew that Castro would be able to easily squash an insurgency and didn't bother to let anyone know the facts. CYA was the order of the day in the intelligence community.

Both survived and were taken POW. After their release, one joined the U.S. Army and served two tours in Vietnam as a Green Beret.

The real tragedy was JFK's lack of guts. The landing beach was surrounded by swamp with one road in. The CIA plan had called for the destruction of Castro's "Air Force" that consisted of a few T-4 jet trainers. After the initial raids left some T-4's operational, JFK refused permission for follow up raids.

At that point, JFK should have:
A. Followed the plan.
or
B. Called the whole thing off.

Instead, JFK chose:
C. None of the above.

The invasion then hit the beaches with Castro having complete air superiority over the beaches in the form of a few T-4 jet trainers while U.S. carriers steamed off shore with orders from JFK not shoot at the T-4's. The T-4's then proceeded to sink the invasion transports like ducks in a barrel.

I read one artcle in the Journal of Military History that, after the Bay of Pigs, former President Eisenhower met with Kennedy at Camp David and Ike let JFK know that JFK had s****d the pooch.

The initial plan called for securing the beachead and setting up a foothold of a "Free Cuba". A provisional government would be set up and ask for U.S. aid from U.S. carriers off shore.

Considering the geography, it had a very high chance of success if the plan had been followed. If Ike had still been President, the Bay of Pigs would have either been done right or not done at all.

Ike was a Commander. JFK was a gutless idiot.

[Willie Green]

But, I mean, come on...you've been on this forum espousing super protectionist policies for quite a while now, haven't you?

I advocate revenue tariffs of 10-20% on all imported items, regardless of country of origin as a means of reducing and/or eliminating the corporate income tax. (A Proposal to Abolish the Corporate Income Tax

From a historical perspective, the tariff rates I advocate cannot be considered "super protectionist".

[breakem]

Your interpretation of the constitution is unique in my readings. It must by definition be incorrect because it leaves the country unable to adequately provide for the national defense.

Good luck and let me know if you ever run for president.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"As long as Castro minds his manners and does not threaten the U.S.A., I can not justify the loss of American lives to liberate Cuba. That is for the Cubans to do."

I agree.

But I have a question.

Castro personally ordered the shoot-down of two Cessnas flying a humanitarian mission in international airspace. Four men died in the attack by Cuban MIG's against the unarmed civilian aircraft.

Three were US citizens, one of them a Vietnam vet.

Was that an act of war?

[Gumption]

The feds can regulate trade to provide for the national defense.

Let me start by saying, I don't have all the answers. But, my reading of the Constitution does not grant the power of national (or common) defense. It grants the power to tax for the funding of an Army and Navy (and I can see the argument for the original intent implying the necessity of an Air Force since the founders couldn't foresee flight) But there is NO enumerated power to do anything it wants to do if it's for "national defense" purposes.

That being said, I believe the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations can forbid the sale of technology that could be detrimental to our national security if the law was stated in a way that applied specifically to technology arrived at through funding by the federal government, or if the sale would provide aid or comfort to an enemy.

Boy it's hard to try to be constitutional with a government that stopped being constitutional so long ago.

[breakem]

I would say that the power to povide a common defense should cover it.

Let's stay with your interpretation. What kind of an army would be provided when opponents could obliterate it with nuclear weapons provided by trade with the US? Little bit of a recruitment problem or would we watch as millions leave to avoid the suicide of a draft under such conditions?