Tuesday, April 14, 2015

The terror sponsor list and The White House's contradictory Cuba policy

White House Cuba policy is a study in contradiction

White House press briefing today
Despite ample evidence that the Castro regime continues to be a state sponsor of terrorism the Obama administration today removed Cuba from the list of terror sponsors in order to proceed with the normalization of diplomatic relations. Below is the statement released today which states "the Government of Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism during the preceding 6-month period." Now this statement ignores "the 100 tons of gunpowder, almost three million detonators and some 3,000 cannon shells" on a ship bound for Cuba detained on March 3, 2015 that said these were "grain products."  The Cuban government has been caught twice in the space of twenty months smuggling large amounts of weapons and ammunition which would imply that it is common practice. This also raises an obvious question: "Who are these weapons for that the Castro regime doesn't want them traced?"

 The Castro regime had made removal from the list one of the key elements in formally opening embassies and that appears to have been what drove the Obama administration action despite the claims of the Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhoades. This decision seems to contradict another action taken by President Barack Obama when on February 25, 2015 he  issued a notice titled "Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Cuba" which states:
On March 1, 1996, by Proclamation 6867, a national emergency was declared to address the disturbance or threatened disturbance of international relations caused by the February 24, 1996, destruction by the Cuban government of two unarmed U.S.-registered civilian aircraft in international airspace north of Cuba. On February 26, 2004, by Proclamation 7757, the national emergency was extended and its scope was expanded to deny monetary and material support to the Cuban government. The Cuban government has not demonstrated that it will refrain from the use of excessive force against U.S. vessels or aircraft that may engage in memorial activities or peaceful protest north of Cuba.
The Obama White House on February 25, 2015 was saying that it believed that the Castro regime was still willing to destroy unarmed, civilian aircraft or vessels in international airspace or waters north of Cuba if those craft "engage in memorial activities or peaceful protest." Would such an act not qualify as an act of international terrorism? Will he now rescind this notice?


  1. You continue to insist that harboring fugitives from justice and shipping weapons to North Korea qualify as acts of terrorism just because North Korea didn't change its provocative behavior even after being delisted as a terror sponsor in 2008. Shipping arms to another country is not terrorism, and no other country on the State Department blacklist harbors fugitives.

    1. Shipping arms isn't the problem. Smuggling arms saying that they are bags of sugar (in a manner that could have ended in tragedy) or grain means that they did not want those weapons and ammunition traced to them. This leads to the question where would they have ended up? Also the Obama Administration continued the national emergency with respect to Cuba indicating that it could still carry out acts of violence against US citizen.