NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0412/p99s01-duts.html

Rather to the displeasure of the Castro regime, the United States has an independent court system, that is not beholden to the executive. Gonzalez and Chertoff both oppose permitting Posada out on bail, yet Fidel whines about George Bush secretly controlling the courts.

It must be pleasant to have a judiciary that is beholden to your whims Mr. Castro, it must be pleasant.

um, yes, why we do have seperate branches of the government.....

um, yes, why we do have seperate branches of the government.....

Which I fully support.

I'm just discussing the fact that Mr. Castro is a duplicitous bum who has no respect for Constitutional strictures. The Bush Administration wants to keep Posada in jail, as is evidenced by their words and their deeds, but is thwarted from doing so by an independent judge.

What must really bother Mr. Castro is the fact that he cannot control the behavior of the courts and outcome of this case, like he could in Cuba.

The Bush Administration wants to keep Posada in jail, as is evidenced by their words and their deeds

You can't really say what the AG "wants", It's the job of the justice department to prosecute criminals, that's what they do. To that end they oppose letting criminals out of jail. It's their job

um, yes, why we do have seperate branches of the government.....

To avoid the concentration of power within a single body?

(Yes, I know sarcasm when I see one, just playing along.)

You can't really say what the AG "wants", It's the job of the justice department to prosecute criminals, that's what they do. To that end they oppose letting criminals out of jail. It's their job

And what does this have to do with my topic at all?

There's some people on this forum who think that Cuba is the promised land, filled with democracy and plenty for all, if only the big-bad United States would lay off. I have argued repeatedly that this is not the case, and that the Castro regime has absolutely no respect for human rights or democracy, instead it seeks merely to remain in power.

That's what I'm arguing in this thread.

*shrug* the fact that a dictator isn't a fuzzy happy person to be around is really not much of a surprise.

Maybe those Guantanamo detainees really should be granted a court hearing.

And I don't disagree with this at all.

Cuba? Though I don't like authoritarianism, I do applaude Castro for his endurance (some might say pig-headedness) not to conform to international standards of morality and human rights.

Anyways, I do think that there's something wrong here, this Luis Posada Carriles is a suspected terrorist and he did organize bombings, so why is he not in Guantanamo?

Maybe those Guantanamo detainees really should be granted a court hearing.

And what does this have to do with my topic at all?

There's some people on this forum who think that Cuba is the promised land, filled with democracy and plenty for all, if only the big-bad United States would lay off. I have argued repeatedly that this is not the case, and that the Castro regime has absolutely no respect for human rights or democracy, instead it seeks merely to remain in power.

That's what I'm arguing in this thread.

Well then why didn't you just call it "Andaluciae's Castro bashing thread"

Anyways, I do think that there's something wrong here, this Luis Posada Carriles is a suspected terrorist and he did organize bombings, so why is he not in Guantanamo?

He hasn't been arrested for terrorism, he's been arrested for illegally entering the country.

Well then why didn't you just call it "Andaluciae's Castro bashing thread"

Because this criticizes a specific point that Mr. Castro bears no respect for the concept of Separation of Powers, something most here would consider to be a fairly important tenet of democracy.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0412/p99s01-duts.html

Rather to the displeasure of the Castro regime, the United States has an independent court system, that is not beholden to the executive. Gonzalez and Chertoff both oppose permitting Posada out on bail, yet Fidel whines about George Bush secretly controlling the courts.

It must be pleasant to have a judiciary that is beholden to your whims Mr. Castro, it must be pleasant.

The Cuban Constitution seems to guarantee a separation of the judicial and executive branches:

Article 121: The courts constitute a system of state bodies which are set up with functional independence from all other systems and they are only subordinated to the National Assembly of People’s Power and the Council of State.
The People’s Supreme Court is the foremost judicial authority and its decisions in this field are final.
Through its Governing Council it can propose and issue regulations; make decisions and enact norms whose fulfillment is compulsory for all courts and, based on their experience, it issues instructions which are also compulsory in order to establish uniform judicial practice in the interpretation and application of the law.
Article 122: The judges, in their function of administering justice, are independent and only owe obedience to the law.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Cuba

But let us ignore your incorrect assumption about Cuban politics, and look at Posada, Bush, castro, and the rest of the characters in this story. Castro's comments about Bush were mere political posturing. If Bush were to say the same thing about Castro, I would think the same thing: there is some tuth to his statement, but it is mostly hyperbole.

And when you consider the fact that the US courts can not put any of the Guantanamo detainees on trial for terrorist attacks, one has to ask which country has a stronger separation between the branches of government.

I have a question, though. Who charges people with crimes? Is it the executive branch, or the judicial? Can a court order the arrest and trial of Posada for terrorism without requiring the executive to do it?

He hasn't been arrested for terrorism, he's been arrested for illegally entering the country.

Yes, I know, and that's what bothered me. He was only arrested for illegally entering the country.

Then again he never did bombed any American (people and/or facilities), or else he'd be rotting somewhere.

Because this criticizes a specific point that Mr. Castro bears no respect for the concept of Separation of Powers, something most here would consider to be a fairly important tenet of democracy.

Well here in Australia the Executive and Legislative branches are inexorably combined and are controlled by the same body of people, does that make us undemocratic in your eyes, enlightened one?

I have argued repeatedly that this is not the case, and that the Castro regime has absolutely no respect for human rights or democracy, instead it seeks merely to remain in power.

That's what I'm arguing in this thread.
Which the US embargo is perpetuating but that is neither here nor there.

Which the US embargo is perpetuating but that is neither here nor there.

Cuba trades with quite a few nations. How is the US embargo keeping Castro in power.

I thought they genuinely liked him, and his brand of Communism.

The Cuban Constitution seems to guarantee a separation of the judicial and executive branches:



http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Cuba

Which is clearly not in de facto or de jure effect.

The Cuban Constitution also subordinates the will of the courts to the will of the National Assembly or the Council of State. Further: It does not extend rights to those who are deemed as not supporting the aims of the Cuban Revolution.

Further: My criticisms of the Bush Administration regarding the situation at Guantanamo Bay are well known, and there are more legal ambiguities on the matter than I'd care to count.

Well here in Australia the Executive and Legislative branches are inexorably combined and are controlled by the same body of people, does that make us undemocratic in your eyes, enlightened one?

Australia has judicial review of the executive and the legislative, though. A three-way division is not what is required, but any division at all. Cuba has no such division.

He hasn't been arrested for terrorism, he's been arrested for illegally entering the country.

And there is more than a mite bit of discussion as to whether those crimes are under the jurisdiction of the United States to prosecute.

Australia has judicial review of the executive and the legislative, though. A three-way division is not what is required, but any division at all. Cuba has no such division.

Their constitution says thay do, and beyond the communist/latin american strongman stereotype you are trying to perpetuate I have been given no solid reason to doubt it.

Which is clearly not in de facto or de jure effect.

The Cuban Constitution also subordinates the will of the courts to the will of the National Assembly or the Council of State. Further: It does not extend rights to those who are deemed as not supporting the aims of the Cuban Revolution.

Further: My criticisms of the Bush Administration regarding the situation at Guantanamo Bay are well known, and there are more legal ambiguities on the matter than I'd care to count.

Please provide proof of your claims. I could claim the same thing about Canada or Armenia, but without something to back it up, they are simply empty claims.

Australia has judicial review of the executive and the legislative, though. A three-way division is not what is required, but any division at all. Cuba has no such division.

Nor does the UK, apparently: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers)

In countries which use a presidential-congressional system of government, such as the United States, the separation of powers is clear and well defined. But in parliamentary systems, a separation of powers is either unclear or even nearly non-existent. For example, in the United Kingdom, the executive forms a subset of the legislature, as does—to a lesser extent—the judiciary. The Prime Minister, the chief executive, must by convention be a Member of the House of Commons and can effectively be removed from office by a simple majority vote. Furthermore, while the courts in Britain are undoubtedly amongst the most independent in the world, the Law Lords, who are the final arbiters of judicial disputes in the UK, sit simultaneously in the House of Lords, the upper house of the legislature, although this arrangement will cease in 2009 when the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom comes into existence. Furthermore, because of the existence of Parliamentary sovereignty, while the theory of separation of powers may be studied in Britain, a system such as that of the UK is more accurately described as a "fusion of powers."

But Venezuela is more democratic than the US or Canada!

Under reforms to the constitution promoted by President Hugo Chávez and accepted in a referendum, the government of Venezuela has five branches: the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, an electoral branch, and a citizen's branch that acts as an auditor.

Their constitution says thay do, and beyond the communist/latin american strongman stereotype you are trying to perpetuate I have been given no solid reason to doubt it.

First, there are these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committees_for_the_Defense_of_the_Revolution
Designed to play the dual role of indoctrination and observation, these CDR's cannot be considered democratic entities.

Second, the National Assembly and Elections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Cuba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_of_People%27s_Power_of_Cuba
Where only one candidate is permitted to run for a seat, and that candidate receives their permission from the federal government. Given that the courts are beholden to the National Assembly, which is in turn beholden to the will of the central government, I don't think we can truthfully say that the concept of Judicial independence even remotely exists in Cuba.

First, there are these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committees_for_the_Defense_of_the_Revolution
Designed to play the dual role of indoctrination and observation, these CDR's cannot be considered democratic entities.

Second, the National Assembly and Elections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Cuba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_of_People%27s_Power_of_Cuba
Where only one candidate is permitted to run for a seat, and that candidate receives their permission from the federal government. Given that the courts are beholden to the National Assembly, which is in turn beholden to the will of the central government, I don't think we can truthfully say that the concept of Judicial independence even remotely exists in Cuba.

You have yet to prove the bolded bit.

First, there are these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committees_for_the_Defense_of_the_Revolution
Designed to play the dual role of indoctrination and observation, these CDR's cannot be considered democratic entities.

Second, the National Assembly and Elections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Cuba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_of_People%27s_Power_of_Cuba
Where only one candidate is permitted to run for a seat, and that candidate receives their permission from the federal government. Given that the courts are beholden to the National Assembly, which is in turn beholden to the will of the central government, I don't think we can truthfully say that the concept of Judicial independence even remotely exists in Cuba.

It seems more paranoid than undemocratic, but then what do I know, I'm only a lowly Australian with none of the innate knowledge of freedom and democracy that Americans are apparantly blessed with.

You have yet to prove the bolded bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Due_process
First we've got HRW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Cuba#Judiciary_Branch
Then we've just got reporting.

But Venezuela is more democratic than the US or Canada!

What does Venezuela have to do with anything?

http://www.hrw.org/worldreport99/americas/cuba.html

More HRW.

Not exactly a pinnacle of right-wing though, HRW is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Cuba#Due_process
First we've got HRW.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Cuba#Judiciary_Branch
Then we've just got reporting.

Here, the HRW link is better than Wikipedia:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/cuba12207.htm

Legal and Institutional Failings
Cuba’s legal and institutional structures are at the root of rights violations. Although in theory the different branches of government have separate and defined areas of authority, in practice the executive retains clear control over all levers of power. The courts, which lack independence, undermine the right to fair trial by severely restricting the right to a defense.

I was able to find this:

Judicial Autonomy
Under Cuban law, judges are required to be independent in their judgment and free from the influence of organs of government in their deliberations. Judges can be removed for physical/mental incapacity, negligence or incompetence, or becoming the subject of criminal prosecution. Studies demonstrate judicial autonomy. A 1977 study noted that 43% of all criminal cases were dimissed due to lack of evidence. Bufetes Colectivos report that 32% of filed criminal cases were dimissed in 1991. A substantial portion of criminal (26%) and benefits (42%) decisions were overturned or modified in 2000 by municipal courts.

But I was unable to locate the studies that it claims exists.

What does Venezuela have to do with anything?

Well, Venezuela has a high degree of separation of the various branches of government, which you seem to be arguing is necessary for a democracy. I was comparing them to the UK, who have no legal separation of the different branches of government.

Here, the HRW link is better than Wikipedia:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/cuba12207.htm



I was able to find this:



But I was unable to locate the studies that it claims exists.

I've added another HRW link as well.

What I was arguing with the Wiki links, though, is that, legally, the Cuban Constitution bears an intrinsic contradiction between the courts being independent and the courts being subordinate.

I've added another HRW link as well.

What I was arguing with the Wiki links, though, is that, legally, the Cuban Constitution bears an intrinsic contradiction between the courts being independent and the courts being subordinate.

Yes, there is some confusion there. The Spanish version is no better:

artículo 121o.- Los tribunales constituyen un sistema de órganos estatales, estructurado con independencia funcional de cualquier otro y subordinado jerárquicamente a la Asamblea Nacional del Poder Popular y al Consejo de Estado.

El Tribunal Supremo Popular ejerce la máxima autoridad judicial y sus decisiones, en este orden, son definitivas.

A través de su Consejo de Gobierno ejerce la iniciativa legislativa y la potestad reglamentaria; toma decisiones y dicta normas de obligado cumplimiento por todos los tribunales y, sobre la base de la experiencia de estos, imparte instrucciones de carácter obligatorio para establecer una práctica judicial uniforme en la interpretación y aplicación de la ley.

artículo 122o.- Los jueces, en su función de impartir justicia, son independientes y no deben obediencia mas que a la ley.

Yes, there is some confusion there. The Spanish version is no better:

While my languages of choice are English and Deutsch, (meaning, my reading of the Spanish article is far from perfect) it would seem much so.

Did you even read Castro's complaint, or did you just go shooting your mouth off without thinking?

He's not complaining that Bush tampered in any way with the court or with the judge. Rather, he is concerned that an admitted terrorist is being treated by U.S. prosecutors--i.e. the Justice Department within the Executive Branch--as a common fence-jumper.

Pretty appalling, actually.