Should civilized nations use "Enhanced Interrogation" techni

[Jester]

Do you regularly associate with known criminals then in your personal life? Why not? I don't. I have no problem with our CIA aiding the good people of Cuba in tossing out their crime lords. Cooperate? I don't think so. Negotiate? For what? Hugs?

You have no problem with the CIA actively violating the sovereignty of a nation? Do other nations get to do this to you, or is this just a privelege reserved for Americans? Being supportive of reform and giving sanctuary to political exiles is one thing. Actively attempting to overthrow the government of another country is quite another. It's a line the US would not tolerate crossing in almost any other circumstances. The mere suggestion would be a serious diplomatic incident.

Negotiation would probably start with travel rights. Beyond that, limited trade and, eventually, diplomatic relations. Even if it all goes south and it returns to threats, it's a much more credible bargaining chip to remove a needed source of trade, foreign currency and capital goods than it is to dangle a hypothetical carrot. One of Cuba's major bargaining advantages is that they are no longer reliant on the US for anything; if that changes, you pick up more power to influence Cuba, not less. As it stands, Cuba is an Autarky-plus-Venezuela, and the US has no leverage at all.

Excuses, excuses. When is the last time ANY liberal held an anti-Castro rally?

Pretty much never. When was the last time anyone but the Miami exiles held an anti-Castro rally? It's not really a super popular protest topic, if only because the issue is so unbelievably stale by now. Plus, the US alread imposes practically the maximum peacetime restrictions on Cuba; what would the protesters be asking for, an invasion?

Speaking of which, I will point out that the Bay of Pigs (and the exploding cigar) were done under the watch of two great liberal heroes, the Brothers Kennedy. The opening of relations with China, which had commited crimes which made Castro look like a piker, was Nixon. Reagan got Iran-Contra, a remarkable double whammy of supporting one group of human rights violators by selling weapons to another. Bush spent his presidency shipping inconvenient people to Uzbekistan to be tortured. So don't give me any nonsense about this being just 'liberals' who have issues here.

You still didn't answer the question. Why does the US always need to be the one to cave in, set aside their principles, "be the mature one"? Especially, and especially with these two bit, pompous, arrogant wind bags with whom we really don't want to be involved in the first place? And, especially, when having a relationship with them and their nation is probably more trouble than benefit? I think some people need everyone to be friendly, or they can't sleep at night. Last time I checked it was still true that you make concessions for your friends, and demands from your enemies.

I believe it was you who pointed out that two wrongs do not constitute a right. If Cuba (or North Korea, or Iran, or anywhere) were to unilaterally reform their government, open up their countries, and defend human rights rather than violate them, I would be extatic. But nobody here (AFAIK) is advocating otherwise, we can pretty much take that for granted. On the other hand, you are advocating that the US continue its unproductive, pointless blockade.

As for the relationship with Cuba being more trouble than benefit, I think that the families who are trying to travel to Cuba, to see their relatives without having to commit a serious crime, feel a little bit differently. The cost in lost trade is also considerable, probably on the order of 1.5 to 3 billion dollars annually. There are definitely benefits to opening up the relationship. What are the benefits of keeping it closed? Moral certitude? It certainly hasn't yielded anything tangible so far, and it's been half a century.

-Jester