Authorities investigate Moore on Cuba
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6644845.stm
Thursday, 10 May 2007, 20:30 GMT 21:30 UK
US probes director Moore on Cuba
Award-winning film-maker Michael Moore is being investigated by US authorities for a possible violation of the trade embargo against Cuba, he has announced.
Mr Moore took a group of 9/11 rescue workers to Cuba in March to film part of his new documentary about healthcare provision in the US.
The US Treasury has sent him a letter asking him to explain himself.
Mr Moore is a long-time critic of the Bush administration and has campaigned against the war in Iraq.
The US imposed an economic embargo on Cuba more than 40 years ago in a bid to isolate Fidel Castro's communist government.
Mr Moore made the trip to Cuba to film part of Sicko, an examination of America's health care industry which, according to the film's producer, Meghan O'Hara, will "expose the corporations that place profit before care and the politicians who care only about money".
His spokeswoman, Lisa Cohen, told the French news agency AFP that he took around 10 ailing New York rescue workers with him for medical treatment.
The group were suffering from conditions thought linked to their work clearing up debris from the site of the World Trade Center bombings on 11 September 2001.
In a letter dated 2 May, the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control gave Mr Moore 20 working days to provide more details of his visit, including who went with him and why.
"This office has no record that a specific licence was issued authorising you to engage in travel-related transactions involving Cuba," it said.
Sicko is due to open at the Cannes Film Festival next week.
Mr Moore won an Oscar in 2002 for the documentary Bowling for Columbine, a critique of US gun culture in the wake of the shootings at Columbine High School.
He followed that up with Fahrenheit 9/11, an examination of the White House's decision to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan after the 11 September attacks.
Thursday, 10 May 2007, 20:30 GMT 21:30 UK
US probes director Moore on Cuba
Award-winning film-maker Michael Moore is being investigated by US authorities for a possible violation of the trade embargo against Cuba, he has announced.
Mr Moore took a group of 9/11 rescue workers to Cuba in March to film part of his new documentary about healthcare provision in the US.
The US Treasury has sent him a letter asking him to explain himself.
Mr Moore is a long-time critic of the Bush administration and has campaigned against the war in Iraq.
The US imposed an economic embargo on Cuba more than 40 years ago in a bid to isolate Fidel Castro's communist government.
Mr Moore made the trip to Cuba to film part of Sicko, an examination of America's health care industry which, according to the film's producer, Meghan O'Hara, will "expose the corporations that place profit before care and the politicians who care only about money".
His spokeswoman, Lisa Cohen, told the French news agency AFP that he took around 10 ailing New York rescue workers with him for medical treatment.
The group were suffering from conditions thought linked to their work clearing up debris from the site of the World Trade Center bombings on 11 September 2001.
In a letter dated 2 May, the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control gave Mr Moore 20 working days to provide more details of his visit, including who went with him and why.
"This office has no record that a specific licence was issued authorising you to engage in travel-related transactions involving Cuba," it said.
Sicko is due to open at the Cannes Film Festival next week.
Mr Moore won an Oscar in 2002 for the documentary Bowling for Columbine, a critique of US gun culture in the wake of the shootings at Columbine High School.
He followed that up with Fahrenheit 9/11, an examination of the White House's decision to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan after the 11 September attacks.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Why?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Of course. How Un-American and treasonous of anyone to criticize the Bush Administration!
Edit: And by the way, that trade embargo is illegal. It's Bush who should be hanged.
because he broke the law. he's gone too long feeling "above the law" and if a permit is required; then he should have gotten one. if the law is to apply to everyone; then it better; or we'll all pick and choose the laws we want to abide by.
lol...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
when in the last 40 years did a court decide it was illegal? do you have a link?
if it hits american theaters. if sections are contraban; any theater showing it can be cited the same as any smoke shop selling cuban cigars.
i think he should have thought this through a little better.
He broke the law? Where in this article does it state that he broke the law? It simply says he's being investigated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba
The United States embargo against Cuba (described in Cuba as el bloqueo, Spanish for "the blockade") is an economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed on Cuba on February 7, 1962. It was codified into law in 1992 with the stated purpose of bringing democracy to the Cuban people, and in fact is entitled The Cuban Democracy Act. The fact the US didn't impose sanctions on the Batista dictatorship and many other dictatorships it supports, lead some scholars to believe that the reason for the embargo was revealed in a declassified 1964 State Department document which declares Fidel Castro to be an intolerable threat because he "represents a successful defiance of the United States, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half," since the Monroe Doctrine declared that no challenge to U.S. dominance would be tolerated in the hemisphere.[3] In 1996 Congress passed the Helms-Burton Act which further restricted United States citizens from doing business in or with Cuba, and mandated restrictions on giving public or private assistance to any successor regime in Havana unless and until certain claims against the Cuban government are met. In 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton expanded the trade embargo even further by ending the practice of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies trading with Cuba in dollar amounts totaling more than 700 million a year. As of 2007, the embargo which prohibits American businesses from trading or conducting business with Cuban interests is still in effect, making it one of the few times in history that United States citizens have been restricted from doing business abroad, and is the most enduring trade embargo in modern history.[citation needed]
The United Nations General Assembly has passed a non-binding resolution condemning the embargo every year since 1991. The most recent condemnation took place on November 8, 2006, by a vote of 183-4, with the U.S., Israel, Palau, and the Marshall Islands voting against.
Religious leaders oppose the embargo for a variety of reasons, including humanitarian and economic hardships the embargo imposes on Cubans. Pope John Paul II called for the end to the embargo during his 1979 pastoral visit to Mexico, and again during his 1998 visit to Cuba. Patriarch Bartholomew I called the embargo a "historic mistake" while visiting the island on January 25, 2004. United States religious leaders have also opposed the embargo. A joint letter in 1998 from the Disciples of Christ and the United Church of Christ to the U.S. Senate called for the easing of economic restrictions against Cuba. Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Minister Louis Farrakhan have also publicly opposed the embargo. On May 15, 2002 former President Jimmy Carter spoke in Havana, calling for an end to the embargo, saying "Our two nations have been trapped in a destructive state of belligerence for 42 years, and it is time for us to change our relationship."
http://pd.cpim.org/2005/1113/11132005_sitaram.htm
The Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cuba, Perez Roque called the embargo 'an act of genocide'. Cuba has also denounced as "theft" the use of frozen Cuban assets to pay for lawsuits filed in the US against the Republic of Cuba'.
The embargo means the imposition of economic sanctions. These do not appear to stand the test of international law. Jurisdiction outside national boundaries has to be based on acts that have “substantial or grave effects within the territory” of the State exercising such jurisdiction. “Trafficking” in nationalised property cannot be said to have a substantial effect on the United States or its economy and, therefore, the extra-territorial jurisdiction cannot be justified by the doctrine of grave effects. Similarly, the embargo’s limitations on the export and import of goods contravenes multilateral trading regimes and cannot be grounded on the GATT exception clause of “essential security interests” since there is neither a state of war nor a military threat.
Sanctions, irrespective of their purpose, have to comply with the customary international law principle of non-intervention and proportionality. The American Association for World Health concluded that, in the case of the impact on the Cuban health system, the embargo “caused a significant rise in suffering with patients going without essential drugs and doctors performing medical procedures without adequate equipment.”
The embargo also continued to have an impact on food aid deliveries, and was greater in the eastern provinces, which continued to suffer the worst food insecurity, particularly given the 2004 drought. The negative impact of the embargo in the educational sector is linked to trade restrictions that prevent the purchase of needed inputs at more competitive prices. The difficulties imposed by the embargo have been recognised by UNCTAD especially the deleterious impact on international trade, investment flow, loans, and interest payments, as well as scientific and technical co-operation.
No such thing as bad PR... create enough interest and his film could be on knitting socks and it would still rake in extra cash...
Moore is giggling his ass off all the way to the bank on this...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Can you please qualify this statement? It's just that it strikes me as being slightly absurd and completely unfounded.
The illegal part is him bringing sick people there for medical treatment, not him filming it. There won't be a problem showing it in the US.
Edit: As far as I know anyway, I could be wrong.
if i pissed bush off; then gave him a reason to imprison me; i wouldn't be giggling. and he also gave bush a reason to outlaw his film in the us.
Other than it being illegal (which is bullshit, imo), do you have a problem with what he is doing?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I suppose you prefer filmmakers of the D.W. Griffith variety?
Yeah but you're not famous... MM is...
MMedia!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and the perfect candidate to make an example of. we'll see how it plays out. i'll bet it's not just a slap on the wrist though.
Lastly, not that the two situation have any connection but since Cuba is involved in both, I find it laughable that our government is so keen on investigating this crime when our government is breaking it's own laws by harboring a known terrorist (Luis Posada Carilles). I have lost any last few shreds of respect I had for our government because of the manner in which they have handled and are handling this case. The moment this man is set free I can honestly say I am embarrassed to be an American.
I just think it's utter bullshit that our government believes it has the right to tell us where we can travel.
I bet he gets zip...and millions to boot...
my prediction...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Very much so.
Why?
as far as Moore, I couldn't give a shit one way or the other. half of what he says is truth, half is absolutely fabricated. he's a douche, Bush is a douche. 2 douches don't make a non-douche.
The U.S has had missiles pointed at every other country on earth for the last 50 years. So what's your point? The embargo is condemned by every country on Earth but the U.S has repeatedly used it's power of automatic veto to reject the will of the international community. The embargo is illegal because - it does not fit the criteria of a justified, and therefore legal embargo in the terms set out by the U.N.
But then when has the U.S ever respected international law? Answer: Never.
Edit: And for your information, those missiles belonged to the U.S.S.R and were placed there in order to ward off a planned invasion by U.S forces. They were removed in 1962, and since that time Cuba has posed no threat to the U.S, despite what your media may tell you.
http://pd.cpim.org/2005/1113/11132005_sitaram.htm
The embargo means the imposition of economic sanctions. These do not appear to stand the test of international law. Jurisdiction outside national boundaries has to be based on acts that have “substantial or grave effects within the territory” of the State exercising such jurisdiction. “Trafficking” in nationalised property cannot be said to have a substantial effect on the United States or its economy and, therefore, the extra-territorial jurisdiction cannot be justified by the doctrine of grave effects. Similarly, the embargo’s limitations on the export and import of goods contravenes multilateral trading regimes and cannot be grounded on the GATT exception clause of “essential security interests” since there is neither a state of war nor a military threat.
Sanctions, irrespective of their purpose, have to comply with the customary international law principle of non-intervention and proportionality. The American Association for World Health concluded that, in the case of the impact on the Cuban health system, the embargo “caused a significant rise in suffering with patients going without essential drugs and doctors performing medical procedures without adequate equipment.”
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Really? The U.S is a signatory of the U.N, and therefore must abide by decisions made at the U.N.
And for your information, those missiles belonged to the U.S.S.R and were placed there in order to ward off a planned invasion by U.S forces. They were removed in 1962, and since that time Cuba has posed no threat to the U.S, despite what your media may tell you.