Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...723_cuba09.html


Illegal travelers to Cuba get judicial notices

By Rafael Lorente
South Florida Sun-Sentinel

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration for the first time is beginning
judicial proceedings against dozens of people accused of visiting Cuba
illegally, even as Republicans and Democrats in Congress move to end
enforcement of the four-decade-old U.S. travel ban to the island.

Last month, unauthorized travelers to Cuba started receiving notices from
the Treasury Department that they would be required to appear before a
judge. The notices went out about the same time the Senate voted to prohibit
enforcement of the travel ban.

"It's incredible that hearings to enforce fines against Cuba travelers are
beginning at a time when Congress and the American people have clearly
stated their opposition to the travel ban," said Nancy Chang, an attorney
with the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights. Chang said two of
her center's clients have received such notices and could face hearings
early next year.

Until last month, people accused of illegal travel to Cuba had three
choices: Pay the fine levied by the Treasury Department, negotiate a
settlement for a lower fine or request a hearing before an
administrative-law judge. Those who requested a hearing found themselves in
legal limbo because Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, which
enforces the travel ban, did not have administrative-law judges.


Judges borrowed

But the assets office borrowed several judges from the Department of Justice
and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission earlier this year.
Judges for the commission usually settle legal disputes arising under the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendments Act of 1977.

Fifty cases have been referred to the judges, said Taylor Griffin, a
Treasury Department spokesman.

"We're going to be really stepping up enforcement," Griffin said.

Under the existing travel ban, Americans who do not qualify for one of a
limited number of licenses allowing them to legally fly directly from the
United States to Cuba usually travel via Canada, Mexico or the Bahamas. If
they are caught when they return to the United States, American travelers
often are questioned in writing about their trips. Many are told later to
pay a hefty fine, often about $7,500.

That's what happened to Michael and Ande McCarthy of Port Huron, Mich. The
couple spent a week in Cuba in 2001, taking medicines to a Catholic group in
Havana and visiting Trinidad on the south side of the island.

The McCarthys returned from Cuba through Toronto and started driving home to
Michigan. When the couple reached the Blue Water Bridge that connects Canada
to Port Huron, they were asked by border agents where they had been. Instead
of saying Toronto, they said Cuba.

"We're for independence, we're for being free to travel," said Michael
McCarthy, 56.

For their honesty, the couple was sent letters from the Treasury Department
asking for $15,000 in fines - $7,500 each. They asked for hearings, and
Michael McCarthy last month received a letter signed by Richard Newcomb,
director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

The letter says McCarthy violated the Trading with the Enemy Act by spending
approximately $750 for a Cuba vacation package. The letter also says
McCarthy violated the law by "purchasing, transporting, and importing
cigars, a bottle of rum, and clothing" from Cuba valued at $150.

The move to crack down on travelers such as the McCarthys comes at an
awkward time. On Oct. 23, the same day the letter from the assets office to
McCarthy went out, the Senate inserted an amendment into the Transportation
and Treasury Department appropriations bill that would prohibit the Bush
administration from spending money to enforce the travel ban. The House
passed a similar amendment in September.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 13-5 last week for a separate
bill that would overturn the travel ban all together.

Chang, the New York lawyer, said she thinks the legislation would make the
hearings before administrative law judges moot.

President Bush has threatened to veto any legislation weakening the ban or
the embargo against Cuba. The White House and its allies are hoping to avoid
a veto by stripping the travel-ban provisions from the appropriations bills
in a conference committee that is working out differences between the House
and Senate versions.


Foes on both sides of the aisle

Two Republicans and two Democrats in the Senate opposed to the president's
Cuba policy sent a letter to negotiators demanding that the travel-ban
provisions remain. Otherwise, the letter said, "we will consider all
parliamentary options available to us to respond" - a not-so-veiled threat
of a filibuster.

Enforcement of the travel ban has been stronger since Bush took office. He
benefited from a huge turnout by Cuban-American voters in South Florida who
perceived the Clinton administration as soft on Cuba's Fidel Castro and who
oppose tourism to the island because it puts money in the coffers of the
government.

But many of Bush's Cuban-American allies have not been happy with the
administration, saying it has not done enough. The president last month
announced a new presidential commission on transition to democracy in Cuba
and said his administration would crack down on travel to the island. But
the Senate voted within two weeks to forbid enforcing the travel ban,
setting up the showdown.

"There's only one man standing between my wife and myself and our friends
who want to make connections (in Cuba)," Michael McCarthy said. "And that
man is George W. Bush."

</>

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Gregory Morrow" <gregory.morrow@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:ykOsb.27344$9M3.12776@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...723_cuba09.html
>
>
> Illegal travelers to Cuba get judicial notices
>
> By Rafael Lorente
> South Florida Sun-Sentinel
>
> WASHINGTON - The Bush administration for the first time is beginning
> judicial proceedings against dozens of people accused of visiting Cuba
> illegally, even as Republicans and Democrats in Congress move to end
> enforcement of the four-decade-old U.S. travel ban to the island.
>
> Last month, unauthorized travelers to Cuba started receiving notices
> from the Treasury Department that they would be required to appear
> before a judge. The notices went out about the same time the Senate
> voted to prohibit enforcement of the travel ban.
>
> "It's incredible that hearings to enforce fines against Cuba travelers
> are beginning at a time when Congress and the American people have
> clearly stated their opposition to the travel ban," said Nancy Chang,
> an attorney with the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights.
> Chang said two of her center's clients have received such notices and
> could face hearings early next year.
>
> Until last month, people accused of illegal travel to Cuba had three
> choices: Pay the fine levied by the Treasury Department, negotiate a
> settlement for a lower fine or request a hearing before an
> administrative-law judge. Those who requested a hearing found
> themselves in legal limbo because Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets
> Control, which enforces the travel ban, did not have
> administrative-law judges.
>
>
> Judges borrowed
>
> But the assets office borrowed several judges from the Department of
> Justice and the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
> earlier this year. Judges for the commission usually settle legal
> disputes arising under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Amendments
> Act of 1977.
>
> Fifty cases have been referred to the judges, said Taylor Griffin, a
> Treasury Department spokesman.
>
> "We're going to be really stepping up enforcement," Griffin said.
>
> Under the existing travel ban, Americans who do not qualify for one of
> a limited number of licenses allowing them to legally fly directly
> from the United States to Cuba usually travel via Canada, Mexico or
> the Bahamas. If they are caught when they return to the United States,
> American travelers often are questioned in writing about their trips.
> Many are told later to pay a hefty fine, often about $7,500.
>
> That's what happened to Michael and Ande McCarthy of Port Huron, Mich.
> The couple spent a week in Cuba in 2001, taking medicines to a
> Catholic group in Havana and visiting Trinidad on the south side of
> the island.
>
> The McCarthys returned from Cuba through Toronto and started driving
> home to Michigan. When the couple reached the Blue Water Bridge that
> connects Canada to Port Huron, they were asked by border agents where
> they had been. Instead of saying Toronto, they said Cuba.
>
> "We're for independence, we're for being free to travel," said Michael
> McCarthy, 56.
>
> For their honesty, the couple was sent letters from the Treasury
> Department asking for $15,000 in fines - $7,500 each. They asked for
> hearings, and Michael McCarthy last month received a letter signed by
> Richard Newcomb, director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control.
>
> The letter says McCarthy violated the Trading with the Enemy Act by
> spending approximately $750 for a Cuba vacation package. The letter
> also says McCarthy violated the law by "purchasing, transporting, and
> importing cigars, a bottle of rum, and clothing" from Cuba valued at
> $150.
>
> The move to crack down on travelers such as the McCarthys comes at an
> awkward time. On Oct. 23, the same day the letter from the assets
> office to McCarthy went out, the Senate inserted an amendment into the
> Transportation and Treasury Department appropriations bill that would
> prohibit the Bush administration from spending money to enforce the
> travel ban. The House passed a similar amendment in September.
>
> The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 13-5 last week for a
> separate bill that would overturn the travel ban all together.
>
> Chang, the New York lawyer, said she thinks the legislation would make
> the hearings before administrative law judges moot.
>
> President Bush has threatened to veto any legislation weakening the
> ban or the embargo against Cuba. The White House and its allies are
> hoping to avoid a veto by stripping the travel-ban provisions from the
> appropriations bills in a conference committee that is working out
> differences between the House and Senate versions.
>
>
> Foes on both sides of the aisle
>
> Two Republicans and two Democrats in the Senate opposed to the
> president's Cuba policy sent a letter to negotiators demanding that
> the travel-ban provisions remain. Otherwise, the letter said, "we will
> consider all parliamentary options available to us to respond" - a
> not-so-veiled threat of a filibuster.
>
> Enforcement of the travel ban has been stronger since Bush took
> office. He benefited from a huge turnout by Cuban-American voters in
> South Florida who perceived the Clinton administration as soft on
> Cuba's Fidel Castro and who oppose tourism to the island because it
> puts money in the coffers of the government.
>
> But many of Bush's Cuban-American allies have not been happy with the
> administration, saying it has not done enough. The president last
> month announced a new presidential commission on transition to
> democracy in Cuba and said his administration would crack down on
> travel to the island. But the Senate voted within two weeks to forbid
> enforcing the travel ban, setting up the showdown.
>
> "There's only one man standing between my wife and myself and our
> friends who want to make connections (in Cuba)," Michael McCarthy
> said. "And that man is George W. Bush."
>
> </>
>
>
>

Umm, USA, the land of freedom???????????

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Sam wrote:
>
>>
>>"There's only one man standing between my wife and myself and our
>>friends who want to make connections (in Cuba)," Michael McCarthy
>>said. "And that man is George W. Bush."

> Umm, USA, the land of freedom???????????

I don't know why he is blaming Bush. He didn't start it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

mrtravel <postmaster@x.x> wrote:
> Sam wrote:
>> Umm, USA, the land of freedom???????????
>
> I don't know why he is blaming Bush. He didn't start it.

But he has the best chance to stop it of anyone that I can remember - there
is substantial bipartisan support in both houses of the legislature for
scaling back the travel ban.

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

mrtravel <postmaster@x.x> wrote
> Sam wrote:
> >>"There's only one man standing between my wife and myself and our
> >>friends who want to make connections (in Cuba)," Michael McCarthy
> >>said. "And that man is George W. Bush."
>
> > Umm, USA, the land of freedom???????????

> I don't know why he is blaming Bush. He didn't start it.

No, he didn't start it but for what he's doing to that poor dead
horse he ought to be up on animal cruelty charges.

[See my other article quoting BBC re: relaxation of Cuba travel ban.]
--
Ken Tough

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

mrtravel wrote:
>
> regarding:
> >
> > "There's only one man standing between my wife and myself and our
> > friends who want to make connections (in Cuba)," Michael McCarthy
> > said. "And that man is George W. Bush."
>
> I don't know why he is blaming Bush. He didn't start it.

It's very clear why, for at least three reasons:

- The Bush administration has stepped up enforcement of the travel
restrictions. Prior to his administration, the enforcement had become
practically non-existent, so while a few people might have received
notices of violation after making a trip, no further legal action was
taken. Now not only are they are issuing many more violation notices,
they are actively pursuing violators in court. These are actions
specifically initiated by the Bush administration.

- The Bush administration has decided to significantly reduce the number
of licenses that allowed people to legally to travel to Cuba. In
particular, many tour groups had been legally traveling under cultural
licenses, and can no longer get approval to travel, since the supply of
those licenses has been practically turned off.

- Most significantly, both houses of Congress have indicated that they
want to drop the restrictions that prevent people from traveling to
Cuba. In fact, they have both passed bills at various times that drop
the restrictions. Bush stated that he would veto any bills that contain
any type of wording that relaxes the travel restrictions. It doesn't
appear that Congress has the necessary majority to overturn his veto.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Miguel Cruz" <mnc@admin.u.nu> wrote in message
news:4n%tb.65651$E9.57793@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> mrtravel <postmaster@x.x> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> >> Umm, USA, the land of freedom???????????
> >
> > I don't know why he is blaming Bush. He didn't start it.
>
> But he has the best chance to stop it of anyone that I can remember -
there
> is substantial bipartisan support in both houses of the legislature for
> scaling back the travel ban.

He is kind of occupied by some other problems.

And he needs the Florida votes to win next year.

>
> miguel
> --
> See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Is it true that I could travel to any of the "Axis of Evil" countries and not
pay a fine, yet I could, as an American, be fined for going to Cuba, which
poses no weapons threat to the U.S.? I imagine that I could have visited Idi
Amin and not paid a fine. I think those Cuban-Americans should go back to Cuba
and fight for their cause. And I don't necessarily mean fighting with violence.
There are other way, a la Mahatma Gandhi.

<< Subject: Re: Illegal US Travelers To Cuba Get Judicial Notices
From: "Peter L" peterl68@hotmail.com
Date: Mon, Nov 17, 2003 6:34 PM >>


<< > But he has the best chance to stop it of anyone that I can remember -
there
> is substantial bipartisan support in both houses of the legislature for
> scaling back the travel ban.

He is kind of occupied by some other problems. >>

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

In article <20031120173203.05208.00000419@mb-m21.aol.com>, ddupin@aol.com
(DDupin) wrote:
>Is it true that I could travel to any of the "Axis of Evil" countries and not
>pay a fine, yet I could, as an American, be fined for going to Cuba, which
>poses no weapons threat to the U.S.? I imagine that I could have visited Idi
>Amin and not paid a fine. I think those Cuban-Americans should go back to Cuba
>and fight for their cause. And I don't necessarily mean fighting with violence.
>There are other way, a la Mahatma Gandhi.

IIRC, you would face similar concerns (although I don't know how the
enforcement is) if you go to Syria and I think Iran. I don't know what the
rules are right now on Iraq, but prior to our arrival, it was on the list.

>

--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Xref: 127.0.0.1 rec.travel.caribbean:670

In article <kwbvb.10946$Rk5.4590@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
kurtullman@yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman) wrote:
>In article <20031120173203.05208.00000419@mb-m21.aol.com>, ddupin@aol.com
>(DDupin) wrote:
>>Is it true that I could travel to any of the "Axis of Evil" countries and not
>>pay a fine, yet I could, as an American, be fined for going to Cuba, which
>>poses no weapons threat to the U.S.? I imagine that I could have visited Idi
>>Amin and not paid a fine. I think those Cuban-Americans should go back to Cuba
>>and fight for their cause. And I don't necessarily mean fighting with
> violence.
>>There are other way, a la Mahatma Gandhi.
>
> IIRC, you would face similar concerns (although I don't know how the
>enforcement is) if you go to Syria and I think Iran. I don't know what the
>rules are right now on Iraq, but prior to our arrival, it was on the list.
>
>>
>
After I sent this, I remembered www.state.gov and looked up the Counselar
pages. Turns out I was wrong, at least on those two. They don't seem to have a
list of don't go there or we'll bustya countries that I could find.

--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> IIRC, you would face similar concerns (although I don't know how the
> enforcement is) if you go to Syria and I think Iran. I don't know what the
> rules are right now on Iraq, but prior to our arrival, it was on the list.

No issues with Syria. I got my visa at the consulate here in Washington DC,
went over there, had a spectacular time, came back, wrote "Syria" in the
"which countries did you visit" spot on the Customs card, and nobody cared.

I believe it's the same with Iran, however you'll have a much harder time
getting a visa to visit there if you carry a US passport.

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Kurt Ullman wrote:

> After I sent this, I remembered www.state.gov and looked up the
Counselar
> pages. Turns out I was wrong, at least on those two. They don't seem to
have a
> list of don't go there or we'll bustya countries that I could find.
>

Years ago US passports had a list of places where the passport was not
"valid", e.g. North Korea, North Vietnam, etc.

--
Best
Greg

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On 11/17/2003 8:24 AM James Robinson performed amanuensis:

>mrtravel wrote:
>
>
>>regarding:
>>
>>
>>>"There's only one man standing between my wife and myself and our
>>>friends who want to make connections (in Cuba)," Michael McCarthy
>>>said. "And that man is George W. Bush."
>>>
>>>
>>I don't know why he is blaming Bush. He didn't start it.
>>
>>
>
>It's very clear why, for at least three reasons:
>
>- The Bush administration has stepped up enforcement of the travel
>restrictions. Prior to his administration, the enforcement had become
>practically non-existent, so while a few people might have received
>notices of violation after making a trip, no further legal action was
>taken. Now not only are they are issuing many more violation notices,
>they are actively pursuing violators in court. These are actions
>specifically initiated by the Bush administration.
>
>- The Bush administration has decided to significantly reduce the number
>of licenses that allowed people to legally to travel to Cuba. In
>particular, many tour groups had been legally traveling under cultural
>licenses, and can no longer get approval to travel, since the supply of
>those licenses has been practically turned off.
>
>- Most significantly, both houses of Congress have indicated that they
>want to drop the restrictions that prevent people from traveling to
>Cuba. In fact, they have both passed bills at various times that drop
>the restrictions. Bush stated that he would veto any bills that contain
>any type of wording that relaxes the travel restrictions. It doesn't
>appear that Congress has the necessary majority to overturn his veto.
>
>
When did anything concrete or logical appeal to this Bush Administration?

- Consider this: 2 communist countries which we dropped travel and trade
sanctions. Due to exposure to American tourists and trade, both China
and Russia are no longer hard line communist countries.

- Cuba will cease to be a hard line communist "threat" to the US when it
is opened-up for trade and travel.
- I had a college Prof. who referred to this as the "Coca-colonization
of The World".
- However is the icon Che Guevara going to stand up to an onslaught by
Madonna, Brittany Spears, Christine Agulara, Emenem, "South Park",
FuBu, Dr. Phil, Oprah and David Letterman?

- Cubans will be clamoring for Levi's 505 jeans (already a hot
black-market item).
- If by chance they are harboring any Al Quiada terrorists, they will
give them up for a MacDonalds Happy Meal with Fries and Supersize it.

It is not our ideology of democracy and freedom that have toppled former
"Axis of Evil" countries. Our secret weapon is not a new missile. It
is our blatant consumerism. Everybody wants a piece of KFC's fried
chicken with it's 22 secret ingredients.

--
________
To email me, Edit "xt" from my email address.
Brian M. Kochera
"Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once!"
View My Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~brian1951

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Brian K <brianxt1951@earthlink.net> wrote:

>It is not our ideology of democracy and freedom that have toppled former
>"Axis of Evil" countries. Our secret weapon is not a new missile. It
>is our blatant consumerism. Everybody wants a piece of KFC's fried
>chicken with it's 22 secret ingredients.

And like the apocryphal lead in Roman plumbing, there is solace in the
fact that all such crap will eventually kill off the American empire.

--
Ken Tough

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Brian K <brianxt1951@earthlink.net> wrote:

>When did anything concrete or logical appeal to this Bush Administration?
>
>- Consider this: 2 communist countries which we dropped travel and trade
>sanctions. Due to exposure to American tourists and trade, both China
>and Russia are no longer hard line communist countries.

Bush's puppeteer's see Florida as a swing state in 2004, and want
to keep the exhiled Cuban vote happy.

Simple as that.

--
Stephen

There were no weapons of mass destruction, just words of mass deception.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"DDupin" <ddupin@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031120173203.05208.00000419@mb-m21.aol.com...
> Is it true that I could travel to any of the "Axis of Evil" countries and
not
> pay a fine, yet I could, as an American, be fined for going to Cuba, which
> poses no weapons threat to the U.S.? I imagine that I could have visited
Idi
> Amin and not paid a fine. I think those Cuban-Americans should go back to
Cuba
> and fight for their cause. And I don't necessarily mean fighting with
violence.
> There are other way, a la Mahatma Gandhi.
>

I think it should be up to each and one of you to chose where you want to go
and not. After all, it is "a free country". Isn`t it?

Leif

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On 26/11/03 21:02, in article dG7xb.1694$Y06.22739@news4.e.nsc.no, "Petal &
Leif" <lejensen@online.no> wrote:


> I think it should be up to each and one of you to chose where you want to go
> and not. After all, it is "a free country". Isn`t it?


The US Treasury Department doesn`t think so and under the Bushies is getting
tougher. This is for "US Persons only", in principle. I traveled to Cuba on
my French passport although I am also an American citizen. I went for
professional reasons and on assignment for the French Government. I don`t
think US legal authority extends to me in this particular case, although one
never knows with these types in office.

However, I have also committed the "sins" listed below, of editing English
language articles for my Cuban colleagues and also co-publishing with them.

So the Big Brother in Washington has decided to put an intellectual
embargo in force too.

Earl Evleth


***


New U.S. Treasury Department Rules Cast Chill Over Scientific Publishing

Page 1 of 1

http://www.caut.ca/english/bulletin.../sciencepub.asp 12/3/2003

New U.S. Treasury Department Rules Cast

Chill Over Scientific Publishing
Engineers are warning that rules issued by the U.S. Treasury
Department this month could restrict the free exchange of
scientific information.

The Bush administration says the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, with more than 350,000 members
worldwide, must stop editing scholarly papers submitted by
researchers living in countries under a U.S. trade embargo, or
apply for a special license to do so.

On Oct. 1 the Treasury Department informed the Institute that
editing a research paper is equivalent to providing a service to
authors and therefore violates U.S. trade restrictions that prevent
U.S.-based organizations from doing business with countries
such as Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Sudan.

"U.S. persons may not provide [an embargoed author]
substantive or artistic alterations or enhancement of the
manuscript, and IEEE may not facilitate the provision of such
alterations or enhancements," the director of the Treasury
Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control wrote in a letter to
the IEEE. Trade policy prohibits "the reordering of paragraphs or
sentences, correction of syntax, grammar and replacement of
inappropriate words by U.S. persons."

The IEEE must now apply for a special license to edit papers
from researchers in trade embargoed nations.

Concerned that it may have otherwise violated U.S. trade laws,
the IEEE had already stopped editing papers written by members
in the embargoed countries, and had prevented those engineers
from viewing its journals online.

In a statement issued after the Treasury Department's decision,
the IEEE said it would apply for a special license immediately and
resume editing papers as soon as the license was granted.

Kenneth Foster, a professor of bioengineering and an IEEE
member, worries the Treasury Department's decision will have a
chilling effect on scientific publishing.

"What [the letter] describes as needing a license is exactly what
every journal in the world does," he told the Chronicle of Higher
Education.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

In article <BBF4D452.1D08A%evleth@wanadoo.fr>,
Earl Evleth <evleth@wanadoo.fr> writes:
...
>> ... I traveled to Cuba on
>my French passport although I am also an American citizen. I went for
>professional reasons and on assignment for the French Government. I don`t
>think US legal authority extends to me in this particular case, although one
>never knows with these types in office.
...

On knows with reasonable certanty that US Legal authroity extends to US
citizens. I do now know if your trip vioated US law or not. It seems to
me you should have found that out before you traveled.

--
Charlie Hammond -- Hewlett-Packard Company -- Ft Lauderdale FL USA
(hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com -- remove "@not" when replying)
All opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily my employer's.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Charlie Hammond <hammond@not@peek.ssr.hp.com> wrote:
> Earl Evleth <evleth@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>> I traveled to Cuba on my French passport although I am also an American
>> citizen. I went for professional reasons and on assignment for the
>> French Government. I don`t think US legal authority extends to me in
>> this particular case, although one never knows with these types in
>> office.
>
> On knows with reasonable certanty that US Legal authroity extends to US
> citizens. I do now know if your trip vioated US law or not. It seems to
> me you should have found that out before you traveled.

If his trip was paid for by the French government then I don't see how the
US Treasury restrictions would apply.

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

In article <MTJzb.1658$lv4.1304@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, mnc@admin.u.nu (Miguel
Cruz) wrote:

>If his trip was paid for by the French government then I don't see how the
>US Treasury restrictions would apply.
>
The restrictions follow citizenship and really don't make any difference.
Also, the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship. Since you can't fly directly
anyway, I would have flown to (say) Nassau on my US passport, left for Cuba on
my French and then gone the other way in reverse. The legality in real life
would have been iffy, but doubtful if anyone would have found out anyway.

--
"People everywhere confuse what they read in the newspapers with news."
-A.J. Liebling

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On 4/12/03 18:10, in article MTJzb.1658$lv4.1304@nwrddc01.gnilink.net,
"Miguel Cruz" <mnc@admin.u.nu> wrote:

>> On knows with reasonable certanty that US Legal authroity extends to US
>> citizens. I do now know if your trip vioated US law or not. It seems to
>> me you should have found that out before you traveled.
>
> If his trip was paid for by the French government then I don't see how the
> US Treasury restrictions would apply.
>
> miguel

The Treasury restrictions revolve around the issue of spending money there,
not going there. The money I spent there was from money earned in France
and not the USA, although, ironically, was in dollars. The Cubans will not
accept any US based credit cards because they can`t collect. But my French
based Visa card was accepted. In Cuba, I pretended always to be French
which made things easier (something I usually do, I don`t use my US
passport except to enter and leave the USA). There is simply no advantage
of being American anymore if one has a EU passport.

Next, after the fact I did inquire at the American Service office of the
American Embassy in Paris about my visits and they did not seem it important
enough to ask the Treasury Department!

What one does not DO is ask the Treasury Department because they will say
NO, because is it bureaucratically safer to say NO.

Of the Americans I know who did go legally (one was a Nobel Prize winner!)
they asked the State Department the latter first said NO. These Americans
where invited by the Cuban Government, all expenses paid so were not
trampling on the feet of the law which dates from 1917 and is about "not
trading with the enemy". An archaic law, an archaic practice.


Earl

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

On 4/12/03 19:23, in article
TYKzb.3681$Qd6.156@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net, "Kurt Ullman"
<kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Also, the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship.


ON this point you are wrong. The US now does recognized dual citizenship.

I have a letter from the State Department establishing that in my particular
case.

The law was CHANGED A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO after the Supreme Court
declared that US citizenship can not be taken away from a person
committing an ex-patriating act unless he committed that act
with the purpose of losing his citizenship.

There are a number of web sites which one can visit to clear up
this misunderstanding you have.

Earl

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

In article <BBF5692E.1D3A9%evleth@wanadoo.fr>, Earl Evleth <evleth@wanadoo.fr>
wrote:
>On 4/12/03 19:23, in article
>TYKzb.3681$Qd6.156@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net, "Kurt Ullman"
><kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship.
>
>
>ON this point you are wrong. The US now does recognized dual citizenship.
Yep you are correct. Combination of old understanding and some confusion
brought about by only glancing at some consular memos on this thread (I guess
there IS a difference between the other country not recognizing dc and the US.
Thanks for reminding that old habits don't always die hard.

Kurt (mea culpa, mea culpla) Ullman

>

--
"People everywhere confuse what they read in the newspapers with news."
-A.J. Liebling

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> mnc@admin.u.nu (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
>> If his trip was paid for by the French government then I don't see how the
>> US Treasury restrictions would apply.
>
> The restrictions follow citizenship and really don't make any difference.

The restrictions apply to people "subject to US jurisdiction" which would
include residents.

But Earl's trip falls into two of the many exemptions:

1) It's a foreign government-sponsored trip.

2) The funds used did not originate in the US.

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

"Miguel Cruz" <mnc@admin.u.nu> wrote in message
news:wOOzb.861$dn3.568@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (snip)
> But Earl's trip falls into two of the many exemptions:
>
> 1) It's a foreign government-sponsored trip.
>
> 2) The funds used did not originate in the US.
>
> miguel
> --

I don't think it matters where the funds originate. E.G. if I own stock in
a Canadian company I cannot go to Cuba and pay my expenses out of the
dividends earned by my stock. But I'd guess that your #1 qualifies under
the "fully hosted" exemption ...

! FULLY HOSTED TRAVELERS - Fully-hosted travelers may travel

to Cuba without contacting OFAC if the traveler's Cuba related expenses

are covered by a person not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Travel to Cuba

is not fully hosted if a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction pays--before,

during, or after the travel--any expenses related to the travel, including

the cost of traveling to Cuba on a Cuban carrier, even if the payment is

made to a third-country person or entity that is not subject to U.S.

jurisdiction. Examples of costs commonly incurred by travelers toto and

in Cuba are for meals, lodging, transportation, bunkering of vessels or

aircraft, visa, entry or exit fees, and gratuities. In addition,
fully-hosted

travel to and from Cuba cannot be aboard a direct flight between the United

States and Cuba. Fully-hosted travelers may not bring back any Cuban

origin goods, except for informational materials. [See Note to Section

515.420(c) of the Regulations.]

(see http://www.treas.gov/offices/eotffc...ons/t11cuba.pdf for the
entire document)

Bob

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged