Should Cuba be removed from the State's Sponsor of Terrorism List

DEFINITIONS: (1): Con agrees that Russia should be on the list under his framework. True, this debate is centered around Cuba and not Russia, but this is a point that should be evaluated at the end of the round if con attempts to use his FW as justification for Cuba being on the list when my point is the loose definition isn't a real justification, just another classification. (2): The ground that was made to enlist Cuba on the list is a ground that does not exist to date. This is something that was taken into consideration when taking North Korea on the list, the same should apply for Cuba. And I did answer the notes, cross apply my credibility argument which says that our classification of countries as "terrorist" is undermined as we put the same threshold on Cuba as we do for Iran, Sudan, and Syria. Also, cross apply my argument on contention 1, Cuba is neither failing or succeeding in acts of terrorism: their involvement in terrorism is non-existent, and evidence dictates this, only through their loose defining of terrorism could they somehow meet. C1: I did answer the argument, my entire contention 1 argument is that the "weapons" were obsolete. They were not being used in any other matter other than self defense. We can't hold Cuba to the word "terrorist" at any time they deal with exchanges like these, because we diminish the definition of "terrorist," that goes back to my argument on the loose defining of terrorist. The acts do NOT sponsor terrorism, the weapons were from last century, have no use without repair, and are completely for self defense. Even if con wins that the weapons are not obsolete, we can't say that it was clearly an act of terrorism. Also, I did address that North Korea is a terrorist nation, you can find that in my second sentence in my OP for the second contention. While we note this, North Korea under the eyes of the U.S. is not a terrorist nation as bush removed them from the list 5 years ago and there has been no talk for their re-enlistment. C2: Con completely ignored my assertion that FARC, ETA, and Black Liberation Army / Black Panthers aren't hiding under the protection of Cuba. I gave the example of Alan Gross, Con gave the example of Shakur, who is a political fugitive. Not turning over Shakur (Chesimard) is completely legal " even if she is guilty " she"s a political fugitive [1] Chesimard was a member of the Black Panther Party. 12 She was convicted in 1973 of killing a New Jersey state trooper. In 1979 she escaped prison and has been in Cuba since then. As a result of that determination, Cuba"s position is that she is not extraditable. Is Cuba legally justified in taking this position? As deplorable as the killing of Trooper Werner Foerster was, the answer is yes. The 1904 Extradition Treaty between the U.S. and Cuba states, at Article VI: "A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if the offense in respect of which his surrender is demanded be of a political character." This piece of evidence shows that Shakur being in Cuba doesn't mean in any way they harbor terrorist, under our law we can't control that. And even though not all ETA members are approved by Spain, they are unconcerned, and Cuba has been distancing itself from the group. [2]There are only 20 to 24 ETA members in Cuba, and by now they must be older people who have not participated in any terrorist activities in Spain for many years...Cuba "allowed Spanish Police to travel to Cuba to confirm the presence of suspected ETA members. Spain Ambassador Carter that Spain was "not concerned about the presence of members of . . . ETA . . . in Cuba Spain isn't worried because there are so few of them, and they haven't been deemed to be a threat, otherwise Spain would had done something. Cuba grants them residency because there has been no report of any type of terrorism from them, nor do they prove a threat to anyone. C3: Cross apply both arguments from the other contentions, these takeout both of the con's "justifications" for Cuba's continuing spot on the list. Cuba has opposed any and all types of terrorism. Also note that the 3rd merit for Cuba's "justification" is a terrible justification, and does NOT meet the threshold that the U.S. This should be weighed HEAVILY at the end of this round, because it is our only non-void reason to keep them on the list, the only reason it has "merit" is for sheer political reasons. Cuba has also condemned any type of terrorism. [3]the implication of the charge is that Cuba opposed efforts to fight terrorism and stop groups such as al-Qaeda, is false. The Cuban government officially condemned the terrorist attacks on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. It then offered to provide the U.S. with all the medical and humanitarian aid it could muster, and to permit U.S. aircraft to use Cuban airspace Cuba condemned terrorism 12 years ago, they condemned the acts of the people who started the bombing of the Boston marathon and sent a note of condolence, and Cuba condemns terrorism now. No country, especially the remaining 3 on the list, goes out of their way to condemn terrorism, tries to fight against it, and respects the laws of other countries (UN AND US), yet still get labeled as a terrorist nation, other than Cuba. Observation 1: While the "sign but not abide" may be true, it shows that Cuba has respect for the UN to sign all denunciations of terrorism. Castro didn't have to, and isn't getting that much out of it from other countries. Cuba isn't even technologically advanced to provide a substantial threat to U.S. national security, and by removal of Cuba from the list, we can then respond better to the countries that Con agrees ARE a security threat. Observation 2: I addressed the argument about observation one, go back and read it again if you need to. I said specifically FARC because they are among a popular group for which we condemn Cuba for "harboring." I also answered the other known groups that we label "terrorist" but have not been involved in any action of terror for a good while. Observation 3: I agree that our debate should be on the issue of Cuba and terrorism, but the issue is that we have no evidence backing up claims to say Cuba has been involved in the War on Terror and poses an existential threat to that of Iran or Syria, the only thing we can come up with is this NK incident, which should not be evaluated because Cuba has their own reasons for it, and a similar incident will shed light to this misconception: Long before this happened, old secretary of state John Bolton falsely claimed Cuba for possession of "bioweapons," which was laughable considering the fact that Cuba has century old machinery to even make any type of self defense equipment, so Cuba saw through their claim and allowed U.S. to thoroughly search Cuba as they please. and we then reported in 2003 after the US did a search through Cuba, we got this: [4] State Department"s Bureau of Intelligence and Research maintained that Under Secretary Bolton"s assertions about Cuba and biological weapons were not supported by sufficient intelligence. Sources: I never refuted any of Con's sources for their political bias, so neither should Con with my sources. These arguments deserve no weight, because no matter who is biast or who is not, the fact that my evidence states is that: 1) Cold War is over, 2) Cuba doesn't meet the threshold for the 3rd merit for which we justify their inclusion on the list, 3) Cuba wants relations, and has distanced itself from the "terrorist" groups. It's not biast, it's evaluation and research. 1- http://www.scarletnotes.com... 2- http://dwkcommentaries.com... 3- not an online source, but from a book: , Fifty Years of Revolution: Perspectives on Cuba, the United States, and the World 4- http://www.scarletnotes.com... Thanks for a great debate!