Cuba’s socialist dictatorship claims it had ‘legal’ right to steal American property because owners were ‘delinquents’

Cuba’s socialist Castro dictatorship is claiming it had the legal right to steal property in Cuba at gunpoint from Americans because the victims of the expropriations were “delinquents.”

Frances Martel reports in Breitbart:

Cuba Smears Its American Victims: Owners of Property Stolen by Castro Were ‘Delinquents’

Cuba’s state newspaper Granma continued its campaign this week against the United States’ decision to allow Americans to sue companies who profit from using their stolen property.

It argued in a column Wednesday that the communist theft was legal because it was a “sovereign” act and the true owners of the properties were “delinquents.”

The administration of President Donald Trump announced in early May that it would finally allow the implementation of Title III of the 1996 Libertad Act – commonly known as “Helms-Burton,” after the law’s authors – after over 20 years of American governments banning Americans from exercising the rights it grants them. The act allows Americans to sue private corporations who profit from the use of property in Cuba that belonged to American citizens before the wave of “nationalizations” under dictator Fidel Castro in the 1960s.

Castro used violence to rob American business owners of an estimated $8.5 billion in hotels, farms, and other properties following the 1959 communist revolution. The Cuban regime has never indemnified its victims and continues to insist the thefts were rightful.

As the robberies occurred decades ago, many of the original owners died without being compensated for their properties, and those taking advantage of the full implementation of Helms-Burton are their descendants.

Lamenting the “increase in aggression and imperialist yanqui arrogance,” the Granma newspaper cited Cuban “experts” on Wednesday who claimed that the Americans who owned the property Castro stole have no legal rights to it.

“The Helms-Burton Law insistently uses terms like ‘confiscated property’ and ‘confiscated goods,’” the newspaper notes, contending that this is different from “nationalization,” which it defines as “an act with which the nation, as per the legal process, can appropriate, for various reasons, private property and hand them to the public treasury.”

“Nationalizations, as acts of the State, are part of the sovereign character of the same and, thus, all States must respect each other’s independence; these constitute acts of economic vindication at the service of the people,” it continues.

The column could have kept to this point, but instead goes on to argue that, even if the thefts were “confiscations,” those were legal because the original owners were criminals under Fidel Castro’s draconian communist rule.

Continue reading HERE.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.