Jump to content

Cruises to Cuba were illegal?


Recommended Posts

Quote

The company Havana Docks is seeking about $9.2 million. The company’s president, Mickael Behn, is the grandson of William C. Behn, an American who owned three docks that were confiscated in 1960. Mickael Behn is a television executive who lives between Miami and London.

I think it's safe to say the docks in Havana looked like something confiscated in 1960 (and not touched since).  😅

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is interesting and almost guaranteed to go to the 11th Circuit on appeal. I would like to see the evidence to prove the "cruise ships were taking passengers outside the travel categories allowed by law." If I remember correctly, cultural education was a listed travel category. The judge is splitting hairs if she states that "excursions to nightclubs, landmarks, rivers and beaches when they began traveling to Cuba in 2016" are not a part of cultural education. I would question her understanding of culture if that's the case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, kadmgs said:

This is interesting and almost guaranteed to go to the 11th Circuit on appeal. I would like to see the evidence to prove the "cruise ships were taking passengers outside the travel categories allowed by law." If I remember correctly, cultural education was a listed travel category. The judge is splitting hairs if she states that "excursions to nightclubs, landmarks, rivers and beaches when they began traveling to Cuba in 2016" are not a part of cultural education. I would question her understanding of culture if that's the case. 

I agree. The laws for Cuba travel were so vague, I don't see how someone can prove cruise passengers weren't satisfying the spirit of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is nothing more than a political move and judicial overreach.  The international airline that I work for did not quiz or grill passengers on why they were traveling to Cuba we just took the money and provided the flights.  All the major air carriers added quite a few flights to Cuba over that time frame as tens of thousands of Americans visited Cuba.  If this judge wants to go after cruise lines she has to go after airlines as well because after then President Trump reversed President Obama's policy every single US carrier dropped most and in some cases some carriers canceled all flights to Cuba as demand plummeted and returned to its pre-Obama era levels.   Which begs the question how many airline passengers flew to Cuba for vacation to go to the beach, a club, visit landmarks, check out all the vintage cars or a host of other reasons this judge says wasn't allowed under the law.

But once again cruise lines make for an easier target than airlines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JasonOasis said:

But once again cruise lines make for an easier target than airlines.

Well, to be fair, the case is only involving the cruise companies because they were using a terminal that was formerly owned by the family prior to being confiscated by the Cuban government.  The judge isn't targeting cruise companies just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A mix of politics and merit.  

Real people were impacted by actions of the Cuban government.  However the US government and/or many states will gladly take your land when they need or want it right here in the US.  Here's 10 cents on the dollar.  Eminent domain is alive and well.  

There are many people who did have land and property seized in Cuba so the issues are real and like everything else opinions fall depending if you and someone close to you was impacted.  

However at this point it's mostly a political conversation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, JasonOasis said:

This is nothing more than a political move and judicial overreach.  The international airline that I work for did not quiz or grill passengers on why they were traveling to Cuba we just took the money and provided the flights.  All the major air carriers added quite a few flights to Cuba over that time frame as tens of thousands of Americans visited Cuba.  If this judge wants to go after cruise lines she has to go after airlines as well because after then President Trump reversed President Obama's policy every single US carrier dropped most and in some cases some carriers canceled all flights to Cuba as demand plummeted and returned to its pre-Obama era levels.   Which begs the question how many airline passengers flew to Cuba for vacation to go to the beach, a club, visit landmarks, check out all the vintage cars or a host of other reasons this judge says wasn't allowed under the law.

But once again cruise lines make for an easier target than airlines.

The judge may or may not want to go after airlines for similar reasons.  But in order to do so, a case involving the airlines would have to come through her court.  Whoever filed the current lawsuit may be attempting to set a precedent by suing the cruise lines first because they believe it is an easier case to win.  That kind of thing happens all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, twangster said:

A mix of politics and merit.  

Real people were impacted by actions of the Cuban government.  However the US government and/or many states will gladly take your land when they need or want it right here in the US.  Here's 10 cents on the dollar.  Eminent domain is alive and well.  

There are many people who did have land and property seized in Cuba so the issues are real and like everything else opinions fall depending if you and someone close to you was impacted.  

However at this point it's mostly a political conversation. 

I agree. Without getting too far into political ideology/judicial philosophy, etc., I teach my GOVT students to pay attention to who appointed a federal judge when examining a ruling. Usually, it will give insight into judicial philosophy. However, this is not the case for this particular ruling. She was appointed by Obama, so we don't really have any basis for understanding her intent. We can say that this wasn't politically motivated. Its not government overreach because its a civil case. In a civil case, proof the cruise lines violated the law isn't necessary. There only has to be proof the defendant's actions caused injury to the plaintiff. Tort law is different than criminal law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This issue is not new.  There were questions regarding the liability of Cruise Lines for using the facilities and questions regarding the excursions falling outside of the guidelines at the time.  The cruise lines decided to take a chance.  They may end up regretting it.  I do not see a plotical issue, but a Court doing what it is supposed to interpreting and enforcing laws and contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
23 hours ago, smokeybandit said:

 

 Sorry, but CUBA is CUBA the owners of that port prior to Fidel need to take up their complaint with the legitimate government of CUBA.

USA has no legal or other reason to become involved

Do I necessarily agree with the policy of there government, but that is not my legal concern.

If i was CUBA I would put all my resources into Building a new port that could accommodate huge ships and invite everyone, big port taxes would not shy away the cruise ships. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Not trying to be smart, but did I miss the word "nationalization" in this discussion.  Did or did not the communist government nationalize private assets when they came to power in Cuba.  

Having visited Cuba on an RCCL cruise in August 2017, I can attest that our experience was far more focused on a cultural exchange than on a beach resort vacation.  One of our guides was a Fidel foot soldier who shared about his current food rations and more.  Another guide was a young teacher who shared about the new culture and looking forward to the day when a more open and modern Cuba.

Hopefully, new port facilities will be built and more open visit opportunities will become available (like we have in Viet Nam.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...