Merged US may close Cuba Embassy over 'health attacks'

[dann]

For those of you who can’t access the Washington Post, this news can also be found at many other sites, for instance:

Brain abnormalities found in victims of US embassy attack in Cuba (The Guardian),
Doctors Find Abnormalities in Brains of Cuba Attack Victims (US News),
Mysterious Cuba Embassy Attacks Left Victims With Brain Anomalies (Popular Mechanics),
Brain abnormalities identified in Cuba ‘attack’ victims (N.Y. Post). (All of them, Dec. 6, 2017)

Leave it to the Daily Mail to come up with the most misleading headline:
Brain abnormalities found in victims of invisible US embassy attacks in Cuba – leading doctors to think MICROWAVES caused their loss of vision, hearing, balance and memory (also Dec. 6, 2017)

 

[Jungle Jim]

Perhaps poisoned? https://www.thedailybeast.com/were-the-cuban-sonic-attack-victims-actually-poisoned

 

[dann]

I am surprised that one of the experts referred to in the article seems to be very ill informed:

But that the victims all suffered a psychogenic episode is probably a faulty conclusion, Lobarinas insisted. Twenty-four people is a lot of people, and to enact that kind of auditory hallucination is difficult to orchestrate, he said.

It was mentioned in some of the early reports that far from all patients reported hearing anything at all, so nobody's talking about 24 people experiencing an "auditory hallucination".

“If I were to list what is likely to have caused this attack, I’d start with a drug or some kind of toxin at the top of my list,” Lobarinas said. “Psychogenic would be second. And third—or even lower than third?—would be the use of a sound device.”

Since the chemicals mentioned don't seem to cause white-matter damage, 'only' hearing loss, I would still go with psychogenic as the primary suspect, i.e. a few cases of actual hearing loss, maybe accompanied by tinnitus, and one or two cases of Alzheimer's, the ones where the white matter is impaired, followed by mass psychogenic illness in all the cases where the patients have already recovered - with or without treatment: "Most patients have fully recovered, some after rehabilitation and other treatment, officials said. Many are back at work."

 

[dann]

Leave it to the Daily Mail to come up with the most misleading headline:
Brain abnormalities found in victims of invisible US embassy attacks in Cuba – leading doctors to think MICROWAVES caused their loss of vision, hearing, balance and memory (also Dec. 6, 2017)

The Daily Mail seems to have changed its mind:
Brain abnormalities found in US and Canadian diplomats living in Havana were caused by stress from listening to 'noisy crickets' rather than a mystery sonic weapon, claim Cuban scientists The Daily Mail, Dec. 7, 2017)

I'm not really sure what happened to the "MICROWAVES" , but I can recommend a comparison of the comments to the two articles.

 

[Trebuchet]

Crickets have very small hands. When they wave goodbye, they can only give micro-waves.

 

[dann]

It wouldn't require much effort to turn it into a Trump joke!

 

[dann]

Fox News, Dec. 13, 2017, has found a professor James Lin, who also suggests that the alleged attacks may have been by means of microwaves:


This has inspired the Daily Mail to return to the micowave-weapon theory:
Brain abnormalities in US and Canadian diplomats living in Havana were caused by a mystery microwave WEAPON and not 'noisy crickets', claims scientist (The Daily Mail, Dec. 13, 2017)

 

[Checkmite]

Perhaps poisoned? https://www.thedailybeast.com/were-the-cuban-sonic-attack-victims-actually-poisoned

I haven't said as much directly, but I've been privately entertaining this as a possible explanation for the physical symptoms ever since the "sonic weapon" theory was essentially ruled out as the causative factor several months back.

 

[dann]

Actually, the sonic-attack idea was the only one that made it at least hypothetically feasible to talk about an attack: (Some) people (thought that they) heard something, and later on they (as well as a number of people who never heard a thing) exhibited various symptoms or defects.

If you seriously consider the idea that poison was used as a weapon instead of ultra sound, microwaves etc., you would still have to explain why most of the alleged victims didn't suffer any long-term effects, and why no residue of toxins was ever found. (I think we can assume that it would have been mentioned.)
I think it's safe to assume that everybody who is alive and well and back to work was probably the victims of nothing but delusions, i.e. mass psychogenic illness, and that the two (?) cases of actual hearing loss and white matter disorders are victims of ordinary, albeit unfortunate, organic diseases.
Why insist on the idea of an attack?
(I know why, but still …)

 

[Checkmite]

If you seriously consider the idea that poison was used as a weapon instead of ultra sound, microwaves etc., you would still have to explain why most of the alleged victims didn't suffer any long-term effects, and why no residue of toxins was ever found. (I think we can assume that it would have been mentioned.)

My thinking in this matter isn't so stovepiped. I don't think that it must be "either this and only this, or that and only that".

The fact is, Cuba is a hostile nation - ideologically, politically hostile; and it has extremely close ties with another nation that is also hostile in those ways toward the US. It's a simple reality that US diplomats working in hostile countries are given a hard time. They're surveilled, harassed; bullied, sometimes directly threatened. Their homes are burgled. One American diplomat in Moscow famously came home from work to find his house had been broken into and his dog shot to death. These aren't salacious and scandalous rumors; it's just a simple, well-documented fact of life in this occupation in certain places. The idea is to make American diplomats feel unwelcome and unsafe - to cause stress, which sets up a negative feedback loop that progressively degrades their ability to work effectively.

With that understanding, I would be honestly surprised if it were objectively proved that staff in the newly-opened embassy in Cuba were not the subject of surveillance and harassment of some kind or other; whether by Cuban factors or Russian factors or a combination of these, or maybe even someone else entirely, who knows. Using sound to deliberately irritate and stress people for instance, seemed quite a credible vector of such harassment. Poisoning food to sicken, for another hypothetical example, might seem extreme and incredible, but then so is breaking into a diplomat's residence and killing their dog.

Essentially, my thinking processes starts with: it is credible that American diplomats assigned to Cuba are being harassed in a way that impacts their health and peace of mind; and it is likewise entirely credible that the various symptoms and conditions that have been reported by them, are a result of that harassment - whether directly caused (as from "poisoning" or "sound attacks"), or indirectly caused (i.e., severe mental stress, which in turn leads to psychosomatic symptoms). So now if someone wants to say it was a sound-emitter, I'll entertain that. If someone wants to say that some individuals might've been poisoned, I'll entertain that. Even insisting that most of the complaining "victims" just have sympathetic somatic symptoms - your "mass hysteria" - that still leaves the possibility that the hysteria was provoked by one or two people complaining of effects that were more directly the result of some kind of targeted harassment.

"Why does it have to be an attack"? Because the notion is epistemologically valid and even probable and expected in the current geopolitical reality.

 

[dann]

My thinking in this matter isn't so stovepiped. I don't think that it must be "either this and only this, or that and only that".

The fact is, Cuba is a hostile nation - ideologically, politically hostile; and it has extremely close ties with another nation that is also hostile in those ways toward the US. It's a simple reality that US diplomats working in hostile countries are given a hard time. They're surveilled, harassed; bullied, sometimes directly threatened. Their homes are burgled. One American diplomat in Moscow famously came home from work to find his house had been broken into and his dog shot to death. These aren't salacious and scandalous rumors; it's just a simple, well-documented fact of life in this occupation in certain places. The idea is to make American diplomats feel unwelcome and unsafe - to cause stress, which sets up a negative feedback loop that progressively degrades their ability to work effectively.

OK, so let's compare the two nations, Cuba and the USA, in order to estimate the probability of Cuban hostilities against the USA:

1) Sheer size: United States is about 89 times bigger than Cuba. OK, size doesn't really say much: Denmarks-Greenland, so let's take a look at the:
2) GDP: Cuba: $60.81 billion, USA: $15.68 trillion.
3) Population? Cuba: 11,239,224, USA: 325,365,189. But then again, if we're talking about hostilities, it's usually a question of military strength. There are many parameters to compare, but let's just take:
4) military budget: Cuba: "0.2 US$ BN", USA: "682 US$ BN. Ranked 1st. 3410 times more than Cuba".

So no matter how we compare the two countries, it's like comparing mice and elephants. And I think that we all know that the story of mice threatening elephants is a myth - in spite of the Mythbusters:



The notion that Cuba would be hostile to the USA is absolutely ridiculous. Not because Cubans don't hate US American racism, not because Cubans don't hate US American exploitation of its own population as well as of the rest of the world, but because it's utterly impossible for Cuba to threaten an enemy so much more powerful than itself.
Besides, many people in this thread have already pointed out that Cuba was quite content with the newly established diplomatic relations with the USA and wouldn't have wanted to jeopardize them.
That the US American spies in Cuba are being surveilled and monitored by the Cubans? Sure. They should be. But that they're "harassed" and even "threatened?
Get real!

 

[dann]

Cuba's failed invasion of Florida and other Cuban acts of terror

Of course, there are a couple of things that might make US American spies in Cuba nervous and fear sonic or other kinds of hostile attack. I won't deny that. If they are old enough to remember the Bay of Wigs, Florida, invasion plans that Fidel Castro had his intelligence agency work out in early 1960, only one year after the Cuban revolution, and implement in 1961. They may also remember how the Cubans first bombed the Patrick Air Force Base and, in and attempt to make US Air Force pilots defect, claimed that the bombing had been done by disgruntled US American pilots who had then defected to Cuba.

And after Cuba’s failed invasion of Florida, some of the old US spies in la Habana may also have been briefed about and still remember the plans devised by the Dirección General the Inteligencia to target Cuban civilians and army personnel and blame the CIA.

And, last but not least, the Operation Woolverine when Castro joined forces with what remained of organized crime on the island in an attempt to destabilize the US Administration under J. F. Kennedy. Delusional as they were, they seemed to actually have believed that the citizens of the USA were ripe for an uprising against the Kennedy regime:

”They need symbols of inside resistance and of outside interest soon. They need something they can join with the hope of starting to work surely towards overthrowing the regime.”

It speaks volumes that in a state as repressive as the one in Cuba, nobody pointed out that the attempts to destabilize the USA were not only unrealistic but also unethical:

"only once in [the] thousand pages of documentation did a [Cuban] official raise something that resembled a faint moral objection to [Cuban] sponsored terrorism."

But that is what you can expect in a nation as brainwashed as Cuba: Nobody dared oppose Fidel Castro, which may also account for the fact that his megalomaniac invasion plans were never contradicted by his followers.

Even the very young spies at the US embassy in Havana, the ones with their hearing unimpaired and white matter fully intact, should be able to remember the Cuban sponsored terrorism targeted, not exclusively but also, at the USA. And it is likely that they may feel some resentment at the US American exiles who were recruited to carry out these acts of terror against the USA, and the fact that some of these state-sponsored terrorists are alive and well and living in Havana, free from any repercussions, even now, after the so-called thaw in Cuba-United States relations.

 

[dann]

PS Isn't that approximately what you imagine the world looks like, Checkmite?!

 

[Checkmite]

The notion that Cuba would be hostile to the USA is absolutely ridiculous. Not because Cubans don't hate US American racism, not because Cubans don't hate US American exploitation of its own population as well as of the rest of the world, but because it's utterly impossible for Cuba to threaten an enemy so much more powerful than itself.

It doesn't have to be Cuba; as stated in the article, Russian harassment of American diplomats takes place all over Europe, not just within Russia itself or even just countries friendly to Russia (the latter of which Cuba is one). Certainly Russia can be argued to have an interest in preventing the US from normalizing relations with Cuba. It might even be arguable that it's more likely that Russia rather than Cuba is responsible (if anything of that sort is going on).

I'm not making a judgment about whether or not America "deserves" to have its diplomats treated this way, or whether or not Cuba may have a right or a justification to be hostile towards the US; or whether Cuba are evil or terrorists or "really bad dudes" as the current American chief executive might put it. Such things aren't really relevant to the question of whether it's happening or not.

But your assertion that it's "utterly impossible for Cuba to threaten an enemy so much more powerful than itself" seems nonsensical in the context of this argument. It is not "utterly impossible" for either Cuban government agencies or some non-governmental ideological group to harass American diplomats in Havana if they want to. It is their country, they are solely responsible for law enforcement and following up on any complaints American diplomats may make - which means they can both essentially refuse to follow up on or do anything about harassment complaints by embassy workers, and actively interfere with any attempt at counteraction by American agencies against Cuban individuals in their own country. So no matter how "powerful", the US really has no options in response to harassment except to draw down or completely close the embassy; and if that's the entire goal of the harassment campaign, why would this be a disincentive to Cuba? It's "mission accomplished".

 

[dann]

What I almost cannot believe is the idea that "the US really has no options in response to harassment".
The USA is the most powerful nation on Earth, it has all the options it chooses to have. Let's take a look at the options, shall we?

1) Complain to the Cubans: You're harassing our agents. Will you please stop doing that!
2) Consider why the Cubans harass its agents: Well, we are trying to destabilize their country, for instance by having USAID arrange HIV prevention seminars (which, by the way is pretty absurd in a country that is actually much better at this than the USA), in order to turn young Cubans into US agents. Maybe we should stop doing that and instead begin to help homosexuals in countries where homophobia is rampant.
3) Consider if the harassment might simply be a delusion, i.e. all in the head: So two of your agents have fallen ill, and now a whole lot of them have become paranoid and started confusing crickets with sonic attacks. Let's put a lid on this, make sure that the two are properly taken care of (Thank God they have health care!) and see what we can do to calm the rest of them down.
4) Consider how this, in itself insignificant event: happens all the time all over the world, can be used to roll back the thawing of diplomatic relations between Cuba and the USA: Let's blow it out of proportions and claim that the Cubans hurt our innocent diplomats with super-sonic weapons.

And these are just a few of the many options a superpower has.

When you write: "if that's the entire goal of the harassment campaign," you imply that there actually is a harassment campaign. Why do you insist that there is? Do you have access to information that the rest of us don't have because to most the world it appears as if the USA is coming up with one dumb excuse after the other to maintain the myth of an attack that there was never any sign of anywhere.

 

[Checkmite]

What I almost cannot believe is the idea that "the US really has no options in response to harassment".
The USA is the most powerful nation on Earth, it has all the options it chooses to have. Let's take a look at the options, shall we?

1) Cuba: "I don't know what you're talking about. Also, no."
2) The US likely does not care why
3) Since we're here entertaining the hypothetical scenario that some activity is taking place, this essentially amounts to suggestion that the US reject the reality of the situation in favor of a politically-convenient excuse. Which the US certainly is good at doing; but this tends to lead to dissent among the diplomatic corps - again, as historically demonstrated in the posted article about the Russian activities.
4) "Thawing diplomatic relations" with Cuba was an initiative of the last president's administration. The current presidential administration is not only openly cavalier or even hostile toward the success of the previous administration's initiatives; the executive has repeatedly attacked his country's own security, intelligence, and diplomatic apparatus when something they report or find contradicts his own opinions or validates those of the previous administration.

This current administration has no desire to protect and maintain the US's diplomatic mission in Cuba.

When you write: "if that's the entire goal of the harassment campaign," you imply that there actually is a harassment campaign. Why do you insist that there is?

I thought we were entertaining this scenario for the purpose of discussion?

But at any rate, I think I've already well-explained the reasons for presuming American diplomats are subject to harassment from certain directions. Are you privy to any information the rest of us do not have that suggests this treatment has been discontinued?

 

[dann]

Well, even in the story about dead canines, which you seem to be particularly fond of, I have difficulties understanding why the US agents assumed that the dog was killed in order to harass somebody. I recently read an article by a Danish insurance company about how to protect yourself from the crime of breaking and entering. They had interviewed a number of convicted felons about their techniques and what might stop them, and one of the things they mentioned was dogs. I see no reason to assume that the dog in your story was killed for any other reason than to get rid of an inconvenient obstacle when breaking and entering.
In spite of the feelings that people have for their pets, killing a dog seems relatively harmless in comparison to giving people Alzheimer's! It goes beyond what I would describe as harassment.

And also, in the case of the dead dog, even if we assume that it was meant to be an act of harassment, kind of like the scene in Godfather:
(notice the crickets!)

- the point would have been to make it fairly obvious to the agent and his/her family (and thus to the whole agency) that they were being harassed, whereas giving somebody disorders that, on the whole, seem much more likely to have natural causes rather than poison or microwave transmitters seems to ruin the whole purpose of harassment.
It seems to me that when adult field agents in Havana can be scared by crickets to the extent that they were in Havana, you wouldn't have to take it quite as far as dementia.

Besides, I thought that Trump and Putin were buddies, so why make it your congratulatory gift to your newly elected man in the White House that you damage his spies?
Nothing in that scenario makes sense at all.

The natural order of things, old age and senility followed by psychogenic paranoia, does!

 

[Checkmite]

Well, even in the story about dead canines, which you seem to be particularly fond of, I have difficulties understanding why...

The specific incident was one of many that established a pattern of harassment targeting specifically American diplomats. Since the Russian government admitted to the existence of this harassment campaign in conversations with then-Secretary of State Kerry, as the Washington Post report I linked explains, I don't see much point in rehashing and scrutinizing the minutiae in an attempt to cast doubt on said campaign's existence; if you have personal credulity issues on the matter I'm afraid you'll have to sort them out on your own.

And also, in the case of the dead dog, even if we assume that it was meant to be an act of harassment, kind of like the scene in Godfather:
(notice the crickets!)

- the point would have been to make it fairly obvious to the agent and his/her family (and thus to the whole agency) that they were being harassed, whereas giving somebody disorders that, on the whole, seem much more likely to have natural causes rather than poison or microwave transmitters seems to ruin the whole purpose of harassment.

This seems a rather strange complaint to make considering that after all, rightly or wrongly, the diplomats involved in the Cuba situation did consider themselves to be the victims of some kind of electronic harassment, and the early reports seem to at least suggest that "the whole agency" did find that assessment to be likely true.

Besides, I thought that Trump and Putin were buddies, so why make it your congratulatory gift to your newly elected man in the White House that you damage his spies?

I'm not completely sure whether this thread is the correct venue to get into Russian geopolitical strategy versus the US, or how Trump fits into that strategy, other than to say your impression of the issue seems remarkably over-simplified and straw-like.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Checkmite, you are still operating on the underlying premise this wasn't hysteria. You have not established that fact. Rather you have dismissed professional medical opinions and gone instead with a bunch of people with no credentials or misread into professional medical opinions that were simply worded to not offend a patient and/or coded to get reimbursement which isn't exactly the same as a diagnosis.

 

[Checkmite]

Checkmite, you are still operating on the underlying premise this wasn't hysteria.

I am humoring the premise that this wasn't hysteria.

If we all want to just agree right here that nothing whatsoever happened except in these people's heads, then there's nothing more to talk about - the entire conversation literally ends right this moment.