Guantanamo Bay

Joe Castro · 06-29-2008, 01:28 PM

I won't make the usual arguments about Guantanamo, we've heard them all before and most probably agree on them. My greivance here is that it should not even be held by the US, it should be returned to Cuba.

Guantanamo was leased to the US by the puppet government installed by the US when they took the island from Spain. The terms of the lease are that the US can use Guantanamo for "coaling and naval purposes only, and for no other purpose". Well it is quite clearly not used in this way.

Another stipulation of the lease prohibits any "commercial, industrial or other enterprise within said areas". However the base is believed to hold half a dozen fast food resturaunts, including McDonalds.

Such a clear violation should render the validity of the treaty and so the base should be handed back to Cuba.

Since the revolution the Cuban government has only cashed one cheque from the US, This was an administrative error directly after the revolution. Fidel Castro actually keeps each cheque in a desk in his office.

kinggovernor · 06-29-2008, 02:27 PM

if they want it, come and get it.

Dylith · 06-29-2008, 03:53 PM

I would actually like to see the US reduce its international military infrastructure all together. I am also for restoring relations with the Cuban Government.

Joe Castro · 06-29-2008, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

if they want it, come and get it.

Typical yankee warmongering, imperialistic attitude with a total disregard for international treaties and contracts.

Ardentfrost · 06-29-2008, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

I won't make the usual arguments about Guantanamo, we've heard them all before and most probably agree on them. My greivance here is that it should not even be held by the US, it should be returned to Cuba.

Guantanamo was leased to the US by the puppet government installed by the US when they took the island from Spain. The terms of the lease are that the US can use Guantanamo for "coaling and naval purposes only, and for no other purpose". Well it is quite clearly not used in this way.

Another stipulation of the lease prohibits any "commercial, industrial or other enterprise within said areas". However the base is believed to hold half a dozen fast food resturaunts, including McDonalds.

Such a clear violation should render the validity of the treaty and so the base should be handed back to Cuba.

Since the revolution the Cuban government has only cashed one cheque from the US, This was an administrative error directly after the revolution. Fidel Castro actually keeps each cheque in a desk in his office.

I've said pretty much the same thing on these boards before... Both our embargo and unwanted presence in Cuba encroaches on their sovereignty and soils our relations with other countries (not just Cuba).

I don't see how we can sustain our current level of military involvement for much longer. It's already bankrupting us.

Guess it'll take us being thrown completely into economic and political turmoil for a change to happen unless voters start wisening up.

kinggovernor · 07-01-2008, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

Typical yankee warmongering, imperialistic attitude with a total disregard for international treaties and contracts.

what international treaty is being violated?

Smull · 07-01-2008, 08:32 PM

I'd be fine with closing down Gitmo, I don't see why we need a naval base in a foreign country especially one which is only 90 miles off our shores. I've thought for awhile that the prison should be shut down because of all the shit going on there, but I've never considered the issue of giving the land back to the Cubans. Sounds fine to me though.

ease up on the yankee bashing though, we're not all imperialists war mongers and whatever else you said...

Joe Castro · 07-01-2008, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by Smull

I'd be fine with closing down Gitmo, I don't see why we need a naval base in a foreign country especially one which is only 90 miles off our shores. I've thought for awhile that the prison should be shut down because of all the shit going on there, but I've never considered the issue of giving the land back to the Cubans. Sounds fine to me though.

ease up on the yankee bashing though, we're not all imperialists war mongers and whatever else you said...

Sorry if my wording gave the wrong impression. I was aiming at that specific posters comment, that he was a yankee imperialist. I did not mean that being an American, or yankee makes one an imperialist.

The reason i said yankee imperialist and not simply imperialist is that the US imperialist tends to use even more extreme rhetoric than an non US imperialist. For instance there are lots of imperialists here in the UK, but they most likely wouldn't make the kind of comment that the poster in question did. They would not because they know there is every chance that should they challenge even Cuba to "come and get it", there is every chance they actually could. Where as in the case of the worlds biggest superpower this is not possible.

Joe Castro · 07-01-2008, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

what international treaty is being violated?

They are in violation of the 1903 (modified in 1934) Cuban-American Treaty. It has also been argued by some that they are in violation of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, although i personally do not subscribe to that opinion.

kinggovernor · 07-02-2008, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

They are in violation of the 1903 (modified in 1934) Cuban-American Treaty. It has also been argued by some that they are in violation of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, although i personally do not subscribe to that opinion.

because of a McDonald's? That is part of the naval operations.

Joe Castro · 07-02-2008, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

because of a McDonald's? That is part of the naval operations.

The treaty explicitly forbids any commercial enterprise. That is what McDonalds is. There is no need for it to be there. It is a clear violation of the treaty.

Another violation of the treaty is the detention and torture. This is not "naval or coaling purposes".

motivez · 07-02-2008, 10:03 AM

I think Guantanamo is a stain on our country's history, and should be closed (at least the prison, I don't know much else about the facility. I talked about Bush's hypocrisy in an article I wrote for the front page a few weeks ago: Bush exemplifies hypocrisy in latest address on Cuban freedom | The Liberty Lounge

I don't know about the McDonald's thing, can you post the exact language of the treaty? Certainly delivering food to Naval officers would be included in naval operations.. the Navy doesn't get its food from government run farms, though perhaps government subsidized in some cases

C4Casey · 07-07-2008, 01:59 AM

We have two simple reasons for not giving GITMO back to Cuba and for continuing the embargo.

1 - The Cuban government is the only current government left in the world that pointed nuclear weapons at us.

2 - The original treaty for using GITMO was signed with a government that no longer exists. We are not about to give it back to a mutual enemy. As soon as we restore friendly relations with Cuba, I'm sure we will give GITMO back.

Charles Martel · 07-08-2008, 04:31 PM

Gitmo remains a solid base as Venezuela and the entire South American continent explode into validity. An excellent torch off point to spank Chavez and other dictators who become enemies.

As well, the Gitmo prison remains one of Bush's brilliant moves. They ain't here and military tribunals as approved by Congress continue as we speak today. It solves huge logistics problems of having a KSM on our soil and Gitmo remains hell on earth...what most of these terrorists deserve.

We ain't goin anywhere.

Ardentfrost · 07-08-2008, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Charles Martel

Gitmo remains a solid base as Venezuela and the entire South American continent explode into validity. An excellent torch off point to spank Chavez and other dictators who become enemies.

As well, the Gitmo prison remains one of Bush's brilliant moves. They ain't here and military tribunals as approved by Congress continue as we speak today. It solves huge logistics problems of having a KSM on our soil and Gitmo remains hell on earth...what most of these terrorists deserve.

We ain't goin anywhere.

The onslaught of nonsensical logic and GOP sack-riding in this post just gave me a headache.

Charles Martel · 07-08-2008, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The onslaught of nonsensical logic and GOP sack-riding in this post just gave me a headache.

I think that was the horrible violin noise that's causing head pain.

Smull · 07-09-2008, 02:17 PM

Is it really worth it to have a base 90 miles closer to Venezuela/South America? I think our military is powerful enough where we really can't justify a base simply because its slightly closer to some potential enemies. I mean if we wanted to wipe Hugo off the map, we could easily, with or without Gitmo.

As to your other point, the terrorists in Gitmo do deserve hell on earth, but my main problem with that is since the base wasn't in the U.S. we never proved that the people there were terrorists, which is why I'm glad the Supreme court recently remedied that.

Charles Martel · 07-09-2008, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Smull

Is it really worth it to have a base 90 miles closer to Venezuela/South America?

Great daily reminder for Chavez and.....Gitmo should become the international hellhole for terrorists. Imo.

As to your other point, the terrorists in Gitmo do deserve hell on earth, but my main problem with that is since the base wasn't in the U.S. we never proved that the people there were terrorists.

Great...got the Supremes waging war now, how lovely.

Joe Castro · 07-11-2008, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by Smull

Is it really worth it to have a base 90 miles closer to Venezuela/South America? I think our military is powerful enough where we really can't justify a base simply because its slightly closer to some potential enemies. I mean if we wanted to wipe Hugo off the map, we could easily, with or without Gitmo.

As to your other point, the terrorists in Gitmo do deserve hell on earth, but my main problem with that is since the base wasn't in the U.S. we never proved that the people there were terrorists, which is why I'm glad the Supreme court recently remedied that.

The problem with that is you assume they are terrorists. If you cant even try them in court, there is a good chance they ain't terrorists. The released British citizens and residents weren't terrorists. If it wasn't for being British i dare say they would still be there being tortured into a false admission of guilt.

However, all that is still besides the point of the thread. The main thing is we agree on the axtual thread purpose.

Joe Castro · 07-11-2008, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by C4Casey

We have two simple reasons for not giving GITMO back to Cuba and for continuing the embargo.

1 - The Cuban government is the only current government left in the world that pointed nuclear weapons at us.

2 - The original treaty for using GITMO was signed with a government that no longer exists. We are not about to give it back to a mutual enemy. As soon as we restore friendly relations with Cuba, I'm sure we will give GITMO back.

Well you forget the context of the October Crisis. It was really the USSR who aimed nukes at the US, and with good reason. It was a response to US nukes being aimed at them in Turkey. No one claims it was Turkey who was aiming those nukes, it was the US.