Shouldn't Guantanamo be closed?

[lew]

Ignoring the controversy surrounding it since 9/11, shouldn't the base be closed since it is in breach of the Cuban-American Treaty?


The ongoing detention of prisoners at the base is in itself said to constitute a violation of the original treaty, which explicitly states that the base is to be used for "coaling and naval purposes only, and for no other purpose." The treaty also explicitly prohibits the use of "commercial, industrial or other enterprise within said areas.", yet the base sports half a dozen fast-food concessions, including a McDonald's.

Cuban-American Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If I were Castro, I'd be sending my small Communist military there to drop bombs on the base. Clearly, America is in direct violation of the treaty.

[7960]

a 2nd thread on this?

Guantanamo Bay

odd.

[lew]

Originally Posted by 7960

a 2nd thread on this?

Guantanamo Bay

odd.

I don't look at other forums.

[kinggovernor]

like I stated in the other thread "naval purposes" can be expanded to nearly anything

[7960]

Originally Posted by lew

I don't look at other forums.

http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/...searchid=20251

The Floor
Suggestion Box
Introduce Yourself
Conspiracy Theories
The Speakeasy
Introduce Yourself
Suggestion Box
Election 2008
Conspiracy Theories
The Speakeasy
No Holds Barred
The Speakeasy
Religion and Philosophy
International Politics
The Speakeasy
The Speakeasy
Election 2008
Suggestion Box
No Holds Barred
Election 2008
The Speakeasy
Election 2008
Election 2008

[Joe Castro]

Originally Posted by lew

Ignoring the controversy surrounding it since 9/11, shouldn't the base be closed since it is in breach of the Cuban-American Treaty?


The ongoing detention of prisoners at the base is in itself said to constitute a violation of the original treaty, which explicitly states that the base is to be used for "coaling and naval purposes only, and for no other purpose." The treaty also explicitly prohibits the use of "commercial, industrial or other enterprise within said areas.", yet the base sports half a dozen fast-food concessions, including a McDonald's.

Cuban-American Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If I were Castro, I'd be sending my small Communist military there to drop bombs on the base. Clearly, America is in direct violation of the treaty.

Absolutely. They are in violation of the treaty. A detention center is not naval purposes and commercial enterprise is strivtly forbidden. The only reason they kept it so long is simply because they could. It's petty politics aimed at humiliating Cuba.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Joe Castro

Absolutely. They are in violation of the treaty. A detention center is not naval purposes and commercial enterprise is strivtly forbidden. The only reason they kept it so long is simply because they could.

Man, up to here I was with you for closing the base, but then..................

It's petty politics aimed at humiliating Cuba.

Now I'm back in for keeping it open.

[Phantom]

I would argue setting up a few nukes aimed at your neighbor turns things into a free-for-all.

If Canada or Mexico decided to point some nukes in our direction to threaten us, I wouldn't complaint if we permanantly occupied any part of those countries either.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I would argue setting up a few nukes aimed at your neighbor turns things into a free-for-all.

If Canada or Mexico decided to point some nukes in our direction to threaten us, I wouldn't complaint if we permanantly occupied any part of those countries either.

So you don't have a problem with countries building bases on our soil that we have aimed nukes at?

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by lew

So you don't have a problem with countries building bases on our soil that we have aimed nukes at?

I don't have a problem with them trying.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by lew

So you don't have a problem with countries building bases on our soil that we have aimed nukes at?

Might makes right.