Talk:Guantánamo Bay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Looking for Talk:Guantánamo Bay/Archive 1 (formerly Talk:Guantánamo Bay)?

Inaccuracy?[edit]

The last line of the article says: "Washington still pays the rent, set a century ago at 2,000 gold coins a year and now worth just over $4,000, even though the Cuban government refuses to cash the checks?"

That works out to $2 per gold coin, which doesn't seem like it could be accurate. Does anyone know what the true conversion is?

if the lease was only 99 years then why does the U.S.A. still occupy

There are is no "inaccuracy" you need to read the article again and understand that the rent was paid in gold coin in the amount of $2000 value, not 2000 coins. It then goes on to say that the rent was changed to $3085 in US dollars in 1934 with the Avery Proko treaty which also made the lease permanent unless both governments agreed to break it.

location strategy[edit]

why did the americans choose to put the prisoners in guantanamo bay?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.68.236.209 (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Because President Bush's legal advisors, notably Alberto Gonzales, Myers, and John Yoo, told him that prisoners held there would not be protected by US law. -- Geo Swan 01:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... would not be covered by certain U.S. laws. The prisoners are subject to many other U.S. laws, and only to U.S. laws. 96.224.171.106 (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Vandalism[edit]

Washington still pays the rent, set a century ago at 2,000 gold coins a year and now worth just over $4,000, even though the Cuban government refuses to cash the checks.

I'm sure that's vandalism but im new and do not know how to revert.

The lease document specifies $2000 in goid coin, not 2000 coins. The USA unilaterally (as far as I can tell) changed the amount to $4000, and pays by Treasury check, which Cuba does not accept. The Spanish version says 2000 pesos. One must assume that at the time the peso and the dollar were equivalent. ( Martin | talk • contribs 16:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Lease[edit]

"The U.S. government obtained a 99-year lease that began on 23 February 1903". The article is unclear about how this is being interpreted in light of the fact that the original lease was set to expire in 2002. Did the 1934 treaty extend the "lease" indefinitely, or at least is that the claim of the US? I've read elsewhere that the lease is set to expire in 2033. Is that at all a reasonable interpretation? anthony 01:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


- The article goes on the say, "A 1934 treaty...made the lease permanent unless both governments agreed to break it..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.132.188 (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, its true, but its not really relevant. Its part of the main article on Guantanamo Bay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.176.176 (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, that lease terminated a long time ago. The tenant needs to receive a legal cuban document to vacate the premises. An International political rant about an ´alleged´ occupation of Cuban territory by the United States does not do it. Guantanamo Bay is not a diplomatic outpost but a military outpost, as specified by the treaty and therefore the allegations of a military occupation. As far as documents go, no diplomatic immunity is implied or inherent and therefore Guantanamo Bay would not fall under the laws of the United States but under the laws of Cuba. In this particular case, it could be considered to fall under International law. If litigation is required, a third, neutral party must do so (legalities, legalities, all are fond of dictums scriptums). About the ´... lease permanent´, there is no such thing as an infinite lease, the soil on which thou stands has long gone. No definition has been made if it was solely the first millimeter of top-soil or down towards the center of the earth and up towards infinity. All perfectly silly. The current situation has to do with the use of Cuban territory to harbor POW´s, that being a military base. Even if diplomatic grounds where a consideration, a prison camp on an international lease void´s that lease, that being counter to any diplomatic mission and counter to the specifications of that lease. Cuba simply needs to serve the United States with a document to vacate the premises and provide a sufficient time period to do so. (Fractalhints (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Good joke, Fractalhints! Be careful, though...there are some chumps who will take you seriously and not see all the obvious problems with your claims! --71.203.125.108 (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the term of the lease: Neither the terms "permanent" nor "99 years" are contained in the documents of the lease. The 1934 lists abandonment or mutual consent as causes for termination of the lease, but there are additional causes that can lead to the termination, just as with of any contract; such as if the ocean level rises, and Cuba disappears, or if the parties fail to live up to the terms of the lease (substantial breach) or say that they will not conform to the terms (anticipatory breach), among others. ( Martin | talk • contribs 15:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Navigation rights?[edit]

Do Cuban ships have navigation rights to the inner bay through the U.S.-controlled area? Does the U.S. have a defined right to sail in the coastal waters? -- Beland 20:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Cuban and foreign vessels sailing into inner Guantanamo Bay have navigation rights, see here. [1]. This linked page contains no mention of Guantanamo, and the reference should be removed. If anyone knows a legitimate source re: navigation rights please share. "The Coast Guard detachment here typically assists with port security and escorts Cuban and other foreign vessels through the bay. "We have Cuban vessels, foreign vessels come through the bay because of the Cuban territory up north of Guantanamo," explained Coast Guard Lt. Robert Rimer, officer in charge of the Coast Guard detachment here." Murderdan537 (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incoming links[edit]

...need to be checked and cleaned up, as many will be for the naval base and/or detention camp.

Also, do we really need seperate articles for the "bay" and the "naval base" - wouldn't it be more logical to have one article on the territory of "Guantánamo Bay"? --kingboyk (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bay will always be there. The Base is temporary, and the prison even more so. ( Martin | talk • contribs 16:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Environment[edit]

I have added a section on the environment of Guantánamo Bay. Previously, a separate article entitled Flora and Fauna of Guantánamo Bay existed. It contained many irrelevant facts, was written in a very informal manner, and did not contain a single reference. I modeled the environment section somewhat on that article, keeping the facts that I can support with references. The section is short enough that I do not think a separate article is warranted.--TDogg310 (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC) ALSO THERE IS A MISSING ( IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.241.175 (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama and Guantanamo Bay[edit]

Hey, can someone add a source to the statement "President Barack Obama has given orders for the detention camp to be closed. However, no action has yet been taken, since no American community is willing to take custody of these prisoners."? When skimming the article, I noticed this, and tried to find a source stating this. If I tried to show this to a skeptic, it would not be accepted. 71.99.120.148 (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a youtube link of the msnbc coverage if anyone think it belongs in the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDyn80GxwX4 BUT, the statement doesn't belong in the article because the president didn't give a valid "order" to close Guantanamo. Although he properly clarified his reasoning for the order (to maintain consistent with foreign policy: non-torture state) and even gave a deadline (1 year), he did not indicate in which way the prison would be closed (e.g. where the prisoners would go after the close). Ultimately the order was deemed illegitimate and rejected almost unanimously in congress, and the issue was dropped (though it may be picked up again at any point in time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.107.34.53 (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how a base closing can be considered "illegitimate". One can decide to do it or not do it, but nothing compels the USA to maintain a base at Guantanamo Bay. The lease (even) forsees that it will be closed at some time, so the USA has always contemplated leaving Guantanamo at some point. ( Martin | talk • contribs 16:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Etymology[edit]

What is the etymology of Guantánamo in the Taino language? Badagnani (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regional.[edit]

If you review the radar sections, available over the Internet, you will notice that Guantanamo Bay is also part of the weather radar system. It has an early warning system for submarine missile launch and can detect small airflights and boats. The naval base is an aid in countering narcotics trafficking although it has been alleged that it is also used by the US military for their own narcotics trafficking. Airflights to and from Guantanamo Bay do not fall under US civilian airflight control and are therefore a status apart, a base for any and all black-ops in the caribbean, middle and south america, not to mention the alleged ´CIA´ kidnapping flights to and from other places. Because Guantanamo Bay does not fall in any civilian zone, the NSA, the CIA, and any alleged ´civilian´ security, including home-land security, have no sayso into the happenings of Guantanamo Bay. Pure military all the time, accorded to the alleged lease.
For those having a like for secret societies, the new world order and other innuendo´s, Guantanamo Bay would be an excellent spot for secret military takeovers of any nation, including the United States. Regionally, it allegedly creates stability and naval aid for what is considered a problematic triangle, the island Hispañia (dominican republic and haiti), cuba, and jamaica (a british commonwealth nation). The implications are many, the rumours more, including a rumour that the island of Cuba had been taken over ages ago through a joint British and US operation that kept Fidel Castro in place for political and social reasons having to do with ´communist´ insurgencies in the Americas and elsewhere.
Any fans of those new world order series?
(Fractalhints (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The De Zayas footnote[edit]

If you read the footnote, it does not support the assertion. De Zayas does not claim that a lease negotiated under duress is void. Duress was not an impediment to the legality of contract in 1903. The International Treaty on Treaties, which went into effect in 1980, only controls signatories of which the US is not one, although that treaty may be thought to reduce to writing rules that were already in effect. He does argue that the treaty is improper and may be voidable, but that assertion is different from what is claimed.

July 2014 - updated the paragraph to reflect the above comment. In the meantime the URL became a dead link. Altered the link to a copy of the presentation that I found on De Zayas's personal site. I also removed the 1934 date, listed as a lease date, as the Treaty enacted in 1934 was a replacement of the 1903 Treaty of Relations, not a replacement of the lease. While the 1934 treaty does refer to the lease, and also does make more specific what to do about contagion, it does not in itself constitute a lease. If 1934 were to be included, than later changes to other elements of the lease would rightly claim to need to have their dates listed. Later the payment amount was changed, unilaterally, as was the zoning. ( Martin | talk • contribs 16:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

has to do with the "treaty of Relations of 1903" not with Guantanamo Bay itself, or even the lease of Guantanamo Bay[edit]

removed sentence: The United States and Cuba signed a treaty in 1934, granting the United States a perpetual lease.[1] Private enterprise is not allowed under the treaty.

The primary purpose of the 1934 Treaty of Relations was to delete obnoxious provisions in the 1903 Treaty of Relations. It certainly did not change or affect the length or the terms of the lease. The footnote does not support the sentence. Any lease can be changed by mutual consent, and cannot be changed unilaterally, as the US has done on many occasions; viz payment amount, not in cash, zoning violation, did not defend Cuba during the Bay of Pigs, etc ( Martin | talk • contribs 22:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sandra Halperin; Ronen Palan (30 September 2015). Legacies of Empire. Cambridge University Press. pp. 177–. ISBN 978-1-107-10946-9.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guantánamo Bay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Guantánamo Bay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 July 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 13:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Guantánamo Bay → Guantánamo Bay, Cuba – The bay is not the primary topic of the search term: the first ten results for a Google Books serach of "Guantánamo Bay" relate to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base or Guantanamo Bay detention camp. It's not a WP:PTM issue as books are published under such titles as "Guantánamo Bay: The Pentagon's Alcatraz of the Caribbean", "Guantánamo Bay and Military Tribunals: The Detention and Trial of Suspected Terrorists", "Guantánamo Bay: The Global Effects of Wrongful Detention, Torture & Unchecked Executive Power", and "From Chinese Exclusion to Guantánamo Bay: Plenary Power and the Prerogative State". Instead this page should redirect to the dab page currently located at Guantánamo (disambiguation). See related discussion Talk:Guantánamo#Requested_move_10_July_2020 (t · c) buidhe 02:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The base is the primary topic. "Guantanamo Bay" should redirect there. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The bay is the primary topic. The base has its own name. Mikus (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The base has never been called "Guantánamo Bay". It's Guantanamo Bay. Adding "Cuba" afterwards does not do anything whatsoever to alleviate the confusion, since both the base and the detention center are also in Cuba. Red Slash 23:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The base absolutely is called "Guantánamo Bay" (perhaps not by official US sources, but that's not what we go by), see examples above. Guantanamo Bay redirects here, do you think that it has a separate primary topic? (t · c) buidhe 03:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, obviously. The vast majority of print sources call the base ""Guantanamo Bay". Red Slash 20:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, although I am sympathetic to the argument, in part because the English Wikipedia is frequently American-centric. However, many prominent bays do not include the state or country in the article title, e.g., Chesapeake Bay, Hudson Bay, and the Bay of Bengal. Therefore this move would seem to go against the established policy/tradition.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Guantánamo Bay/Draft" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Guantánamo Bay/Draft and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 16 § Guantánamo Bay/Draft until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guantánamo_Bay&oldid=1206093521"