Text 14474, 71 rader
Skriven 2008-04-23 22:15:22 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 14402 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Guantanamo (was: Thought crime...again)
===============================================
23 Apr 08 09:07, Robert Bashe wrote to Roy Witt:

 RB> Roy Witt wrote to Joe Delahaye on Tuesday April 22 2008 at 11:01:

 JD>>> However, those prisoners were sent there because it is NOT US
 JD>>> territory,

 RW>> Wrong, it is US territory. The United States assumed territorial
 RW>> control over Guant namo Bay under the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty,
 RW>> which granted the United States a perpetual lease of the area
 RW>> without the Cuban Government reacting. Since the US doesn't
 RW>> recognize the present dictatorship and it's leaders, we choose to
 RW>> retain the territory.

 RB> Actually, that's not the case. The US has a perpetual lease on the
 RB> property,

That lease began as a 100 year lease. The revison you speak of
happened in the Platt Act by Congress, wherein, the lease was modified
to where the Cuban government 'ceded' the property to the US. i.e. that
property is for the sole use by the  US military.

Cubans used to freely come and go to work in various places on the base,
but since Castro, fewer and fewer Cubans are allowed to go there. This
means that Castro recognizes the property as belonging to the US and
Cubans may not immigrate or work there.

 RB> the lease payment was revised in 1934,

In 1934, Cuba became its own entity, no longer a protectorate of the US.

 RB> and Castro cashed (he claims by mistake) the first lease payment
 RB> check after he came to power, allowing the US to argue that this
 RB> constituted agreement to the lease. Cuba hasn't cashed the lease
 RB> payment checks since and naturally disagrees.

Yes...they point out a treaty that both parties agreed to, which gave sole
possession of Guantanimo to the US. That treaty also says that it does
not apply retroactively.

 RB> But Guantanamo is by no means US territory by any normal definition
 RB> of the term, it's merely leased land overseas with the same status as
 RB> US bases on foreign soil everywhere else.

In that case, since it's then Cuban property, the Cuban government doesn't
recognize the 'occupation' (for lack of a better word) of the US
military forces there and may (attempt to) kick everyone off that
property without any repercussions. Right. Gitmo's occupation is as good
as the lease, which gives sole use to the leasee.

 RW>> Wrong again. Since it's a territory of the US, US law prevails.

 RB> It is not a US territory, and only US military law prevails,

Wrong again. Consult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment

This was passed by the US Congress, not the Pentagon.

 RB> since it is a military base. Basically, the law there is what the
 RB> President as commander-in-chief says it is, and that's what makes the
 RB> place so attractive to Mr. Bush.

See above. Also consult the Military Commissions Act of 2006, another law
passed by the US Congress concerning Guantanamo.

                R\%/itt



--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)