Guantanamo

Author: AddledBrain

Posts

Total: 50
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Lmao, nice
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,564
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
@bmdrocks21
I just realized you and pie also studied Finance in college. No wonder central planners can't bamboozle yall.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@AddledBrain
Give up Guantanamo

Pro
It is moral to respect the sovereignty of other nations ,usually.

Con
It is immoral to weaken your own countries military power, especially in a case such as Cuba, which can serve other countries as a base in which to threaten or attack America.
Cuban Missile Crisis.

Pro
It could serve diplomatically as a way to strengthen relations with Cuba, and make it less likely for them to ally for foreign states.

Con
Enemy states seeing it as better property, may take opportunity to curry favor with Cuba.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@AddledBrain
We're guests there.  We're beginning to smell like fish.
Nope. According to the article  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/01/how-did-the-u-s-get-a-naval-base-in-cuba.html. published 19 years ago [and conditions have not changed, Guantanamo is a permanent U.S. Naval Base, according to the provisions of the Platt Amendment. The article is short, and I quote:

"What’s the deal with the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? How did the U.S. get a military base in a hostile, Communist country?
The United States seized Guantanamo Bay and established a naval base there in 1898 during the Spanish-American War. Five years later, the U.S. and Cuba signed a lease giving Guantanamo Bay to the U.S. as a “coaling and Naval station.” The lease was required to implement the congressional Platt Amendment, which stipulated, among other things, that a naval base “at certain specified points to be agreed upon by the President of the United States” was required “to enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba.”
In 1934, Cuba and the U.S. signed a treaty that gave the U.S. a perpetual lease to the area. The U.S. can’t open a casino resort there, however: Private enterprise is banned under the terms of the treaty. The lease can be broken only by mutual agreement, so as a practical matter, Guantanamo Bay is U.S. property. It was there before Castro and will be there after him."

In other words, Cuba can raise whatever stink they want, but, so long as the US keeps its part of the treaty, Cuba is bound to keep theirs. Note that Cuba has not cashed their annual payment from the US, up to at least the date of the article. That's on them.
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
-->
@fauxlaw

  fauxlaw, I suspect that even you don't really believe that your citing the history and the language of the treaty contradicts the fact that we are guests there and that we are beginning to smell like fish.
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
-->
@Lemming

  Lemming, it's to our National shame that we claim to endorse habeas corpus to the extent that we put it in our Constitution, then we don't honor that principle on territory that we only occupy and control, not properly on US soil (which we asked to borrow and now won't give back).

  What has happened to US since we were the shining city on the hill ?  We've fallen.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,564
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@AddledBrain
None of the embassies on USA soil are "guests" ...They are a result of legal agreements between Nations.

Treaties were signed and agreements were made. If you don't honor treaties, you don't honor anyone. Then we can be the Banana republic on the hill that forgot what it was like to live in a lawful society with rules.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
@AddledBrain
Exactly.

Addledbrain, take note.
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
-->
@Greyparrot
@fauxlaw

  parrot, fauxlaw, I'm not going to argue how we've overstayed our welcome and that our hosts want us to leave but, like the smell of old fish, we won't leave . . .  ..But that we have found some contrived loophole to not honor our sacred Constitutional commitment is what shames US as a Nation.  Don't think the World isn't taking note.  We will have no complaint when we ask other Nations to honor their promise.

  It's because I love my Country that I want US to keep our promises .. otherwise, we may as well be Russia, or China finding tiny, shameful excuses not to keep our word.  Doesn't it embarrass you, what we've become ?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,564
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@AddledBrain
 It's because I love my Country that I want US to keep our promises .. otherwise, we may as well be Russia, or China finding tiny, shameful excuses not to keep our word.  Doesn't it embarrass you, what we've become ?

I'm much more embarrassed for Cuba for not honoring the treaty they signed. But what can you expect from a nation with no honor or law?
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@AddledBrain
How have we "overstayed" anything since the treaty extends into perpetuity? The treaty does not have an end to stay over. get it? I know this all happened before you were born, but history did not begin with you, nor history's treaties. Sorry to burst your bubble, but we are not stinking fish. You may smell stinking fish, but that is probably closer to home. Cuba may not like us there, particularly the current regime, and the last before it, but a nation's treaty is bigger, having greater authority, than any one presidency.

 It's because I love my Country that I want US to keep our promises 
Yeah, I've cited to you our promise, our treaty, and, contrary to your stink fish, the treaty promised perpetuity of our presence, not that we would leave, and Cuba signed it, signaling their agreement. That you don't like it and are smelling stinking fish is entirely on you. Argue for your limitations; they're yours.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,564
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Imagine if the USA called Indians on Reservations "stinky fish" overstaying their "welcome" and revoked the treaty and took back the land given to them by law...
AddledBrain
AddledBrain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 65
0
1
4
AddledBrain's avatar
AddledBrain
0
1
4
-->
@fauxlaw
fauxlaw, I can't blame you for ignoring the habeas corpus issue and continuing to go back to the treaty.  We have no excuse.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@AddledBrain
What habeas corpus issue?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,564
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
detaining combatants that don't fall under the geneva convention.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@AddledBrain
Habeas corpus is a long, long-standing legal matter that existed in British courts long before the US came along, and hasn't changed much since. It does have limitations, however, even in the U.S.,

Congress' passage of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 removed jurisdiction from federal courts to hear habeas corpus issues brought by enemy combatant detainees. So, specifically speaking, habeas corpus does not exist for detainees at Guantanamo. Would you catch up, please?

Not to mention that non-citizens do not have access to all rights afforded to citizens of the United States.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, if only they had declared sovereignty of the land, but they didn't know what that was to claim it.
And considering that "American" is not an indigenous name, but a European name, I wonder whose culture is usurping whose by claiming the name "Native American" as the indigenes did in the 1960s [not anytime before]. In fact, it was Irish immigrants who used the name, Native American, to describe themselves, to differentiate them from later Irish immigrants as the original Irish to call America home, even before the US was officially recognized as a nation by the ratification of the Constitution. To them belongs the term by first rightful usage.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,564
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Indian is also a European name.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Technically Chernobyl is in the Ukraine.

And was formally a region of the USSR.

And nuked most of Northern Europe, including the U.K.

Three mile Island, also springs to mind.

Soviet, American or British.......I'm not sure if any nuke is a good nuke.


Guantanamo.....Considering the size of the U.S....One wonders why they needed to rent a bit of land from the Cubans.

Afghanistan based terrorists or U.S. terrorists......Both self righteousness  in defence of the ideological.

All the same old shit Eugene.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, and even names like Sioux, Apache, Navaho are corruptions of tribal names by outsiders. However, those corruptions lead us to a clue of proper reference. The
indigenes referred to themselves by their own tribal names: Cherokee and Pawnee, for example, are legitimate self-appointed tribal names.