Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

is Gitmo legally on US land or Cuban land?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:01 AM
Original message
is Gitmo legally on US land or Cuban land?


one of the guests on Wash. Journal this morning said the bushmilhousegang could torture/not give rights to prisoners because Gitmo wasn't on US land but Cuban land.

I thought the deal was the other way round. that Gitmo was legally considered US land????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KyndCulture Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. Well I believe all bases around the world are US soil.
I could be wrong but that's what I've always thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FILAM23 Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. No they are not
all embassies are considered US soil however bases
are covered under the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement)
that exists with the host country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KyndCulture Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Oh thanks for clearing that up for me.
I always wondered the answer to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
2. The US has a 99 year lease on the land
or a term something like that. Cuba has never cashed the checks because they feel the deal was forced on them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #2
10. Gosh, how crazy can Cuba be. As if Uncle Sam ever forced
Edited on Sun Sep-17-06 11:23 AM by Benhurst
anything on anyone. Just truth, justice and the American way, with a touch of bribery, murder and mayhem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
13. The lease is perpetual
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Yeah, I just looked it up
according to the lease, it can only be broken if both sides mutually agree to end the lease. Like that is ever going to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
3. For legal reasons, its US land that is leased from Cuba...
For over the past 50 years, though, I head that Cuba has yet to cash a cheque.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FILAM23 Donating Member (344 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
4. It is Cuban
land that the US has a 99 year lease on (not for sure when it expires nor do
I know any of the lease terms)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
5. It's Cuban -- according to the US Gov't, we rent it from them
Problem is, we originally set up the 'perpetual' lease with the Spanish. Now, we refuse to leave, and Castro refuses to cash the rent checks (which are for a very nominal amount, agreed upon about 100 years ago).

We're also in violation of the terms of the original lease by keeping prisoners there, since it was only supposed to be a port (primarily a coal refueling station), but since we enforce occupancy with the threat of weapons anyway, it probably doesn't matter much.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. You're right, the rent is "nominal", ie, $2,000 a yr. & Castro never
has cashed any of the checks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. IIRC Castro actually did cash the first check. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
7. if it's Cuban land - does Cuba have an anti-torture law?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KyndCulture Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Right if it's their land...
Can they stop the torture?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Cuba wants the US off their land but cannot make that happen
How the heck do you think they could get the US to stop torturing people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. take them to the World War Crimes Court?

I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
14. US has a unique "perpetual lease" as explained in a SC brief
In the case of Shafiq Rasul, et al, Petitioners, v. George W. Bush et al, Respondents, and Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad al Odal, et al, petitioners, v. US, et al, Respondents, Nos. 03-334 and 03-343, a Brief Amicus Curiae of Retired Military Officers (three retired US military officers, each of whom served as Judge Advocate General or the senior legal advisor for a branch of the US military, and with extensive experience with US military regulations and the Laws of War. Each dedicated his military career to the principle that the mission of the nation's Armed Forces must be consistent with the Rule of Law. These three are a Marine Brigadier General, and two Rear Admirals).

Quoting from part of the brief:

Under the Unique 1903 Lease With Cuba, the United States exercises at least some sovereign powers over the Guantanamo base.
. . .The Guantanamo lease is unique. For one thing, the lease is perpetual - the US can keep the base as long as it likes. the original lease, for "coaling or naval stations," was not subject to any time limitation, and a 1934 treaty with Cuba confirms that the US may retain the base forever if it wishes: it provides that the lease remains in force "so long as the United States of American shall not abandon the said naval station of Guantanamo or the two governments shall not agree to a modification of its present limits.

. . . .
The government's current interpretation of Artcle III of the 1903 lease and of the "ultimate sovereignty" provision in particular - is fundamentally at odds with the interpretation that has long held sway among those within the US military charged with responsibility for Guantanamo and for the negotiation and administration of other base leases.

The most striking evidence of this is found in a history of the Guantanamo Naval Station written in 1953 - long before this dispute arose - by Rear Admiral Marion E. Murphy, the Commander of Guantanamo at the time. His book, The History of Guantanamo Bay (1953) was published by the Navy and is posted to this day on the official US Navy web site (www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/history.htm), which describes the history as a "monumental work", although it adds a disclaimer that the history is not "presented as 'official documentation. . . by the US govt. or its agencies."

Admiral Murphy's understanding of the lease's "ultimate sovereignty" could not have been clearer:

"Ultimate," meaning final or eventual, is a key word here. It is interpreted that Cuban sovereignty is interrupted during the period of our occupancy, since we exercise complete jurisdiction and control, but in case occupation were terminated, the area would revert to the ultimate sovereignty of Cuba.. . . . it is clear that at Guantanamo Bay we have a Naval reservation which, for all practical purposes, is American territory. Under the foregonig agreements, the US has for approximately fifty years exercised the essential elements of sovereignty over this territory, without actually owning it.. . .Moreover, "unless we abandon the area or agree to a modification of the terms of our occupancy, we can continue in the present status as long as we like."

The brief goes on with more recent quotes from subsequent Rear Admirals/Judge Advocate Generals, further documenting the position that US has sovereignty over Gitmo.

Cuban authorities also have recognized implicitly that Cuba does not exercise complete sovereignty over the base as a result of the lease. The Cuban Supreme Court held 70 years ago that "the territory of that Naval Station is for all legal effects regarded as foreign.

I cannot give you a link to this brief, because I am referring to my own copy, which I was given just yesterday by Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, who is one of the 3 who filed this brief, and who served as the Navy's Judge Advocate General from June 2000 through June 2002, and is now Dean of Duquesne University's Law School. ( Rear Admiral Guter was in the Pentagon when it was attacked on 9/11.)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. thank you for this - so it seems we are torturing on US land


a crime?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. The overall question of prisoner's legal rights is the issue.
This is why Bushistas are pushing the bogus argument that the US has no sovereign jurisdiction in Cuba - because then the US' legal obligations to prisoners would not be operative in Gitmo.

Justice Stevens, writing the SC opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) warned that the military commission created by President Bush "lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions," adding: "at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions. . . applies, " common Aricle 3. (Article 3 incorporates Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - a treaty of the US that happens to reflect what the international community now recognizes as a set of minimum due process guarantees under customary human rights law that must be complied with).

The minimum guarantees to prisoners include the right to be tried before a regularly constituted, competent, independent, and impartial court; to be presumed innocent; to counsel of one's choice and to efective representation; to regular and fair procedure, including regular and fair rules of evidence, the right to examine or have examined witnesses against the accused, to be tried without undue delay, and to not be compelled to testify against oneself or to confess guilt (my note: that is where torture comes into play); and to review by a competent, independent and impartial court of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. US has clearly violated the terms of the lease
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
19. Well, if Bush can't break agreements and treaties at will, why not Castro?
The US has an agreement with Cuba regarding its base at GitMo.

If Castro wanted US off Cuban soil, just nullify the treaty with the US. It works for Bush every time he wants out of an international agreement. It should work for Castro...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. He basically did nullify the lease
...and we ignored it.

The only reason we are still there is because we have a lot of big guns. There really isn't any legal basis for it at this point.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. oops! I meant to type "can" and not "can't" in subject field...
Edited on Sun Sep-17-06 03:27 PM by KansDem
:blush:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-17-06 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Castro and what army?
Is what it basically boils down to.

You can't go around nullifying treaties at your whim unless you have a $600 billion war budget.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 06:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC