When the US government needed a place to keep suspected al Qaeda members and Taliban fighters, they chose an airbase in Cuba to do so. It seemed an odd place, an American airbase in what the American government considers an enemy country. The very existence of a place those who prefer to use military slang call “Gitmo†seems unlikely.
Guantanamo Bay first came into the American consciousness when the first US casualties of the Spanish-Cuban American War were suffered there in 1898. In 1903 Theodore Roosevelt, using the Platt amendment, forced the Cuban government to lease Guantanamo Bay to the United States for 2,000 gold coins per year. Cuba was, at that time, under a puppet regime controlled by the US and the Cuban president was an American citizen named T. Estrada Palma. In 1906 the lease was renegotiated and the 2000 gold coins became $2000 USD.
In 1934 Cuba rid itself of the Platt amendment and negotiated a new lease on Guantanamo Bay with the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Cuban government at the time was again US-friendly and one of the three Cuban signatories on the new lease was Fulgencio Batista, who would later become the sole dictatorial leader of Cuba. The new lease stated that both the US and Cuban governments had to agree to cancel the lease.
Batista’s reign was one of such oppression that Fidel Castro still looks good by comparison. Under Batista there were few freedoms and both the CIA and the Mafia were influential in the Cuban government. US corporations set up shop, treating the Cuban people almost as slave labour. The oppression inflicted on the Cuban people by the Batista regime led to the revolution that brought Castro to power in 1959.
When Castro came to power the lease on Guantanamo Bay should have been cancelled. That the US chose to remain there was, and remains, a breach of international law according to some. That it is an ongoing sore spot not just with the Cuban government, but with other nations in the area and has been a detriment to US negotiations several times over the years. Cuba does not recognise the American claim on the bay, but lacks the power to do anything about it. The result is that the US government writes a cheque for the lease every year and the Cuban government refuses to cash that cheque.
In 1961 when Eisenhower cut off all diplomatic ties with Cuba, the base at Guantanamo Bay was flooded with refugees. During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, US military personnel had to be evacuated. In 1964 the Guantanamo base was forced to become self-sufficient when Castro cut off power and water to the base.
The fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War have done little to end the controversy over Guantanamo Bay. In a 1991 coup in Haiti that saw the duly elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide thrown out of power, over 40,000 boat people fleeing Haiti were picked up by the US Coast Guard. Due to the political uncertainty of accepting so many refugees at once, and the high rate of HIV/AIDS in Haiti, many of these refugees were sent to what became de facto prison camps in Guantanamo Bay until they could be processed.
In 1994 Castro granted a temporary amnesty that allowed many to leave Cuba. While many of these people were legitimate refugees, Castro also released Cuban criminals and extremely mentally ill patients from psychiatric care. Those refugees that did not find their way directly to the US base at Guantanamo were also picked up by the US Coast Guard and sent to the camps for processing.
The conditions the refugees were held in were harsh and, in many cases dangerous. The conditions at Guantanamo, the methods used to process the refugees, and the forced return to Haiti of some of those fleeing drew harsh criticisms from human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Guantanamo Bay was beginning to garner a reputation as a place where the United States infringed on human rights and played fast and loose with international law.
Even with the history of Guantanamo and the controversy that has surrounded it over the years, most people outside of Cuba were unaware of the presence of a US naval base there. Perhaps it is because the American people don’t know much about Guantanamo Bay that the US government seems encouraged to use it as a place where international and even US domestic laws do not apply.
Perhaps it is because the Guantanamo Bay facility should not, logically, even exist that the Bush White House feels that they can break the Geneva Conventions there with impunity.
There is no doubt that the government of the United States is breaking those conventions. It is doubtful that the Geneva Conventions would have been so comprehensive and respected had the United States not taken a leading role in the creation and updating of the conventions after World War Two, yet it is the United States that now puts the Geneva Conventions and other aspects of international law at risk by ignoring them.
We are told that the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay are “unlawful combatants†and not deserving of the same rights as others captured during times of war. There is no such thing as an unlawful combatant. It is a term made up by the Bush administration in an attempt to skirt laws written to protect people from abuse and torture. The men held at Guantanamo must be categorized either as prisoners of war, or charged with crimes and afforded the same rights and protections that a US citizen would be afforded in the US court system.
The history of US involvement in Guantanamo Bay has been questionable since 1903. It is as if the bay is haunted by the ghosts of transgressions past, and that haunting encourages the worst instincts of American leaders to come to the forefront, leading to the commitment of ever more serious transgressions.
The trouble with Guantanamo
Sprol.com ? Why Guantanamo Bay? When the US government needed a place to keep suspected al Qaeda members and Taliban fighters, they chose an airbase in Cuba to do so. It seemed an odd place, an American airbase in what…
People who don’t wear uniforms are not subject to the Geneva convention. In World War 2 they were shot as spies. Perhaps we should do that.
I certainly would not give them constituational protections. They aren’t citizens, they hate our way of life. Why give them ammo in their flight against us.
By the way, if you want a good look at the purveyors of international law, check out the UN and how they handle misery in the world.
Ditto, Jivan. You’re absolutely correct.
What part of the Geneva convention mentions uniforms? Maybe you could look it up between hits of Fox News.
Article 4 of the Geneva Convention:
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
There are certainly enough conditions there to include most of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Even if they do not fall into those categories, they are entitled to certain rights. The most common interpretations of that is entitlement to the same rights as a citizen in the country in which they are being held.
Since Guantanamo, by virtue (?) of being a US military base, is US soil, the prisoners there should be entitled to the same rights as a US citizen.
There is no such category as “unlawful combatant”. The term was made up by political spinmasters and has no place in law. The Guantanamo prisoners are either POWs, or should be afforded the same rights as US citizens.
Jan, no mention of uniforms there.
And what country are YOU a citizen of “Reverend Blair” to be making comments about United States citizens? Or will you answer that question?
This question will end this topic for me—it’s not an “open discussion,” it’s viewpoint pitted against viewpoint.
Not that it matters because it is international law that the US is breaking, but I’m a citizen of Canada.
Clearly the information listed below is in reference to a unified body, as in men in uniform or identified in some visible manner other than carrying a homicide bomb or cutting someone’s head off when hiding behind a mask. And by the way, it’s big of you to think that FOXNews has the best information, but I watch CNN as well.
Most of the Guantanamo prisoners were captured during fighting. They were carrying arms openly. They were under the command of their superiors. They were recognisable at a distance. They were following the same rules of combat as their enemy.
Still, even if they weren’t, that only denies them the rights of POWs. They are still entitled to the same rights afforded to a citizen of the country where they are being held.
My comment was again edited out of context. My comment of “Clearly the information listed below is in reference to a unified body, as in men in uniform or identified in some visible manner other than carrying a homicide bomb or cutting someone’s head off when hiding behind a mask.” was written above my inclusion of the Geneva Convention Article 4, not the comment by Reverend Blair that followed it.
I’m not sure who you feel is editing your posts, Jan, but my comment still stands. By the section of the Geneva Conventions that you posted, most of those captured and sent to Guantanamo Bay should have POW status.
Here is my 2 cents on the whole bit… ok maybe more than just 2 cents.
There is no such thing as “International law”. In order for there to be law, there has to be a body to support this law.
Currently, there is no international government body to up hold and enforce any international laws. The closest thing would be the United Nations, which is not a government branch/body/entity. It is a loose union which has no legal grounds at all. Bascially all they do is sit around and make empty promises to each other.
If there is no such thing as international law, then I guess it’s safe to assume that the Nuremburg trials never existed, that the invasion of Afghanistan was wholly unjustified, and that the pretext for the invasion of Iraq would have had no basis in any reality at all, even if that pretext wasn’t based on lies.
Further, I guess that it’s okay to torture US soldiers or kidnap US citizens as long as it’s outside of the borders of the United States.
The problem with denying international law is that you can no longer claim the protection of that law, Don’t Tread On Me. The US has claimed the protection of international law many times and all indications are that it will continue to do so.
I am not denying that nations and governments have not used “international law” as an excuse for their actions. What I was basically trying to say is that the whole concept of international law is an illusion as there is no body to enforce it.
You can get a group together and make all the “laws” you want, but until you have some way to enforce these laws, they are useless. This is the situation that the UN is in. They get together and make “laws” or resolutions. However, their only hope of enforcing any of these laws, is through the military power of the US.
Oh, and as far as the US claiming protection of the law, I hate to say it but we are in a position to claim whatever we want. Im not “talking smack”, Im only telling the truth. We are a super power, I dont think its ok to torture any nations troops just because they are agents of the enemy. But, what it comes down to is this, the US has the ability to “police the world” and they use this power. I dont agree with it, but it is a fact.
Personally, I would like to see us bring our military back home, seal our borders and become neutral again. The way I see it, if we focused our military might on securing our nation, then we wouldnt have to worry about any more terrorist attacks. But as always, I could be wrong.
Ya, when does the treaty expire for leasing guantanamo bay?
The entire question of Guantanamo Bay comes down to the hipocracy of the Bush administration to hold foreign nationals at a US military base outside of US jurisdiction in order to evade US law and courts. The hipocracy lies in the fact that the administration expects americans abroad to be treated according to the Geneva Convention while those in our custody are not. The prisioners of G Bay are held in US custody but are refused the right provided by the 5th amamdment of liberty and due process of law. This makes the administration no differnt from facists rulers or medievil kings who simply did not like a person and held them without just reason.
The hipocracy lies in the fact that the administration expects americans abroad to be treated according to the Geneva Convention while those in our custody are not.
The Geneva Convention applies to the US because we fit into the definition. Our enemies do not.
The prisioners of G Bay are held in US custody but are refused the right provided by the 5th amamdment of liberty and due process of law.
The 5th Amendment only applies to citizens of the United States. It does not apply to enemies caught on the battlefield.
This makes the administration no differnt from facists rulers or medievil kings who simply did not like a person and held them without just reason.
These people were caught on the battlefield. You may now continue on in your delirious fairy tales.
If lawyers can’t find direct mention of a specific law prohibiting something, does that make it ok to do? Just wondering…
Am I the only one surprised by the original post’s suggestion that Guantanamo doesn’t even exist? Where are they keeping these people, then? Cleveland?
I am British. Britain used to be a superpower in the world but such power also comes with important responsibilities. I know it can take time for a new superpower to realise it’s responsibilities to the international community but the USA has a moral duty to take a lead role in upholding previous international treaties or at least revise them with the International community if they are no longer fit for purpose.
As with Britain one day the USA will lose it’s superpower status and she will be subject to laws and actions created during her reign.
So my point to the previous posts is this. Yes there is currently no other country with the military might to force the USA to adhere to International law but if the USA flouts these laws they must be prepared for the same actions against them in the future.
The Japanese decided to flout these laws during WWII look what happened to them!
I am ashamed and disgusted with the actions of our present administration in regard to the treatment of “the enemy,” whether civilian or military. Our troops are too readily forgiven, or not severely enough punished, for atrocities committed. One has to suppose that our soldiers have been given leave, as a matter of policy, to ignore the established conventions of war. The fact that other powers have done it, or might do it, is not a justification for our government to disregard basic principles of conduct in war.
I would just like to say that while there is a US naval base at Gitmo and the US holds “complete jurisdiction and control” over the area, the land is still technically Cuban soil so if the detainees should (as stated above) be treated according to the laws of the country where they are being held, they should be treated according to Cuban law…
Also, i would just like to reiterate that the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan DO NOT have any “fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance”. Moreover, from listening to first-hand accounts from soldiers, residents can one minute smile and wave to the US forces and the next walk around a corner holding an AK-47 shooting at them, so from this one can deduce that the “carrying arms openly” clause isn’t fulfilled either.
The detainees being held who were captured during military operations abroad are therefore legitimately held at Gitmo seeing as there is no international laws to conform to. On the other hand i am adamantly against the unlawful imprisonment of non-combatants in Gitmo because they should be tried under US domestic law or if arrested abroad, under the corresponding domestic laws.
actually I don’t have a comment but a question, that all my life I had an no body had been able to answer, How much money cuba receive from the lease of the Guantanamo bay area? Please could you send me any article about it. Thanks. Gio.