Comments on: Why Guantanamo Bay?

By: rk

rk — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:27:28 +0000

Sorry for the crudeness. But given that the US is not averse to torture and has a real problem on its hands (they cannot free the prisoners, cannot try them in military or civil courts, cannot send them to their home countries, cannot shift them to other US prisons), it can really only wish that they vanish. Why doesn’t it simply kill them ? There will be an outcry but it will end the festering wound for ever. I am being sarcastic, but given the US’s ruthless and cruel treatment at Gitmo, it is a workable solution.

By: RK

RK — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 11:17:55 +0000

According to wikipedia, the US makes out a check for $2000 every year and Cuba refuses to encash it. This has been going on for ~ 50 years.

By: napamississippi

napamississippi — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 14:04:17 +0000

The USA pays Cuba $2,000 a month according to the lease agreement.

By: Giordano Oliva

Giordano Oliva — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:09:07 +0000

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.

By: Crimson

Crimson — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:26:26 +0000

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.

By: jane caden

jane caden — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:14:02 +0000

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.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:04:36 +0000

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!