Comments on: Why Guantanamo Bay? http://www.sprol.com/2005/09/gitmo/ Worst Places In The World Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:02:28 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Giordano Oliva http://www.sprol.com/2005/09/gitmo/comment-page-1/#comment-268179 Giordano Oliva Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:09:07 +0000 http://258#comment-268179 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. 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 http://www.sprol.com/2005/09/gitmo/comment-page-1/#comment-6406 Crimson Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:26:26 +0000 http://258#comment-6406 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. 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 http://www.sprol.com/2005/09/gitmo/comment-page-1/#comment-4361 jane caden Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:14:02 +0000 http://258#comment-4361 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 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 http://www.sprol.com/2005/09/gitmo/comment-page-1/#comment-2697 Mark Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:04:36 +0000 http://258#comment-2697 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 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!

]]> By: Meredith http://www.sprol.com/2005/09/gitmo/comment-page-1/#comment-817 Meredith Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:06:20 +0000 http://258#comment-817 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? 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?

]]> By: Patrick http://www.sprol.com/2005/09/gitmo/comment-page-1/#comment-816 Patrick Wed, 23 Nov 2005 02:26:29 +0000 http://258#comment-816 If lawyers can't find direct mention of a specific law prohibiting something, does that make it ok to do? Just wondering... If lawyers can’t find direct mention of a specific law prohibiting something, does that make it ok to do? Just wondering…

]]> By: likwidshoe http://www.sprol.com/2005/09/gitmo/comment-page-1/#comment-814 likwidshoe Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:48:20 +0000 http://258#comment-814 <i>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.</i> The Geneva Convention applies to the US because we fit into the definition. Our enemies do not. <i>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.</i> The 5th Amendment only applies to citizens of the United States. It does not apply to enemies caught on the battlefield. <i>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.</i> These people were caught on the battlefield. You may now continue on in your delirious fairy tales. 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.

]]>