Hacker News Reader

Comment by VictorPath | Hacker News Reader

> Guantanamo Bay

Other than that the US kidnaps people from various countries, often without approval of the country where the kidnapping happens, brings the rebel (patriot?) to Guantanamo Bay without even trial by US legal system and waterboards and tortures them and holds them indefinitely - although some are realized to be the wrong identity and let go - there is another point...

...Cuba has denounced the US military occupation of Guantanamo Bay for decades, and requested the US to leave. So this is happening against the wishes of the country it is happening in.

View on HN

> ...Cuba has denounced the US military occupation of Guantanamo Bay for decades, and requested the US to leave. So this is happening against the wishes of the country it is happening in.

It's not a military occupation in the sense you imply. It is a perpetual lease made between the US and Cuba. [1]

[1] https://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrse/installations/ns_gua...

See, it's not an occupation, it's a "perpetual lease". That I happen to enforce with my army. And we didn't steal that land, they kindly gave it to us. When we held a gun up to their heads and made them sign a document they did not understand. Oh, and these aren't slaves, they're workers. Who happen to be on an unbreakable contract.

(and also, how could I forget, "these Uighurs aren't prisoners, they're just people who, realizing their mistakes, kindly happened to voluntarily come here for education")

Please quit trolling. Your comment is disconnected from anything I wrote.

Please quit your US newspeak.

What do you believe to be incorrect in what I quoted?

Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#...

> U.S. control of Guantánamo Bay came about through the end of the Spanish-American war and the Platt Amendment. This amendment was initiated in 1903 and outlined seven conditions for the U.S. withdrawal from Cuba. The United States intervened at the end of the Spanish-American War, taking credit for Cuban independence from Spain. The Platt Amendment was an amendment to the Cuban constitution that supposedly gave Cuba sovereignty, however it included conditions that allowed for U.S. intervention and the ability for the United States to lease or buy lands in order to establish naval bases. The U.S. was allowed to create up to four naval bases on the island of Cuba, but only ever built one, at Guantánamo Bay. The Platt Amendment was repealed in 1934, which is why the Cuban government considers the U.S. occupation of Guantánamo Bay illegal.

"conditions for the U.S. withdrawal from Cuba" = military force. "perpetual lease" my ass.

There was another lease, which was perpetual, signed with Cuba after that. See the link I posted. [1]

"A 1934 treaty reaffirming the lease granted Cuba and her trading partners free access through the Bay, modified the lease payment from $2,000 in gold coins per year to the 1934 equivalent value of $4,085 U.S. dollars, and added a requirement that termination of the lease requires the consent of both the U.S. and Cuban governments, or the U.S. abandonment of the base property."

[1] https://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrse/installations/ns_gua...

Can you point to some less biased source than the US military?

> Can you point to some less biased source than the US military?

Yes. I called the 1934 document a lease, but it was actually a treaty that also included a modified form of the earlier lease's provisions.

  In 1934, a new Cuban-American Treaty of Relations,
  reaffirming the lease, granted Cuba and its trading
  partners free access through the bay, modified the lease
  payment from $2,000 in U.S. gold coins per year to the
  1934 equivalent value of $4,085 in U.S. dollars,
  and made the lease permanent unless both governments
  agreed to break it, or until the U.S. abandoned the base
  property. [1]

  United States - Cuban Agreements and Treaty of 1934 [2]

  Cuban–American Treaty of Relations (1934)
  Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library [3]

  Cuban–American Treaty of Relations (1934) [4]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guant%C3%A1namo_Bay

[2] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_-_Cuban_Agreeme...

[3] https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/dip_cuba001.asp

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban%E2%80%93American_Treaty_...

The point is that some party insisting that they have some legal contract giving them permission to do something does not mean that contract is legitimate or voluntary.

The remainder of the comment illustrates some very obvious examples of this from the past.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com