Cuba demands return of Guantanamo

[Michael Knight]

How bad is it when even ******* Cuba is lecturing us on human rights

 

[HornsInTheHouse]

You really think it's normal for naval bases to have billion dollar prisons holding people from all over the world? What about executions? I read that the military is looking into setting up a lethal injection cell so they can execute prisoners. That happen on normal naval bases?

 

[Roger]

billion dollar prisons?

 

[Macanudo]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Seamus McBundy]

Give it back? If anything we should occupy the rest of Cuba. Its not like they are doing anything productive with it anyway. USA USA USA USA

 

[washparkhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[washparkhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[eflow24]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[LonghornLawyer]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[LonghornLawyer]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Napoleon]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[TrashMaster G]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Napoleon]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Eastwood22]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Son of a Son]

The question of the death chamber is very interesting. Embassies on US soil are treated as if they are sovereign territories (I think). So what if an embassy wanted to execute someone within it's walls. I wonder how the US would react.

 

[LagoHorn]

One more thing to worry about...The Jamaican's sneaking their battleships past our eastern guard of the pamana canal. Thanks, I'm going to be worried sick all day...

 

[TrashMaster G]

Why in the world would we give Constitutional protections to enemy combatants or POWs or whatever you want to call them?

 

[washparkhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[LonghornLawyer]

Yeah, because Jamaica is the only country east of the Panama Canal. No other countries--not Russia or Iran--would have any interest in preventing us from moving naval vessels from the Atlantic to the Pacific in an expeditious manner.

As to the enemy combatant issue, Napoleon, I don't know what they are, but the ones being talked about for execution damn sure are not prisoners of war. They were not captured on a battlefield, they weren't captured while in uniform, they weren't fighting on behalf of the miliitary forces of any belligerent state.

Frankly, I'm not even sure they're "enemy combatants." I think they may just be international criminals. And yes, as such, if they are to be tried, I think they should probably be tried in a civilian court.

 

[Napoleon]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[LonghornLawyer]

I don't think there is a rule book for this. The Geneva Conventions envision war being fought between Westphalian nation-states. But al Qaida and its subsidiary and sister organizations are post-Westphalian entities. It's like trying to apply twenty-year old telecommunications statutes to the Interwebs--it doesn't really work.

 

[Eastwood22]

Longhorn Lawyer explained the whole P.O.W. thing... I forgot to add that to my argument...

I'm a pretty sloppy poster while I'm at work

 

[ScoPro]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[washparkhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[TrashMaster G]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[BattleshipTexas]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[BattleshipTexas]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[HornsInTheHouse]

You're staking way too much on this legal system argument. The invasion of Iraq was illegal per international law, are you going to stick to international law on that one? The scramble for Africa was legal based on international law as devised by the Europeans. LL, the difference between the cases you cite and Guantanamo Bay is that those countries are happy with their situation now. Cuba wants the port back. France does not lay claim to Belgium.

As for your defense argument, you're really afraid the Iranian and Russian navies are going to attack the Panama canal? And that Guantanamo Bay is key to defending it?

 

[shotgun427]

The US breaks treats all the time. It's the right thing to do to give Cuba's land back to Cuba. It is still their land as per the original treaty so the comparisons to California, Alaska etc. are without merit.

 

[LonghornLawyer]

In reply to:

---

---