It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Castro: US Must Leave Guantanamo Bay

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 09:01 PM

Castro: US Must Leave Guantanamo Bay

Cuban President Fidel Castro says the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay is occupied 'illegally' and the US must hand it over to Cuba.

According to international laws, the United States' occupation of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in the southeast of Cuba is illegal and unacceptable, Fidel Castro told reporters on Friday. Castro called the base a constant center of crisis, which threatens Cuba's security.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 09:01 PM
I'm surprised Castro hasn't tried harder to re-claim the property.

All the treaties were made before Castro took over the government. I'm surprised he even recognizes these treaties (actually, it's a long-term lease agreement) since the agreement was made by the government he removed from power.

Guantanamo Bay is the oldest overseas US Naval Base.

Supposedly, the long term lease agreement cannot be revoked unless both countries agree to revoke the agreement.

I don't think there is much Castro can do, he surely isn't going to try to take it by force, and according to international law, the "treaty" is still legal.
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 18/8/07 by Keyhole]

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 02:31 AM
It makes sense that we will start to hear more waves made about Guantanamo now.
Castro probably hasn't got much time left- even if he doesn't have a terminal cancer, he's 81 years old, and it is rare for a person to retain enough of their faculties to be more than a symbolic leader into their 90s. Any way you slice it, it is likely that Castro has between 1 and 10 years to prepare the PCC for his death. Raul Castro only adds 5-10 years worth of sand to the hourglass.

Castro has to position Cuba to remain secure and sovreign after he's gone. He can't have Hugo Chavez propping up a puppet regime that will turn Cuba into a Venezuelan satelite state, much less can he have America using any involvement by Chavez in a potential succession crisis as an excuse to invade.

Gitmo is a good card for America to be holding if a succession crisis develops either at the death of Fidel or Raul Castro.

Having legitimate reasons to approach Cuba makes it easier to infiltrate Cuban expatriates for guerilla opperations- the Cubans don't have the luxury of firing on any American craft which enters their airspace or territorial waters.

If America becomes directly involved, we control a logistical base, airstrips, and harbor already as long as they have Gitmo, which increases our deployability to Cuba.

Not only is the time when Cuba may not be able to afford having an American base on their soil fast approaching, but also this is a moment of great opportunity for the Cubans to get rid of it.

The detention center there creates more hostility both internationally and within America towards the existance of Gitmo than would normally be the case. Attempting to get rid of Gitmo through legal international means if/when the democrats control the white house and congress would press the Democrats on two of their key issues- internationalism and opposition to the illegal handling of the war on terror- giving the Cubans a distinct advantage compared to most times.

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 02:56 PM
I'm surprised that Castro said anything at all, seeing as how he has been on death's doorstep for a while now. But the article date is current. I'm still skeptical, however.

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 07:43 PM
reply to post by Keyhole

Although I disagree with the method we employed to get the first lease on Guantanamo Bay around 1900-1910, we did have a good reason to do it then. We were just getting the Panama Canal into service and needed a naval base on the edge of the Caribbean to protect that approach.

Git-mo would also serve as a coaling station and later as an oiling station for resupply of US Navy ships. After our master-servant relationship with Cuba ended in 1959, followed by the 1999 return of the Panama Canal to Panama, we have less justification to remain there. Long before Attorney General Gonzales and VP Cheney approved of torture of enemy combatants, Git-mo would have been returned to Cuba but for the Republican partisan emigre community in Miami that still lives the dream of recapturing their property. Sort of a Cuban Right of Return. Which event will require the active assistance of the USMC to pull it off.

I find it disheartening how casually we speak of the convenience Git-mo offers for “infiltrating” a sovereign nation with “guerilla expatiates” as if International Law and the UN Charier do not exist. Well, AG Gonzales says the US is not subject to the Laws of Nations so I guess that makes it OK? Him being such a highly respected legal scholar.

Can you imagine your fate in the hands of this man reading your final appeal if you were one of the 154 persons he and Bush43 had executed in Texas? Talk about Last Rites?

[edit on 8/19/2007 by donwhite]

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 08:55 PM
reply to post by donwhite

If it makes you feel any better don, I don't speak of it easily because I think it's a sound idea. I speak of it easily because I'm talking about what Gitmo is about right now, and the Bush administration's thinking on such things is fairly predictable.

Its easy to say a hurricane is comin' and it's easy to say that access to Cuba for nefarious purposes is a major issue for Gitmo- not because it's good news, but because it is the news.

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 10:24 PM
I doubt that the US will ever abandon Gitmo.

I'm sure he wants the US our to Cuba, but Castro is irrelevant.

The last I heard, Cuba was refusing to cash the US lease payments.

One of the earliest examples of US dominance was the Platt Amendment the Congress passed in 1901 after the US "liberated" Cuba in 1898. This federal law ceded Guantanamo Bay to the US to be used as the naval base we've had ever since and granted the US the right to intervene in Cuban affairs whenever it deemed it necessary. Theodore Roosevelt later signed the original Guantanamo lease agreement the terms of which gave the US jurisdiction over the territory that can only be terminated by the mutual consent of both countries as long as annual rent payments are made. The US thus gave itself the right to occupy part of sovereign Cuban territory in perpetuity regardless of how the Cuban people feel about it. The Castro government clearly wants the US out and through the years made its views clear by refusing to cash every US lease payment check it got other than the first one right after the successful revolution.

Aside from that, this paragraph alone gives sufficient reason to consider the source a highly biased one.

More than 400 people from 40 countries have been imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay detainment camp since 2002. They are accused of being al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives. These prisoners have been jailed under inhumane conditions without facing any official trial, which clearly shows a sign of blatant violation of human rights.

[emphasis mine]

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 07:25 AM
Oops! You're right, Mr Vag, I aimed this at KeyHole and meant to address it to you. Message received.

Although I did quote from your thread, you are not the only person who has noted the potential for mischief from Git-mo. I did not say you or others had approved of that.

My complaint lies with my own government that is purposely holding on to a piece of ground in another country where that country does not want us. We IGNORE any law, any UN Charter, any Treaty that suits us at the moment. That is my objection.

This very bad habit did not start with Bush43 although he is several orders of magnitude more offending that any of his predecessors. I suppose it’s a natural outcome of believing you are a “city on a hill.”

[edit on 8/20/2007 by donwhite]

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 07:49 AM

posted by GradyPhilpott
I doubt that the US will ever abandon Gitmo. I'm sure he wants the US our to Cuba, but Castro is irrelevant. The last I heard, Cuba was refusing to cash the US lease payments. Aside from that, this paragraph [that follows but not copied here] alone gives sufficient reason to consider the source a highly biased one.

Even people with a bias can sometimes be correct. The real issue is this: do we approve of the usage to which the facility at Gitmo is put? Another issues is: do we really give a tinker’s dam about our image abroad? Or are just walking around world with a “up yours” attitude?

Fidel Castro may well be irrelevant to Americans. We certainly have shown him that we care not a whit for him or his fellow countrymen.

I pray every day that Fidel should live at least until January 20, 2009, when he will have outlasted Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton and now Bush the Dull-witted.

And untold numbers of illegal attempts to assassinate him, to invade his country and to do other things illegal towards Cuba. Not only have we been cowardly, but we are dumb if all those efforts have failed. Cowardly because if we had half the chutzpah we think we have, we’d have sent in the USMC and re-conquered the place a long time ago and stopped this tap dancing charade.

[edit on 8/20/2007 by donwhite]

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 08:02 AM
Grady is right... the Castro government has refused to cash the rent check ever since the bay of pigs if I recall correctly.

On a personal note having been to gitmo twice... I don't know why anyone, castro or us would want it back, its hot, its humid and one of the more unpleasent places I have ever been.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by grover]

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by Grover

Thx Grover, for the personal info about Guantanamo Bay Naval Station. After all the base closings in the US, several rounds in fact, and maybe more to come, it is obvious to me that we keep that base open - well, prior to Bush43 - now it's like off-shore banking, a way to evade the law - as a thorn in the side of Fidel and as a sop to the expatriates in Miami. They control at least one or two Congressional seats and can be a deciding vote in any statewide election in Florida that is otherwise close.

[edit on 8/20/2007 by donwhite]

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:02 PM
reply to post by donwhite

The thing about gitmo is that it is extremely hot and humid. The bay itself is beautiful but (at least in the 70's when I was there) all the hills had been stripped bare of foliage and were mine filled. One kid off a navy destroyer was killed while I was there the first time. he was from the mountains of North Carolina and i guess he was homesick and went walking in the hills and stepped on a mine.... we all heard the explosion. The other thing is they will shoot you if you walk toward the gates towards the town of Guantanamo.... not the Cubans, our guys. Obviously you are not allowed to leave the base. Add to that the 100 degree heat and 98% humidity and the fact that we had to run around in combat dress (for the Coast Guard, long pants tucked into boots, long shirts, life jacket and helmet and we were all miserible. Add to that the bars served watered down beer and drinks and we couldn't wait to leave.

It is seriously cruel to imprison anyone there especially in outside cells without air conditioner.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by grover]

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:45 AM
reply to post by grover

GITMO has under gone many changes since the 70's.

Even the Prisoners allege they are being tortured by air conditioning

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 12:32 PM
reply to post by shots

I can only speak of what I experienced when I was there. We went down twice when I was on board ship (yes the Coast Guard does training in Gitmo) and we hated it.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 02:22 PM
reply to post by donwhite

After your post here, I was wondering how other people feel about the US having a base in Cuba.

Should we stay there or should we give Cuba back their land?

I personally don't see what difference it would make if we left.

What does everybody else think?

[edit on 21/8/07 by Keyhole]

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 02:37 PM
The only reason we are still there is to be a thorn and a threat in Castro's side, it is far more expensive to maintain than most bases since EVERYTHING has to be shipped in, we get nothing from the neighboring towns... I say get out.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 05:40 PM
I've been to Gitmo, albeit only for a couple or three days, while on a Carib cruise in 1970.

We took a tour of the perimeter, which was enlightening.

I never met anyone who has liked being stationed there, since there is no such thing as liberty as most service members understand the term.

Having a naval base in Cuba is highly beneficial or it would be closed.

It's a keeper.

Well, maybe when Castro dies and the Cuban people come to their senses and revolt against the revolution, we might think about it, but by then the Cubans will be proud to have all that money from the lease and all those sailors and Marines coming into town to have a good time.

[edit on 2007/8/21 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 06:27 PM
A Simple Question

I understand and respect the concerns surrounding Guantanamo Bay.

However, I feel compelled to pose this simple question:

Do you think the prisoners there would be better off under U.S. custody, or would they be better off being incarcerated as political prisoners in Cuba proper?

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 07:30 PM
If we are fighting to preserve our values, then we must really preserve our values. We do that best by respecting those values. Due process is much older than King John and the Magna Carta of 1215. In fact, St. Paul got due process when he appealed to Caesar to have his conviction in Jerusalem overturned. Jesus got due process when he was captured by the Roman soldiers and was taken before the Roman procurator.

It does us no credit to deny anyone, all the more captives under our excursive control, due process. I have always believed the US Con regulates our government’s’s conduct wherever on this planet they may be, including secret prisons scattered around the world.

But that’s me, and I’m not Bush43, VP Cheney or AG Gonzales, men who do not share that belief with me.

[edit on 8/21/2007 by donwhite]

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 08:14 PM
Unfortunately in the fight to preserve our values, if that is what it is at all, this administration has so compromised them and to make the disparity between our rhetoric and the reality more blatant that no one outside this country believes a word we say anymore.

As for the prisoners, they are part and parcel of the above... no where in the constituition does it say this set of laws applies to citizen and another set to outsiders... we supposed to be a nation of laws and what applies to one should apply to all. Those prisoners should be in our legal system proper and delt with accordingly.

top topics


log in