Talk:Guantánamo Bay

message: why did the americans choose to put the prisoners in guantanamo bay?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.68.236.209 (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because President Bush's legal advisors, notably Alberto Gonzales, Myers, and John Yoo, told him that prisoners held there would not be protected by US law.  --  Geo Swan 01:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ... would not be covered by certain U.S. laws. The prisoners are subject to many other U.S. laws, and only to U.S. laws.  96.224.171.106 (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  location strategy 

message: Washington still pays the rent, set a century ago at 2,000 gold coins a year and now worth just over $4,000, even though the Cuban government refuses to cash the checks.
I'm sure that's vandalism but im new and do not know how to revert.
The lease document specifies $2000 in goid coin, not 2000 coins. The USA unilaterally (as far as I can tell) changed the amount to $4000, and pays by Treasury check, which Cuba does not accept. The Spanish version says 2000 pesos. One must assume that at the time the peso and the dollar were equivalent. ( Martin |  talk • contribs  16:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Vandalism

message: "The U.S. government obtained a 99-year lease that began on 23 February 1903".  The article is unclear about how this is being interpreted in light of the fact that the original lease was set to expire in 2002.  Did the 1934 treaty extend the "lease" indefinitely, or at least is that the claim of the US?  I've read elsewhere that the lease is set to expire in 2033.  Is that at all a reasonable interpretation? anthony 01:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bwa-ha-ha-ha!  Good joke, Fractalhints!  Be careful, though...there are some chumps who will take you seriously and not see all the obvious problems with your claims! --71.203.125.108 (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lease

message: Do Cuban ships have navigation rights to the inner bay through the U.S.-controlled area?  Does the U.S. have a defined right to sail in the coastal waters? -- Beland 20:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation rights? 

message: ...need to be checked and cleaned up, as many will be for the naval base and/or detention camp.
Also, do we really need seperate articles for the "bay" and the "naval base" - wouldn't it be more logical to have one article on the territory of "Guantánamo Bay"? --kingboyk (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoming links 

message: I have added a section on the environment of Guantánamo Bay.  Previously, a separate article entitled Flora and Fauna of Guantánamo Bay existed.  It contained many irrelevant facts, was written in a very informal manner, and did not contain a single reference.  I modeled the environment section somewhat on that article, keeping the facts that I can support with references.  The section is short enough that I do not think a separate article is warranted.--TDogg310 (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environment 

message: Hey, can someone add a source to the statement "President Barack Obama has given orders for the detention camp to be closed. However, no action has yet been taken, since no American community is willing to take custody of these prisoners."? When skimming the article, I noticed this, and tried to find a source stating this. If I tried to show this to a skeptic, it would not be accepted.
71.99.120.148 (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a youtube link of the msnbc coverage if anyone think it belongs in the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDyn80GxwX4  BUT, the statement doesn't belong in the article because the president didn't give a valid "order" to close Guantanamo.  Although he properly clarified his reasoning for the order (to maintain consistent with foreign policy: non-torture state) and even gave a deadline (1 year), he did not indicate in which way the prison would be closed (e.g. where the prisoners would go after the close).  Ultimately the order was deemed illegitimate and rejected almost unanimously in congress, and the issue was dropped (though it may be picked up again at any point in time).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.107.34.53 (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how a base closing can be considered "illegitimate". One can decide to do it or not do it, but nothing compels the USA to maintain a base at Guantanamo Bay. The lease (even) forsees that it will be closed at some time, so the USA has always contemplated leaving Guantanamo at some point. ( Martin |  talk • contribs  16:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama and Guantanamo Bay 

message: What is the etymology of Guantánamo in the Taino language? Badagnani (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: If you review the radar sections, available over the Internet, you will notice that Guantanamo Bay is also part of the weather radar system. It has an early warning system for submarine missile launch and can detect small airflights and boats. The naval base is an aid in countering narcotics trafficking although it has been alleged that it is also used by the US military for their own narcotics trafficking. Airflights to and from Guantanamo Bay do not fall under US civilian airflight control and are therefore a status apart, a base for any and all black-ops in the caribbean, middle and south america, not to mention the alleged ´CIA´ kidnapping flights to and from other places. Because Guantanamo Bay does not fall in any civilian zone, the NSA, the CIA, and any alleged ´civilian´ security, including home-land security, have no sayso into the happenings of Guantanamo Bay. Pure military all the time, accorded to the alleged lease.
For those having a like for secret societies, the new world order and other innuendo´s, Guantanamo Bay would be an excellent spot for secret military takeovers of any nation, including the United States. Regionally, it allegedly creates stability and naval aid for what is considered a problematic triangle, the island Hispañia (dominican republic and haiti), cuba, and jamaica (a british commonwealth nation). The implications are many, the rumours more, including a rumour that the island of Cuba had been taken over ages ago through a joint British and US operation that kept Fidel Castro in place for political and social reasons having to do with ´communist´ insurgencies in the Americas and elsewhere.
Any fans of those new world order series?
(Fractalhints (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional. 

message: If you read the footnote, it does not support the assertion.
De Zayas does not claim that a lease negotiated under duress is void. Duress was not an impediment to the legality of contract in 1903. The International Treaty on Treaties, which went into effect in 1980, only controls signatories of which the US is not one, although that treaty may be thought to reduce to writing rules that were already in effect. He does argue that the treaty is improper and may be voidable, but that assertion is different from what is claimed.
:July 2014 - updated the paragraph to reflect the above comment. In the meantime the URL became a dead link. Altered the link to a copy of the presentation that I found on De Zayas's personal site. I also removed the 1934 date, listed as a lease date, as the Treaty enacted in 1934 was a replacement of the 1903 Treaty of Relations, not a replacement of the lease. While the 1934 treaty does refer to the lease, and also does make more specific what to do about contagion, it does not in itself constitute a lease. If 1934 were to be included, than later changes to other elements of the lease would rightly claim to need to have their dates listed. Later the payment amount was changed, unilaterally, as was the zoning. ( Martin |  talk • contribs  16:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The De Zayas footnote 

message: removed sentence:  The United States  and Cuba signed a treaty in 1934, granting the United States  a perpetual lease. Private enterprise is not allowed under the treaty.
The primary purpose of the 1934 Treaty of Relations was to delete obnoxious provisions in the 1903 Treaty of Relations. It certainly did not change or affect the length or the terms of the lease. The footnote does not support the sentence. Any lease can be changed by mutual consent, and cannot be changed unilaterally, as the US has done on many occasions; viz payment amount, not in cash, zoning violation, did not defend Cuba during the Bay of Pigs, etc ( Martin |  talk • contribs  22:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  has to do with the "treaty of Relations of 1903" not with Guantanamo Bay itself, or even the lease of Guantanamo Bay 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Guantánamo Bay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091111085043/http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090723-LS-in-pursuit-justice-09-update.pdf to http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090723-LS-in-pursuit-justice-09-update.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Guantánamo Bay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324211210/http://www.law.ubc.ca/files/pdf/events/2003/november/guantana.pdf to http://www.law.ubc.ca/files/pdf/events/2003/november/GUANTANA.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020005853/http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/search.tkl?q=detainees&search_crit=title&search=Search&date1=Anytime&date2=Anytime&type=form to http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/search.tkl?q=detainees&search_crit=title&search=Search&date1=Anytime&date2=Anytime&type=form
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060519074754/http://www.cubaminrex.cu/CDH/60cdh/Guantanamo/English/Guantanamo%20US%20black%20hole1.htm to http://www.cubaminrex.cu/CDH/60cdh/Guantanamo/English/Guantanamo%20US%20black%20hole1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved    ~ Amkgp 💬 13:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Guantánamo Bay →  – The bay is not the primary topic of the search term: the first ten results for a Google Books serach of "Guantánamo Bay" relate to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base or Guantanamo Bay detention camp. It's not a WP:PTM issue as books are published under such titles as "Guantánamo Bay: The Pentagon's Alcatraz of the Caribbean", "Guantánamo Bay and Military Tribunals: The Detention and Trial of Suspected Terrorists", "Guantánamo Bay: The Global Effects of Wrongful Detention, Torture & Unchecked Executive Power", and "From Chinese Exclusion to Guantánamo Bay: Plenary Power and the Prerogative State". Instead this page should redirect to the dab page currently located at Guantánamo (disambiguation). See related discussion Talk:Guantánamo#Requested_move_10_July_2020 (t · c) buidhe 02:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 July 2020 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Guantánamo Bay/Draft and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  1234qwer1234qwer4 23:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Guantánamo Bay/Draft" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]