![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I removed information accusing the Bush Administration of violating the Geneva Conventions and took some time to explain when and why the Geneva conventions do not apply, that US law has sole authority over these detainees, and the US case law provides that they shall be tried via Military Tribunal. The original entry made it sound as if Bush himself decided to violate the prisoners Geneva rights and the Supreme Court had to step in; I tried very hard to clarify that the Hamdan case only garuntees these unlawful combatants Habeas Corpus but still gives requires that they be tried via military tribunal.~~
Citation 14 is a broken link. -- 70.185.111.183 ( talk) 22:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Check out the photo used for the supposed Guantanamo Bay McDonald's. The sky is white-ish, but around the McDonalds sign, the sky is blue. Also notice the telephone wires that run in front of the sign, but are not apparent elsewhere in the photo. Total photoshop. I'd delete it, but maybe someone logged in should do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.126.151 ( talk) 19:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know when this picture of the McDonald's was added, but I remember it just like this, with the concertina wire, approximately September 1994. The photo is not a fake. Krzink ( talk) 18:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I merged in a couple things that were mentioned on a duplicate article called "Guantanamo Base" but not mentioned here. If we want to make a separate article on the base alone, it should rather be called "Guantanamo Bay Naval Station" or "Naval Base Guantanamo Bay". But, I don't think that is necessary. -- Mrwojo 05:03 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)-- 24.233.99.142 ( talk) 03:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)-- 24.233.99.142 ( talk) 03:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
"The base became a strategic strongpoint in the American fight against Communism during the decades following World War II"
Really? How come? I can't find any activities developed here to fight comunism, for example, the Infamous "school of the americas" to train latin america soldiers in counterinsurgence, and torture was in Panama (a host of latin america dictators was trained there) but in Guantamamo.....Nothing ! Cuye 09:49, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Why no reference to the "Grenada 17"?
Thank you, Stan, for your generosity of spirit. I am not prone to clear and concise commentary myself.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda suspects are not the first to enjoy the hospitalities offered in prison at Guantanamo Bay. Maybe you could find something in this:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR32002203?open&of=ENG-GRD .
Ted
Compare with other foreign establishments: Subic Bay, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Macao
I vote to keep the analogy; it links a number of different territories, keeping out of his home country control, usually with a treaty obtained by the use of force or with the attempted use of force Milton 13:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wait a minute....is this really NPOV? "The U.S. control of this Cuban territory has never been popular." Popular with whom? This should be specified that the Cuban government disapproves of the base, and why. It seems to me that a blanket statement of unpopularity isn't appropriate.
I support, it is necesary to specify with whom, I suggest "The U.S. control of this Cuban territory has never been popular with cubans." Milton 13:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
...the U.S. will pay 2000 gold coins (about $4000 in today's money)... Something doesn't seem right. I would like to know where I can get a $2 gold coin.
After 106 years of hostile occupation (since 1898), maybe the United States would consider leaving the base and returning the territory to the Cuban people. Since 1959 Cuba has made it clear that it wants the United States to leave, bearing in mind that the lease agreement was imposed by force on Cuba in 1902 -- either Cuba accepted the platt amendment giving the United States the right of intervention in Cuban internal affairs, and the right to establish military bases on Cuban territory, or the US forces would continue occupying the island. According to applicable international law today, the treaty is invalid as contrary to jus cogens, self-determination, and the doctrine of "unequal treaties". Of course, international law is not identical with its enforcement. And the fact that the US occupation of Guantanamo is illegal does not change the realities of power. The norms are clear. We have a situation of a complex of violations of international law -- with complete impunity, since no-one can force the United States to observe international law. This does not mean that international law does not exist. It only means that there is no enforcement mechanism and that the United States can and does get away with violating international law with impunity. Another reason for invalidity of the lease agreement the use of the base for decades now for purposes not in accordance with the lease --which allowed for the use of Guantanamo bay as "naval and coaling facilities, and for no other purpose". The use as an internment center for 32 000 Haitians, 20 000 Cuban boat people and 700 Talibans clearly constitutes a material breach of the lease.
Whereas China could persuade the UK to leave Hong Kong and Portugal to leave Macau, Cuba has no such leverage.
So the illegal occupation of Guantanamo bay continues. But we should not give it our recognition as a legitimate lease -- a "perpetual lease" as the United States claims -- because it was imposed by force.
I gave a lecture on this topic at the university of British Columbia, published in 37 U.B.C. law review 277-341 (2004) - [1] -- Professor Alfred de Zayas, Geneva
First paragraph definately NPOV. I've edited to try and make it so. 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Iwalters Much better. Iwalters 04:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
We should give the base back to the "Cuban people" when the Cuban people actually control the island. As it stands, Fidel Castro and his butchers control Cuba. So, no, the U.S. is not going anywhere. Jtpaladin 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Getting back to the topic, the fact is, regardless of who is ultimately right, both sides, the US and Cuba, each make reasonable and defensible arguments to support their case regarding the legitimacy/illegitimacy of GITMO. The only responsible, neutral, and encyclopedic solution is to present both sides of the argument, and let the reader decide... ...really guys, fighting over which one-sided, prejudiced, hyperbolic argument should be in the article--how utterly unacademic (professional historians, amateurs, propagandists, or whatever you people happen to be).
I have a google news alert on Guantanamo Bay, and it has turned up for me several editorials from Cuban newspapers that claim the treaty under which the lease was granted restricts the use of the naval base to purely naval purposes. (It was originally a coal refueling station.) All other purposes, like using it for Prisons, are violations of the treaty. -- Geo Swan 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
-- 189.156.185.112 ( talk) 22:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The Brits had a lease with a limited term. 99 years. They left when the lease expired. They didn't leave early, due to Chinese pressure. The US lease is, I believe, indefinite. -- Geo Swan 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The naval base has a unique history. The information about the prison and it's relationship to the "war on terror", alleged human rights abuses, etc, while valid as a subject bear little relation except in the most general way to the unique history of this geographical location. It seems illogical to have all this stuff about US legal wrangles in an article about a place in Cuba. ( Editdroid 16:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC))
Certainly separating out its use as a prison as a separate article seems logical enough, especially since its use as a prison facility is othoganal with its position as a place of dispute between Castro and the United States. Caerwine 19:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I was actually looking for information on the invasion of Guantanamo bay which is a seperate article. The wikipedia articles should not be structured just on current interest. That geographcial and historical information will still be relevant long after the prison is empty of iraqis/afgans. Since the invasion (1898) is seperate...I completely concur (actually came here to raise that point but saw it had been raised). Just like Effects of Hurricane Katrina is a seperate article for New Orleanseven though many are probably looking for it TODAY when they go there. 24.211.135.6 13:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
This article in its current form is a disgrace. For any subject covered here I would expect that the introductory section would contain at most one sentence on any current issue, controversial or not. The introductory paragraph or two would contain summary historical, geographical, or national information with a brief reference to any current issue concerning the topic at hand. Instead, someone (or multiple someones) has hijacked the topic to make it their personal protest against current US policy and activity. I'm not up to changing this myself but I really hope some cooler heads can prevail and make this a little more focused on the facts. Es330td 22:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
How do you feel about merging Camp Delta, Camp X-ray Camp Iguana, and Camp Echo as a subsection to Guantanamo Bay? Wouldn't it be better to have one, well-written, NPOV article, without all the mispellings and typos. Joaquin Murietta 22:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
User:24.161.149.229, I urge you to create a userid, so people can talk to you.
You are introducing highly questionable assertions about the ages of the detainees who were minors. I believe that some of the information you introduced is simply false. Other assertions you have made give the appearance of a highly biased point of view. Maybe you are new here. Wikipedia contributors are supposed to aim for a neutral point of view.
First, at least one of the minors, Omar Khadr]], who was born in Canada, was under 16 when he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay. The American authorities were well aware of his identity. Should we accept the US claim about the ages of the minors in Guantanamo at face value? Since they have been caught, red-handed, putting out incorrect information they can have no credible excuse to get wrong, I do not believe we should accept their claims at face value.
Now, if you believe the US claims should be put forward here, without challenge, I call on you to explain yourself. -- Geo Swan 15:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
He, this is getting odd
Yet a thorough analysis by an American law professor and a defence lawyer of information released by the US defence department revealed last week that 92% of the 517 Guantanamo detainees had not been al-Qaeda fighters.
Of these, 40% have no clear connection with al-Qaeda, and 18% have no connection with either al-Qaeda or the Taleban.
In total, 60% are there because they have been accused of being associated with a group which the US government regards as a terrorist organisation.
Most detainees are regarded as enemy combatants.
Among the criteria reportedly used to define an enemy combatant are these: possession of a rifle; possession of a Casio watch; and wearing olive drab clothing.
In Afghanistan it has long been regarded as normal for every adult male to have a gun, because there was so much violence in the country.
Casio watches and olive-coloured clothes can be bought in every market in every town in the country.
But where do all these prisoners come from, anyway?
According to the Pentagon, 95% of them were not captured by the Americans themselves.
Some 86% were handed over in Afghanistan and Pakistan after a widespread campaign in which big financial bounties were offered in exchange for anyone suspected of links to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.
The US lawyers quote the text of one of the notices the Americans handed out: "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams... You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taleban forces catch al-Qaeda and Taleban murderers.
"This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life."
So, according to the figures supplied by the Pentagon, it looks as though more than 440 men out of the total of 517 at Guantanamo were handed over to the Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a direct result of these bounties. [2]
Not sure where your stats are coming from, the detention center currently houses 377 people and has released around 340 with another 85 to be released as soon as negotiations can be finished to find a country that will house these people safely.
I believe the article needs to be amended to include information about the new report on Gitmo by the UN. It can be found here. I would do it myself but I can't think straight at the moment. Hempeater 22:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Paul Hunt | New Zealand |
Leila Zerrougui | Algeria |
Leandro Despouy | Argentina |
Manfred Nowak | Austria |
Asma Jahangir | Pakistan |
In response to my last comment defending the Bush administration, your last statement must have a response - you have ommitted China, which did write part of the report, yet even you yourself admit that the likes of Algeria, and the military dictatorship of Pakistan, both nations with severe track records of human rights abuses. No reprasentative of these nations has actually have visited the camp as you admit, which means they have no basis in fact, only acounts of what may be going on. People seem suprised that suspected terroists, many of whom were found fighting for the taliban are being treated like criminals - most of these people are dangerous and the United States has not brocken international law.
International pressure to close Guantánamo grows
[4]
Nomen Nescio
15:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It is stated in the introduction that "the Third Geneva Convention makes no distinction between 'Prisoners of War' and 'illegal combatants'". This seems to me incorrect. A reading of the Third Convention shows that it does distinguish between 'Prisoners of War' [lawful combatant] and 'illegal combatants' [unlawful combatant]. What it says is that if there is any doubt as to whether the person is a lawful combatant or not, the person shall be treated as if being a lawful combatant until his/her status has been determined by a competent tribunal. See http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm). PJ 14:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I think Contents 1-20 should be archived, except perhaps section 2 on merged things, as they are all from 2005 or before and the discussions on them have ceased. Furthermore, no one here is currently disputing the neutrality of the article, so why does the warning still exists on the article page? I'll be bold and remove it; if I'm bold and wrong someone can put it back. :) JoelHowe 02:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone be opposed to me creating a McDonalds ===Sub Heading=== for that information, I think there are still more articles out there that I can expand it with.
RE Mcd at Gitmo. I strongly object to this subheading being included as it trivialises the subject. Suggest it goes into the article on McDonalds. On the assumption that it belongs there I regret that I had to delete it. -- Gazzetta 08:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The McDonalds went in down there in either 1986 or 87. It was a huge impact on the base. I don't have documentation for this though aside from living there on base from 1982 - 1985 and again 1987 - 1989. Aneah ( talk) 06:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
-- not a big enough deal in the grand scheme of Qtmo to have has a separate heading - maybe something on the marine ecology on base would be more relevant and worthy of a subheading —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.249.158.117 (
talk)
01:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I added another image, mainly because I was curious to see the actual footprint of the US occupation. TigerDigm 20:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Claiming that no other foreign state supports the view of the Bush administration. Is there proof of this statement, and if so, would this statement jeapordize the neutrality of the article? TigerDigm 15:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The name of the bay is "Guantánamo Bay", not "Guantanamo Bay". Why do we have it like this? I've requested a move. Any thoughts? Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk?) 23:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree, I support the correct spelling with accents, let's move the page. MikeZ 09:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I support the proposed page move. The article is about the area as a whole, the correct name of which is Guantánamo Bay. (The different spelling of the US military base is, as noted above, now reflected in the relevant section of the article.) -- Picapica 22:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The various sections that pertain to the detention of prisoners are now by far dominating this huge article. Per Summary style (a featured article requirement), I propose for those sections to be moved to a daughter article called Detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (itself would have daughter articles of its own for each camp and maybe other sub-topics). Replacing these moved sections would be one summary section with ===History of detention===, ===International concern===, and ===Legal proceedings=== as subsections. We also may want to have a section devoted to the various camps added as well (it would concentrate on the camps themselves and not what went on in them since the ==Detention of prisoners== section would already talk about that). This format would serve those readers who want an overview of the installation and its operations without going into excessive detail on the last several years of its history while at the same time providing links to a cohesive more-detailed treatment of the sub-topic. It would also give us more room to expand the other parts of this article. -- mav 00:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph inserted by the anon did not seem completely useless to me.? ROGNNTUDJUU! 23:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Has anybody noticed that 3/4 of the article is what you hear on the news? It should all be moved on to a seperate article.--hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I will not let politically-motivated individuals re-edit this entry to what it was; it should be about GITMO; not prison camps; So, keep it up...it won't last long. Windon60
The result of the debate was see below. — Nightst a llion (?) 11:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
From WP:RM: Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page.
From my talk page:
I think it better that there is another vote on this issue with a clear statment of what is wanted. The former request was not formatted clearly "The name of the bay is "Guantánamo Bay", not "Guantanamo Bay". Why do we have it like this? I've requested a move. Any thoughts?" and I could not find an entry on the 3rd March for the proposed move. The votes seem to be (but they are confusing so it is not easy to tell) 5 (includeing the proposer) to 3. That would meet the 60% threshold but as the request was to move is not clearly formatted, it does not no harm to do another poll and clarify the consensus. -- Philip Baird Shearer 14:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
A tie suits no one. You can vote for more than one option so please consider voting for my third option as a compromise.-- Philip Baird Shearer 12:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there should be separate articles to describe the Geographical location and the navy base. In addition there should be an additional article, with description of all the prisons and detention centres.
In my opinion those descriptions of the prisons should be brief, and each prison should have an article devoted to them. They used to each have an article devoted to them. The guy who merged them did a really crappy job. And the history of their edits strongly suggest that their real intention was to obfuscate information that was embarrassing to fans of President Bush's detainee policy. He (unfairly IMO) accused me of starting articles about Guantanamo detainees in order to spoof Google. He accused me of trying to multiply the number of hits those who searched for Guantanamo, and abuse would find. He initiated the formal deletion steps against close to a dozen articles I started.
When he first leveled this accusation against I thought it was ridiculous and impractical, in addition to being unethical and a betrayal of the wikipedia community. But, after doing some research, I realized that he was correct about it being practical. Many commercial sites, and some other nonprofit sites, republish wikipedia articles, so, for many topics, most of the google hits are mirrors of wikipedia articles.
When attempting to get others to agree to delete the articles I started failed, he merged the articles on the prisons with the support of just one other wikipedian. I believe he was guilty of exactly what he accused me of. I think his partisan and insincere merge had a powerful negative impact on the usefulness of the Wikipedia's coverage of Guantanamo issues.
Anyhow, if we are going to vote, we should be voting on whether this existing article, whatever it is called, should contain so much material about the prisons, or whether it should be moved to article(s) about the prisons. -- Geo Swan 20:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Since there were no real objections on this one particular matter, I moved Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Nobody disagrees with this, right? Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk?) 05:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
— Nightst a llion (?) 11:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Now that we have separated the article, we should discuss the linking and disambiguation issues. Guantanamo Bay is now a disambig, but so is Guantanamo (disambiguation). We have lots of redirects, some which don't currently work because they point to other redirects. We have lots of links, many of which point to a non-working redirect, or to one of the disambig pages, or to an illogical destination. In short, we need to tidy up. Let's start by listing all of the related articles here. Then we can sort the links to point to the correct article and talk about how best to disambiguate. I would prefer we not have more than one disambig page for Guantanamo-related articles; I think that's confusing. Jonathunder 16:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello! In light of recent moves, redirects/DABs, and discussions above, a few related moves and redirects have been proposed. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Seriously - how can you have a page about Guantanamo bay without a link to the excellent film 'The Road To Guantanmo' - could someone who know how to wiki add this info. - thank youhttp://www.channel4.com/film/newsfeatures/microsites/G/guantanamo/index.html 83.71.104.192 23:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)minktoast - http://minktoast.net
"Since 2001, the naval base has contained a detainment camp for persons alleged to be militant combatants captured in Afghanistan and later in Iraq that the U.S. maintains are not protected under the Geneva Convention." Is this inaccurate infromation?
This:
seems blatantly non NPOV to me. "good guys"? "bad guys"? I've actually read the book, and I vaguely remember this, but maybe somebody more knowledgeable (ie better memory) can help out. I think it should read along the lines of
if included at all.
Another problematic entry in the "Fictional representations and mentions of Guantanamo" section: "Michael Moore's 2007 movie Sicko features a trip to Guantánamo for the sake of free medical care." While the accuracy of Moore's documentaries can be questioned, I don't think Sicko deserves to be mentioned in a list of fictional works. :) MMad 22:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The objection has been raised that there should be no accent, based on a Google search which yielded Anglicized spellings. The problem is, if you do a search with your preferences set to Spanish, the hlanguage from which the name actually comes, there are plenty which include the accent.
For obvious reasons, accents are often not included in foreign-language webpages. Thus, using an English web search is triply problematic: 1) It's the Web, "you can't trust everything you read", 2) You're set to English, and 3) Even the foreigners often leave the accent out!
Pronunciation in Spanish begs the accent. PaladinWhite 13:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is quite acceptable to describe them as Funny Foreign Squiggle because it emphasises that they are not English accent marks and it is what some foreign loan words have in English until they become Anglicized. One does not généraly write hôtel. A Google search returns
So common usage by the people who own the base (and rent the land) is without the funny foreign squiggle and we should reflect common usage and WP:UE. -- Philip Baird Shearer 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The current Cuban government rejects the Cuban-American Treaty, arguing that it violates article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and therefore considers the U.S. presence in Guantánamo to be an illegal occupation of the area.
This sentence is incomprehensible to anyone not familiar with the subject matter. Shinobu 21:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Without citation, the introduction claims that Cuba claims that the "Cuban-American Treaty, which established the lease in 1903, now violates article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the law of treaties [7],"
However, this claim is absurd since article 4 [8] of the treaty states
I suggest removing this assertion unless you can actually find a source that confirms that the Cuban government does hold this nonsensical position. Perhaps the section could be re-written to say that it violates the spirit embodied in this act, or it violates a widely recognized norm of justice embodied in this act. AdamRetchless 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
May I add that Spain was forced to clear of from Cuba? Maybe we could pronounce that Spain broke the Vienna Conventions by giving in to preassure. (Hows that for some retroactive victim blaming?) ( 82.134.28.194 ( talk) 12:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC))
The article stated, as a fact, that three captives committed suicide on June 10th, 2006. This is incorrect. The families of the dead men had concerns. A blue ribbon panel of forensic pathologists agreed to do an independent post-mortem. They could not confirm the American claims because the DoD declined to provide sufficient cooperation. Dr Patrice Mangin reassured the dead men's families that it was not unusual for pathologists to remove and discard organs like the brain and liver, once they have taken samples, because they spoil quickly and spectacularly. However Mangin noted that the dead men's throats had been with-held. This was not normal, and prevented his team confirming that they had been hung. All three men had been long-term hunger-strikers. The most clearly innocent man, the one who had been cleared for release, had been force-fed for over eight months, having a feeding tube forced down his throat. There had been complaints that the Guantanamo authorities had been making the force-feeding as painful as possible. Six months earlier the camp authorities had started strapping the men into painful "restraint chairs" during their force-feeding. There are reports that inexperienced guards were inserting and removing the feeding tubes.
It is quite possible that the men didn't suffocate because they hung themselves, but rather that they suffocated while the choked to death because their throats were too traumatized from the brutal and inexpert force-feedings they were being made to endure. Without the men's throats suicide by hanging can't be confirmed. Iatrogenic manslaughter can't be eliminated.
The DoD also failed to comply with the blue-ribbon panel's request to examine the sheets that the men were said to have used to hang themselves.
The article also stated, as a fact, that the captives had only made 41 suicide attempts prior to the three men's death. This is a total bullshit spin-doctor figure, and should not appear in the wikipedia as a stated fact. Carol Rosenberg, a Miami Herald reporter, describes being stunned when the director of the prison infirmary, when giving reporters a tour, casually mentioned that all 48 beds were filled by a mass suicide bid a few years earlier. Joshua Colangelo-Bryan was told he could no longer meet with Juma al Dossari, one of his Bahraini clients, because his visits triggered suicide bids. Colangelo-Bryan was told that al Dossari had made a dozen suicide bids. Most men who made suicide bids tried multiple times. The numbers just don't add up.
IMO "detainees" is a biased term. It implies a legitimacy to the captive's detention -- when the legality of their detention is still before the US Judicial Branch. So I changed "detainee" to "captive".
Cheers! Geo Swan 22:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not mentioned anywhere what is the expiry date of US lease, considering 1898 pr 1903 whatsoever. Please provide this information. Was the lease for 100 years or for unlimited time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.156.240.57 ( talk) 19:15, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
This article makes no mention of either of the airfields (McCalla Point *defunct and Leeward Point) at GITMO. Dreammaker182 05:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
That photo of the Bay's McDonalds is definatly a photo shop. Shouldn't it be deleted? Its fake? SomeGuy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.16 ( talk) 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
http://www.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil/wire/WirePDF/issue28v8.pdf page 14 shows the image is mostly covered by text and that's why it looks like that. Why don't you find a better one. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 04:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There is most definitely a McDs on QTMO - i have had many filet o' fish there after getting skunked fishing on the bay. djmrunfast
It seems that there are things within this article that do not belong here. I propose a some research and delving more into the history of Guantamano Bay from when it was established to current. Include a paragraph on the prisons, but to be honest, leave that to a separate article(s). Allow me to give some brief notes as to what I see wrong with this article:
Things needing inclusion - List of commands. Geography and climate. Winward vs. Leeward and the Ferry Schools Landmarks Aneah ( talk) 07:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I dont doubt that there is a McD's there, I just think the photo looks a bit off. If i'm wrong so be it. Just wanted to check. SomeGuy
The statements in this article complaining about the government-owned fast-food franchises on the base somehow being a violation of the Treaty obligations ("The United States of America agrees that no person, partnership, or corporation shall be permitted to establish or maintain a commercial, industrial or other enterprise") seems very strange. It is *extremely* normal for military bases to have fast food franchises within them for the benefit of the soldiers and their families living there. Business conducted internally between soldiers and their military can hardly be taken to constitute a commercial enterprise. This is not a case of the US government using the base for fishing purposes and then selling the fish on the world market, which was the intent of that clause. So I don't think these statements should be included in this article, as it's clearly a situation where we're quoting a newspaper journalist who doesn't know what he or she is talking about. Glen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.245.253 ( talk) 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This was removed, by me, ---:
The United States controls the land on both sides of the southern part of Guantánamo Bay (Bahía de Guantánamo in Spanish) under a lease set up in the wake of the 1898 Spanish-American War: the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, the terms of which were preserved by the 1934 Treaty of Relations. [1] [2] Cuba disputes the validity of the lease under international law. Cuba's longtime status as a weakened colonial possession of Spain ended not long before it negotiated the lease; its status during the negotiations as a weakened colonial possession of the United States does much to explain the lease's lopsided terms. Cuba argues that these circumstances run afoul of the customary law of treaties, as codified in Article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which holds that a treaty provision obtained by force is not binding. [3] [4]The applicability of the Convention is questioned in light of its Article 4, which states that its rules apply only to treaties concluded after it comes into effect. Still, for any treaty subject to its rules "independently of the Convention", Article 4 regards application of those rules "without prejudice." Further, its nature as a convention or codification of customary international law means that the Convention's rules express the customary law of treaties understood to apply in all cases. Here, then, Article 52 of the Convention codifies an established customary law of treaties that voids provisions obtained by force, applying to the Cuban-American treaty as to any treaty; if it could not be so applied, it would not have been added to the Convention. [5]
Beam 06:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
On January 22, 2009 President Barack Obama ordered the closure of the detention center for suspected detainee by signing orders.
This line is at the top under the history section, but is just thrown in without any previous mention of the establishment of a detention center. Besides being horrible stylistically (Ordered the closure... by signing orders. ??? Come on!), it doesn't belong there. Put it down with the rest of the info on the detention center. RocketMann ( talk) 07:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The actual name of this article should be Naval Base Guantanamo Bay or U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay. The US Navy always puts the type of installation before the name...i.e. Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Naval Station San Diego, Naval Air Station North Island. Please also refer to the station's website link at the bottom of the page. -- 203.10.224.61 03:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no such place as Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, or Naval Base Guantanamo Bay. There are (US) Naval Bases, but Guantanamo is not one of them. It is a Naval Station. There is a difference, and the article is inaccurate. The correct name is Naval Station Guantanamo Bay [see http://www.navy.mil/local/guantanamo/]. Reversing the order, as civilians do, to Guantanmo Bay Naval Station, might be O.K., but calling a Station a Base is just incorrect. Dvejr ( talk) 16:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC) DVEJR 3Feb09
support See the official U.S. Navy page at https://www.cnic.navy.mil/guantanamo/ -- Boracay Bill( talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone placed a conflict of interest tag on this article. But I don't see an explanation of the tag here on the talk page. Surely there should be an explanation, or the tag should be removed. Agreed? Geo Swan ( talk) 07:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
"On January 22, 2009, he signed an executive order which mandated the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp within a year.While mandating the closure of the detention facility, the naval base as a whole was not subject to the order and will remain operational indefinitely."
While I'm fairly certain that the base itself will remain operational indefinitely even if Camp Delta ends up closed, it's still a personal assumption on my part (I didn't add the above to the article, BTW) and therefor can't be taken as fact. So I'm asking if anyone has a reliable source that verifies the above statement? I've searched and searched, but everything I find simply refers to the closure of "Guantanamo Bay", which is quite vague and misleading. In fact, I came to this page lookingfor a source to verify the above statement. Spartan198 ( talk) 20:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Spartan198
In the beginning of this article (as of article state: 9:21am EST, March 31, 2009) we read, "Examples of unlawful combatants, inferred from the Geneva Conventions and recognized in Case Law, include those who: are not members of the armed forces of a party state, those who do not wear military uniforms or those do not carry their arms openly, and those who resume hostilities after being paroled. "
My question is whether the authorship was aware of the difference between a disjunction (OR) versus a conjunction (AND).
This matters for the following reason:
Example 1) Unlawful combatants are defined as non-members of armed forces AND those who resume hostilities.
has a very different meaning than...
Example 2) Unlawful combatants are defined as non-members of armed forces OR those who resume hostilities.
Specifically, in Example (1) the unlawful combatant must meet both criteria (very narrow definition) whereas in Example (2) the unlawful combatant must only meet one of the set of criteria (what I assume the geneva convention states, but I have no idea).
I just want someone to clean this up, also in part for my own knowledge. Furthermore, the use of a comma (,) is taken to mean "AND." Thus, in its current state the entire sentence is a long conjunction with sub-phrase disjunction in the middle. At the very least, unclear. Maybe we can re-write it as a list. For instance: "Examples of unlawful combatants, inferred from the Geneva Conventions and recognized in Case Law, include those who either, (1) not members of the armed forces of a party state, or (2) do not wear military uniforms, or (3) those do not carry their arms openly, or (4) resume hostilities after being paroled. SKY child 13:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
While Hamdi v. Rumsfeld is undoubtedly an important case in the context of United States habeas law and wartime detention generally, it provides little guidance as to the fate of the non-citizen detainees who are being held outside of the (traditional) territorial jurisdiction of United States federal courts. (A second question is why Ex Parte Quirin is included, but Johnson v. Eisentrager is not, given that the latter contains the relevant features of non-citizens outside the territorial jurisdiction of federal courts, whereas the former contains at most one of those features.)
There are three highly relevant Supreme Court cases concerning the legal status of the Gitmo detainees and their habeas petitions, however. Those cases are Rasul v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush, the latter being arguably most relevant, because most current. If we're going to mention a (contemporary) case in the introductory section of the article, it should be Boumediene, or perhaps Hamdan.
I'm curious if anyone has any reason why Hamdi is currently being included in the article, particularly in such a prominent position. If no one has a clear justification for it, I will make the appropriate changes myself in about a week. SS451 ( talk) 06:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I put in the original law references to give some background because this article was way off before (mostly talkign about Bush "illegally violating geneva conventions" and "abusing detainees" without much talk of what law applies here). I'm no expert and would encourage you to clarify what little I have here, espcially to drop Hamdi and include Johnson v. Eisentrager. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.42.254.14 ( talk) 15:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
so much detention info should not be in the intro. this is what subsections and sub-articles are for. All that research deserves a proper home... and camp x-ray etc have only existed for less than 10% of the bases' lifespan... so for due weight some of the lede ( the legal blow-by-blow stuff)needs to get moved... 72.0.187.239 ( talk) 07:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the final sentence from the third para of the WP:lead section. The removed sentence read, "As of 2009, only US law has applied to these unlawful combatants held at Guantanamo." I have a nit to pick with this assertion, and think that the para reads OK without it. The nit which I would pick is that, as I understand it, nothing changed in 2009 so that US law would apply here where formerly it did not. The rest of the paragraph makes the point that US law always did apply, but that the US government was not applying that law. That is a bit convoluted to explain in the lede and, as I said, IMHO the rest of the para reads OK without hammering that point home in the lede.
In the same paragraph, I have changed "These are combatants who formerly were not fully protected by the Geneva Conventions for various reasons." to read "These are combatants who are considered 'unlawful combatants' and who were formerly not being afforded protection under the Geneva Conventions for various reasons." As I understand it, the point to be made here is not that the protections afforded by the conventions changed in 2009, but that the application of the convention by the US changed in 2009.
Having said that, I also want to opine than none of this material belongs in the lead section of an article on the topic of "Guantanamo Bay Naval Base". IMHO, the material doesn't belong in this particular article at all. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The military has withheld the evidence against detainees asserted to be linked to terrorist organizations or enemy states.
i deleted this sentence - it is far too broad and misleading in a negative way against the military and could breed distrust and fuel conspiracy theorists. The military has held bck certain information deemed to sensitive for airing in public courts due confidentiality of sources and methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.158.117 ( talk) 01:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
With over 9,500 U.S. sailors and Marines
i don't think this is accurate - there were 2200 personnel on base pre 9/11, peak of 7500 last year and there are now 6000 personnel there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.158.117 ( talk) 01:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The article states: "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 U.S. gold coins per year, to the 1934 equivalent value of $4,085 in U.S. dollars", howver the Reuters article it references says: "The United States pays Cuba $4,085 a month in rent for the controversial Guantanamo naval base". So which is it, per month or per year? The article statement seems unclear as to whether it was modified from $2,000 per year to $4,085 per year or to $4,085 per month. Is there another source for this? - Generica( talk) 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
For at least 25 years, Americans have been able to direct dial telephone calls to Guantanamo Bay using what seems to be a special circuit routing arrangement. It is dialed as 011 + 53 (Cuba's international calling code) + 99. I do not know at this time if Cuba, generally, can be dialed from the United States, and I feel certain that 99 is not part of Cuba's internal numbering plan.
On the other hand, Canada has had direct dial to Cuba since the mid or late 1980s, using country code 53, but has never been able to dial Guantanamo Bay. I have seen internal phone company documents that indicate a "Mark Code" of 011 was used for Cuba in the 1980s - this was used to identify the destination for billing purposes: the computer would read 011 and retrieve the appropriate name and price rates to apply to a call. Whether such codes are still in use is not known to me. GBC ( talk) 07:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I removed information accusing the Bush Administration of violating the Geneva Conventions and took some time to explain when and why the Geneva conventions do not apply, that US law has sole authority over these detainees, and the US case law provides that they shall be tried via Military Tribunal. The original entry made it sound as if Bush himself decided to violate the prisoners Geneva rights and the Supreme Court had to step in; I tried very hard to clarify that the Hamdan case only garuntees these unlawful combatants Habeas Corpus but still gives requires that they be tried via military tribunal.~~
Citation 14 is a broken link. -- 70.185.111.183 ( talk) 22:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Check out the photo used for the supposed Guantanamo Bay McDonald's. The sky is white-ish, but around the McDonalds sign, the sky is blue. Also notice the telephone wires that run in front of the sign, but are not apparent elsewhere in the photo. Total photoshop. I'd delete it, but maybe someone logged in should do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.126.151 ( talk) 19:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know when this picture of the McDonald's was added, but I remember it just like this, with the concertina wire, approximately September 1994. The photo is not a fake. Krzink ( talk) 18:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I merged in a couple things that were mentioned on a duplicate article called "Guantanamo Base" but not mentioned here. If we want to make a separate article on the base alone, it should rather be called "Guantanamo Bay Naval Station" or "Naval Base Guantanamo Bay". But, I don't think that is necessary. -- Mrwojo 05:03 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)-- 24.233.99.142 ( talk) 03:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)-- 24.233.99.142 ( talk) 03:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
"The base became a strategic strongpoint in the American fight against Communism during the decades following World War II"
Really? How come? I can't find any activities developed here to fight comunism, for example, the Infamous "school of the americas" to train latin america soldiers in counterinsurgence, and torture was in Panama (a host of latin america dictators was trained there) but in Guantamamo.....Nothing ! Cuye 09:49, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Why no reference to the "Grenada 17"?
Thank you, Stan, for your generosity of spirit. I am not prone to clear and concise commentary myself.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda suspects are not the first to enjoy the hospitalities offered in prison at Guantanamo Bay. Maybe you could find something in this:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR32002203?open&of=ENG-GRD .
Ted
Compare with other foreign establishments: Subic Bay, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Macao
I vote to keep the analogy; it links a number of different territories, keeping out of his home country control, usually with a treaty obtained by the use of force or with the attempted use of force Milton 13:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Wait a minute....is this really NPOV? "The U.S. control of this Cuban territory has never been popular." Popular with whom? This should be specified that the Cuban government disapproves of the base, and why. It seems to me that a blanket statement of unpopularity isn't appropriate.
I support, it is necesary to specify with whom, I suggest "The U.S. control of this Cuban territory has never been popular with cubans." Milton 13:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
...the U.S. will pay 2000 gold coins (about $4000 in today's money)... Something doesn't seem right. I would like to know where I can get a $2 gold coin.
After 106 years of hostile occupation (since 1898), maybe the United States would consider leaving the base and returning the territory to the Cuban people. Since 1959 Cuba has made it clear that it wants the United States to leave, bearing in mind that the lease agreement was imposed by force on Cuba in 1902 -- either Cuba accepted the platt amendment giving the United States the right of intervention in Cuban internal affairs, and the right to establish military bases on Cuban territory, or the US forces would continue occupying the island. According to applicable international law today, the treaty is invalid as contrary to jus cogens, self-determination, and the doctrine of "unequal treaties". Of course, international law is not identical with its enforcement. And the fact that the US occupation of Guantanamo is illegal does not change the realities of power. The norms are clear. We have a situation of a complex of violations of international law -- with complete impunity, since no-one can force the United States to observe international law. This does not mean that international law does not exist. It only means that there is no enforcement mechanism and that the United States can and does get away with violating international law with impunity. Another reason for invalidity of the lease agreement the use of the base for decades now for purposes not in accordance with the lease --which allowed for the use of Guantanamo bay as "naval and coaling facilities, and for no other purpose". The use as an internment center for 32 000 Haitians, 20 000 Cuban boat people and 700 Talibans clearly constitutes a material breach of the lease.
Whereas China could persuade the UK to leave Hong Kong and Portugal to leave Macau, Cuba has no such leverage.
So the illegal occupation of Guantanamo bay continues. But we should not give it our recognition as a legitimate lease -- a "perpetual lease" as the United States claims -- because it was imposed by force.
I gave a lecture on this topic at the university of British Columbia, published in 37 U.B.C. law review 277-341 (2004) - [1] -- Professor Alfred de Zayas, Geneva
First paragraph definately NPOV. I've edited to try and make it so. 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Iwalters Much better. Iwalters 04:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
We should give the base back to the "Cuban people" when the Cuban people actually control the island. As it stands, Fidel Castro and his butchers control Cuba. So, no, the U.S. is not going anywhere. Jtpaladin 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Getting back to the topic, the fact is, regardless of who is ultimately right, both sides, the US and Cuba, each make reasonable and defensible arguments to support their case regarding the legitimacy/illegitimacy of GITMO. The only responsible, neutral, and encyclopedic solution is to present both sides of the argument, and let the reader decide... ...really guys, fighting over which one-sided, prejudiced, hyperbolic argument should be in the article--how utterly unacademic (professional historians, amateurs, propagandists, or whatever you people happen to be).
I have a google news alert on Guantanamo Bay, and it has turned up for me several editorials from Cuban newspapers that claim the treaty under which the lease was granted restricts the use of the naval base to purely naval purposes. (It was originally a coal refueling station.) All other purposes, like using it for Prisons, are violations of the treaty. -- Geo Swan 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
-- 189.156.185.112 ( talk) 22:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The Brits had a lease with a limited term. 99 years. They left when the lease expired. They didn't leave early, due to Chinese pressure. The US lease is, I believe, indefinite. -- Geo Swan 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The naval base has a unique history. The information about the prison and it's relationship to the "war on terror", alleged human rights abuses, etc, while valid as a subject bear little relation except in the most general way to the unique history of this geographical location. It seems illogical to have all this stuff about US legal wrangles in an article about a place in Cuba. ( Editdroid 16:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC))
Certainly separating out its use as a prison as a separate article seems logical enough, especially since its use as a prison facility is othoganal with its position as a place of dispute between Castro and the United States. Caerwine 19:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I was actually looking for information on the invasion of Guantanamo bay which is a seperate article. The wikipedia articles should not be structured just on current interest. That geographcial and historical information will still be relevant long after the prison is empty of iraqis/afgans. Since the invasion (1898) is seperate...I completely concur (actually came here to raise that point but saw it had been raised). Just like Effects of Hurricane Katrina is a seperate article for New Orleanseven though many are probably looking for it TODAY when they go there. 24.211.135.6 13:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
This article in its current form is a disgrace. For any subject covered here I would expect that the introductory section would contain at most one sentence on any current issue, controversial or not. The introductory paragraph or two would contain summary historical, geographical, or national information with a brief reference to any current issue concerning the topic at hand. Instead, someone (or multiple someones) has hijacked the topic to make it their personal protest against current US policy and activity. I'm not up to changing this myself but I really hope some cooler heads can prevail and make this a little more focused on the facts. Es330td 22:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
How do you feel about merging Camp Delta, Camp X-ray Camp Iguana, and Camp Echo as a subsection to Guantanamo Bay? Wouldn't it be better to have one, well-written, NPOV article, without all the mispellings and typos. Joaquin Murietta 22:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
User:24.161.149.229, I urge you to create a userid, so people can talk to you.
You are introducing highly questionable assertions about the ages of the detainees who were minors. I believe that some of the information you introduced is simply false. Other assertions you have made give the appearance of a highly biased point of view. Maybe you are new here. Wikipedia contributors are supposed to aim for a neutral point of view.
First, at least one of the minors, Omar Khadr]], who was born in Canada, was under 16 when he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay. The American authorities were well aware of his identity. Should we accept the US claim about the ages of the minors in Guantanamo at face value? Since they have been caught, red-handed, putting out incorrect information they can have no credible excuse to get wrong, I do not believe we should accept their claims at face value.
Now, if you believe the US claims should be put forward here, without challenge, I call on you to explain yourself. -- Geo Swan 15:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
He, this is getting odd
Yet a thorough analysis by an American law professor and a defence lawyer of information released by the US defence department revealed last week that 92% of the 517 Guantanamo detainees had not been al-Qaeda fighters.
Of these, 40% have no clear connection with al-Qaeda, and 18% have no connection with either al-Qaeda or the Taleban.
In total, 60% are there because they have been accused of being associated with a group which the US government regards as a terrorist organisation.
Most detainees are regarded as enemy combatants.
Among the criteria reportedly used to define an enemy combatant are these: possession of a rifle; possession of a Casio watch; and wearing olive drab clothing.
In Afghanistan it has long been regarded as normal for every adult male to have a gun, because there was so much violence in the country.
Casio watches and olive-coloured clothes can be bought in every market in every town in the country.
But where do all these prisoners come from, anyway?
According to the Pentagon, 95% of them were not captured by the Americans themselves.
Some 86% were handed over in Afghanistan and Pakistan after a widespread campaign in which big financial bounties were offered in exchange for anyone suspected of links to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.
The US lawyers quote the text of one of the notices the Americans handed out: "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams... You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taleban forces catch al-Qaeda and Taleban murderers.
"This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life."
So, according to the figures supplied by the Pentagon, it looks as though more than 440 men out of the total of 517 at Guantanamo were handed over to the Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a direct result of these bounties. [2]
Not sure where your stats are coming from, the detention center currently houses 377 people and has released around 340 with another 85 to be released as soon as negotiations can be finished to find a country that will house these people safely.
I believe the article needs to be amended to include information about the new report on Gitmo by the UN. It can be found here. I would do it myself but I can't think straight at the moment. Hempeater 22:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Paul Hunt | New Zealand |
Leila Zerrougui | Algeria |
Leandro Despouy | Argentina |
Manfred Nowak | Austria |
Asma Jahangir | Pakistan |
In response to my last comment defending the Bush administration, your last statement must have a response - you have ommitted China, which did write part of the report, yet even you yourself admit that the likes of Algeria, and the military dictatorship of Pakistan, both nations with severe track records of human rights abuses. No reprasentative of these nations has actually have visited the camp as you admit, which means they have no basis in fact, only acounts of what may be going on. People seem suprised that suspected terroists, many of whom were found fighting for the taliban are being treated like criminals - most of these people are dangerous and the United States has not brocken international law.
International pressure to close Guantánamo grows
[4]
Nomen Nescio
15:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It is stated in the introduction that "the Third Geneva Convention makes no distinction between 'Prisoners of War' and 'illegal combatants'". This seems to me incorrect. A reading of the Third Convention shows that it does distinguish between 'Prisoners of War' [lawful combatant] and 'illegal combatants' [unlawful combatant]. What it says is that if there is any doubt as to whether the person is a lawful combatant or not, the person shall be treated as if being a lawful combatant until his/her status has been determined by a competent tribunal. See http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm). PJ 14:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I think Contents 1-20 should be archived, except perhaps section 2 on merged things, as they are all from 2005 or before and the discussions on them have ceased. Furthermore, no one here is currently disputing the neutrality of the article, so why does the warning still exists on the article page? I'll be bold and remove it; if I'm bold and wrong someone can put it back. :) JoelHowe 02:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Would anyone be opposed to me creating a McDonalds ===Sub Heading=== for that information, I think there are still more articles out there that I can expand it with.
RE Mcd at Gitmo. I strongly object to this subheading being included as it trivialises the subject. Suggest it goes into the article on McDonalds. On the assumption that it belongs there I regret that I had to delete it. -- Gazzetta 08:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The McDonalds went in down there in either 1986 or 87. It was a huge impact on the base. I don't have documentation for this though aside from living there on base from 1982 - 1985 and again 1987 - 1989. Aneah ( talk) 06:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
-- not a big enough deal in the grand scheme of Qtmo to have has a separate heading - maybe something on the marine ecology on base would be more relevant and worthy of a subheading —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.249.158.117 (
talk)
01:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I added another image, mainly because I was curious to see the actual footprint of the US occupation. TigerDigm 20:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Claiming that no other foreign state supports the view of the Bush administration. Is there proof of this statement, and if so, would this statement jeapordize the neutrality of the article? TigerDigm 15:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The name of the bay is "Guantánamo Bay", not "Guantanamo Bay". Why do we have it like this? I've requested a move. Any thoughts? Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk?) 23:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree, I support the correct spelling with accents, let's move the page. MikeZ 09:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I support the proposed page move. The article is about the area as a whole, the correct name of which is Guantánamo Bay. (The different spelling of the US military base is, as noted above, now reflected in the relevant section of the article.) -- Picapica 22:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The various sections that pertain to the detention of prisoners are now by far dominating this huge article. Per Summary style (a featured article requirement), I propose for those sections to be moved to a daughter article called Detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (itself would have daughter articles of its own for each camp and maybe other sub-topics). Replacing these moved sections would be one summary section with ===History of detention===, ===International concern===, and ===Legal proceedings=== as subsections. We also may want to have a section devoted to the various camps added as well (it would concentrate on the camps themselves and not what went on in them since the ==Detention of prisoners== section would already talk about that). This format would serve those readers who want an overview of the installation and its operations without going into excessive detail on the last several years of its history while at the same time providing links to a cohesive more-detailed treatment of the sub-topic. It would also give us more room to expand the other parts of this article. -- mav 00:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph inserted by the anon did not seem completely useless to me.? ROGNNTUDJUU! 23:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Has anybody noticed that 3/4 of the article is what you hear on the news? It should all be moved on to a seperate article.--hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I will not let politically-motivated individuals re-edit this entry to what it was; it should be about GITMO; not prison camps; So, keep it up...it won't last long. Windon60
The result of the debate was see below. — Nightst a llion (?) 11:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
From WP:RM: Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page.
From my talk page:
I think it better that there is another vote on this issue with a clear statment of what is wanted. The former request was not formatted clearly "The name of the bay is "Guantánamo Bay", not "Guantanamo Bay". Why do we have it like this? I've requested a move. Any thoughts?" and I could not find an entry on the 3rd March for the proposed move. The votes seem to be (but they are confusing so it is not easy to tell) 5 (includeing the proposer) to 3. That would meet the 60% threshold but as the request was to move is not clearly formatted, it does not no harm to do another poll and clarify the consensus. -- Philip Baird Shearer 14:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
A tie suits no one. You can vote for more than one option so please consider voting for my third option as a compromise.-- Philip Baird Shearer 12:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there should be separate articles to describe the Geographical location and the navy base. In addition there should be an additional article, with description of all the prisons and detention centres.
In my opinion those descriptions of the prisons should be brief, and each prison should have an article devoted to them. They used to each have an article devoted to them. The guy who merged them did a really crappy job. And the history of their edits strongly suggest that their real intention was to obfuscate information that was embarrassing to fans of President Bush's detainee policy. He (unfairly IMO) accused me of starting articles about Guantanamo detainees in order to spoof Google. He accused me of trying to multiply the number of hits those who searched for Guantanamo, and abuse would find. He initiated the formal deletion steps against close to a dozen articles I started.
When he first leveled this accusation against I thought it was ridiculous and impractical, in addition to being unethical and a betrayal of the wikipedia community. But, after doing some research, I realized that he was correct about it being practical. Many commercial sites, and some other nonprofit sites, republish wikipedia articles, so, for many topics, most of the google hits are mirrors of wikipedia articles.
When attempting to get others to agree to delete the articles I started failed, he merged the articles on the prisons with the support of just one other wikipedian. I believe he was guilty of exactly what he accused me of. I think his partisan and insincere merge had a powerful negative impact on the usefulness of the Wikipedia's coverage of Guantanamo issues.
Anyhow, if we are going to vote, we should be voting on whether this existing article, whatever it is called, should contain so much material about the prisons, or whether it should be moved to article(s) about the prisons. -- Geo Swan 20:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Since there were no real objections on this one particular matter, I moved Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Nobody disagrees with this, right? Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk?) 05:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
— Nightst a llion (?) 11:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Now that we have separated the article, we should discuss the linking and disambiguation issues. Guantanamo Bay is now a disambig, but so is Guantanamo (disambiguation). We have lots of redirects, some which don't currently work because they point to other redirects. We have lots of links, many of which point to a non-working redirect, or to one of the disambig pages, or to an illogical destination. In short, we need to tidy up. Let's start by listing all of the related articles here. Then we can sort the links to point to the correct article and talk about how best to disambiguate. I would prefer we not have more than one disambig page for Guantanamo-related articles; I think that's confusing. Jonathunder 16:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello! In light of recent moves, redirects/DABs, and discussions above, a few related moves and redirects have been proposed. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Seriously - how can you have a page about Guantanamo bay without a link to the excellent film 'The Road To Guantanmo' - could someone who know how to wiki add this info. - thank youhttp://www.channel4.com/film/newsfeatures/microsites/G/guantanamo/index.html 83.71.104.192 23:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)minktoast - http://minktoast.net
"Since 2001, the naval base has contained a detainment camp for persons alleged to be militant combatants captured in Afghanistan and later in Iraq that the U.S. maintains are not protected under the Geneva Convention." Is this inaccurate infromation?
This:
seems blatantly non NPOV to me. "good guys"? "bad guys"? I've actually read the book, and I vaguely remember this, but maybe somebody more knowledgeable (ie better memory) can help out. I think it should read along the lines of
if included at all.
Another problematic entry in the "Fictional representations and mentions of Guantanamo" section: "Michael Moore's 2007 movie Sicko features a trip to Guantánamo for the sake of free medical care." While the accuracy of Moore's documentaries can be questioned, I don't think Sicko deserves to be mentioned in a list of fictional works. :) MMad 22:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The objection has been raised that there should be no accent, based on a Google search which yielded Anglicized spellings. The problem is, if you do a search with your preferences set to Spanish, the hlanguage from which the name actually comes, there are plenty which include the accent.
For obvious reasons, accents are often not included in foreign-language webpages. Thus, using an English web search is triply problematic: 1) It's the Web, "you can't trust everything you read", 2) You're set to English, and 3) Even the foreigners often leave the accent out!
Pronunciation in Spanish begs the accent. PaladinWhite 13:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is quite acceptable to describe them as Funny Foreign Squiggle because it emphasises that they are not English accent marks and it is what some foreign loan words have in English until they become Anglicized. One does not généraly write hôtel. A Google search returns
So common usage by the people who own the base (and rent the land) is without the funny foreign squiggle and we should reflect common usage and WP:UE. -- Philip Baird Shearer 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The current Cuban government rejects the Cuban-American Treaty, arguing that it violates article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and therefore considers the U.S. presence in Guantánamo to be an illegal occupation of the area.
This sentence is incomprehensible to anyone not familiar with the subject matter. Shinobu 21:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Without citation, the introduction claims that Cuba claims that the "Cuban-American Treaty, which established the lease in 1903, now violates article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the law of treaties [7],"
However, this claim is absurd since article 4 [8] of the treaty states
I suggest removing this assertion unless you can actually find a source that confirms that the Cuban government does hold this nonsensical position. Perhaps the section could be re-written to say that it violates the spirit embodied in this act, or it violates a widely recognized norm of justice embodied in this act. AdamRetchless 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
May I add that Spain was forced to clear of from Cuba? Maybe we could pronounce that Spain broke the Vienna Conventions by giving in to preassure. (Hows that for some retroactive victim blaming?) ( 82.134.28.194 ( talk) 12:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC))
The article stated, as a fact, that three captives committed suicide on June 10th, 2006. This is incorrect. The families of the dead men had concerns. A blue ribbon panel of forensic pathologists agreed to do an independent post-mortem. They could not confirm the American claims because the DoD declined to provide sufficient cooperation. Dr Patrice Mangin reassured the dead men's families that it was not unusual for pathologists to remove and discard organs like the brain and liver, once they have taken samples, because they spoil quickly and spectacularly. However Mangin noted that the dead men's throats had been with-held. This was not normal, and prevented his team confirming that they had been hung. All three men had been long-term hunger-strikers. The most clearly innocent man, the one who had been cleared for release, had been force-fed for over eight months, having a feeding tube forced down his throat. There had been complaints that the Guantanamo authorities had been making the force-feeding as painful as possible. Six months earlier the camp authorities had started strapping the men into painful "restraint chairs" during their force-feeding. There are reports that inexperienced guards were inserting and removing the feeding tubes.
It is quite possible that the men didn't suffocate because they hung themselves, but rather that they suffocated while the choked to death because their throats were too traumatized from the brutal and inexpert force-feedings they were being made to endure. Without the men's throats suicide by hanging can't be confirmed. Iatrogenic manslaughter can't be eliminated.
The DoD also failed to comply with the blue-ribbon panel's request to examine the sheets that the men were said to have used to hang themselves.
The article also stated, as a fact, that the captives had only made 41 suicide attempts prior to the three men's death. This is a total bullshit spin-doctor figure, and should not appear in the wikipedia as a stated fact. Carol Rosenberg, a Miami Herald reporter, describes being stunned when the director of the prison infirmary, when giving reporters a tour, casually mentioned that all 48 beds were filled by a mass suicide bid a few years earlier. Joshua Colangelo-Bryan was told he could no longer meet with Juma al Dossari, one of his Bahraini clients, because his visits triggered suicide bids. Colangelo-Bryan was told that al Dossari had made a dozen suicide bids. Most men who made suicide bids tried multiple times. The numbers just don't add up.
IMO "detainees" is a biased term. It implies a legitimacy to the captive's detention -- when the legality of their detention is still before the US Judicial Branch. So I changed "detainee" to "captive".
Cheers! Geo Swan 22:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It is not mentioned anywhere what is the expiry date of US lease, considering 1898 pr 1903 whatsoever. Please provide this information. Was the lease for 100 years or for unlimited time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.156.240.57 ( talk) 19:15, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
This article makes no mention of either of the airfields (McCalla Point *defunct and Leeward Point) at GITMO. Dreammaker182 05:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
That photo of the Bay's McDonalds is definatly a photo shop. Shouldn't it be deleted? Its fake? SomeGuy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.126.16 ( talk) 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
http://www.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil/wire/WirePDF/issue28v8.pdf page 14 shows the image is mostly covered by text and that's why it looks like that. Why don't you find a better one. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 04:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There is most definitely a McDs on QTMO - i have had many filet o' fish there after getting skunked fishing on the bay. djmrunfast
It seems that there are things within this article that do not belong here. I propose a some research and delving more into the history of Guantamano Bay from when it was established to current. Include a paragraph on the prisons, but to be honest, leave that to a separate article(s). Allow me to give some brief notes as to what I see wrong with this article:
Things needing inclusion - List of commands. Geography and climate. Winward vs. Leeward and the Ferry Schools Landmarks Aneah ( talk) 07:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I dont doubt that there is a McD's there, I just think the photo looks a bit off. If i'm wrong so be it. Just wanted to check. SomeGuy
The statements in this article complaining about the government-owned fast-food franchises on the base somehow being a violation of the Treaty obligations ("The United States of America agrees that no person, partnership, or corporation shall be permitted to establish or maintain a commercial, industrial or other enterprise") seems very strange. It is *extremely* normal for military bases to have fast food franchises within them for the benefit of the soldiers and their families living there. Business conducted internally between soldiers and their military can hardly be taken to constitute a commercial enterprise. This is not a case of the US government using the base for fishing purposes and then selling the fish on the world market, which was the intent of that clause. So I don't think these statements should be included in this article, as it's clearly a situation where we're quoting a newspaper journalist who doesn't know what he or she is talking about. Glen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.245.253 ( talk) 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This was removed, by me, ---:
The United States controls the land on both sides of the southern part of Guantánamo Bay (Bahía de Guantánamo in Spanish) under a lease set up in the wake of the 1898 Spanish-American War: the 1903 Cuban-American Treaty, the terms of which were preserved by the 1934 Treaty of Relations. [1] [2] Cuba disputes the validity of the lease under international law. Cuba's longtime status as a weakened colonial possession of Spain ended not long before it negotiated the lease; its status during the negotiations as a weakened colonial possession of the United States does much to explain the lease's lopsided terms. Cuba argues that these circumstances run afoul of the customary law of treaties, as codified in Article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which holds that a treaty provision obtained by force is not binding. [3] [4]The applicability of the Convention is questioned in light of its Article 4, which states that its rules apply only to treaties concluded after it comes into effect. Still, for any treaty subject to its rules "independently of the Convention", Article 4 regards application of those rules "without prejudice." Further, its nature as a convention or codification of customary international law means that the Convention's rules express the customary law of treaties understood to apply in all cases. Here, then, Article 52 of the Convention codifies an established customary law of treaties that voids provisions obtained by force, applying to the Cuban-American treaty as to any treaty; if it could not be so applied, it would not have been added to the Convention. [5]
Beam 06:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
On January 22, 2009 President Barack Obama ordered the closure of the detention center for suspected detainee by signing orders.
This line is at the top under the history section, but is just thrown in without any previous mention of the establishment of a detention center. Besides being horrible stylistically (Ordered the closure... by signing orders. ??? Come on!), it doesn't belong there. Put it down with the rest of the info on the detention center. RocketMann ( talk) 07:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The actual name of this article should be Naval Base Guantanamo Bay or U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay. The US Navy always puts the type of installation before the name...i.e. Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Naval Station San Diego, Naval Air Station North Island. Please also refer to the station's website link at the bottom of the page. -- 203.10.224.61 03:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no such place as Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, or Naval Base Guantanamo Bay. There are (US) Naval Bases, but Guantanamo is not one of them. It is a Naval Station. There is a difference, and the article is inaccurate. The correct name is Naval Station Guantanamo Bay [see http://www.navy.mil/local/guantanamo/]. Reversing the order, as civilians do, to Guantanmo Bay Naval Station, might be O.K., but calling a Station a Base is just incorrect. Dvejr ( talk) 16:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC) DVEJR 3Feb09
support See the official U.S. Navy page at https://www.cnic.navy.mil/guantanamo/ -- Boracay Bill( talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone placed a conflict of interest tag on this article. But I don't see an explanation of the tag here on the talk page. Surely there should be an explanation, or the tag should be removed. Agreed? Geo Swan ( talk) 07:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
"On January 22, 2009, he signed an executive order which mandated the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp within a year.While mandating the closure of the detention facility, the naval base as a whole was not subject to the order and will remain operational indefinitely."
While I'm fairly certain that the base itself will remain operational indefinitely even if Camp Delta ends up closed, it's still a personal assumption on my part (I didn't add the above to the article, BTW) and therefor can't be taken as fact. So I'm asking if anyone has a reliable source that verifies the above statement? I've searched and searched, but everything I find simply refers to the closure of "Guantanamo Bay", which is quite vague and misleading. In fact, I came to this page lookingfor a source to verify the above statement. Spartan198 ( talk) 20:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Spartan198
In the beginning of this article (as of article state: 9:21am EST, March 31, 2009) we read, "Examples of unlawful combatants, inferred from the Geneva Conventions and recognized in Case Law, include those who: are not members of the armed forces of a party state, those who do not wear military uniforms or those do not carry their arms openly, and those who resume hostilities after being paroled. "
My question is whether the authorship was aware of the difference between a disjunction (OR) versus a conjunction (AND).
This matters for the following reason:
Example 1) Unlawful combatants are defined as non-members of armed forces AND those who resume hostilities.
has a very different meaning than...
Example 2) Unlawful combatants are defined as non-members of armed forces OR those who resume hostilities.
Specifically, in Example (1) the unlawful combatant must meet both criteria (very narrow definition) whereas in Example (2) the unlawful combatant must only meet one of the set of criteria (what I assume the geneva convention states, but I have no idea).
I just want someone to clean this up, also in part for my own knowledge. Furthermore, the use of a comma (,) is taken to mean "AND." Thus, in its current state the entire sentence is a long conjunction with sub-phrase disjunction in the middle. At the very least, unclear. Maybe we can re-write it as a list. For instance: "Examples of unlawful combatants, inferred from the Geneva Conventions and recognized in Case Law, include those who either, (1) not members of the armed forces of a party state, or (2) do not wear military uniforms, or (3) those do not carry their arms openly, or (4) resume hostilities after being paroled. SKY child 13:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
While Hamdi v. Rumsfeld is undoubtedly an important case in the context of United States habeas law and wartime detention generally, it provides little guidance as to the fate of the non-citizen detainees who are being held outside of the (traditional) territorial jurisdiction of United States federal courts. (A second question is why Ex Parte Quirin is included, but Johnson v. Eisentrager is not, given that the latter contains the relevant features of non-citizens outside the territorial jurisdiction of federal courts, whereas the former contains at most one of those features.)
There are three highly relevant Supreme Court cases concerning the legal status of the Gitmo detainees and their habeas petitions, however. Those cases are Rasul v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush, the latter being arguably most relevant, because most current. If we're going to mention a (contemporary) case in the introductory section of the article, it should be Boumediene, or perhaps Hamdan.
I'm curious if anyone has any reason why Hamdi is currently being included in the article, particularly in such a prominent position. If no one has a clear justification for it, I will make the appropriate changes myself in about a week. SS451 ( talk) 06:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I put in the original law references to give some background because this article was way off before (mostly talkign about Bush "illegally violating geneva conventions" and "abusing detainees" without much talk of what law applies here). I'm no expert and would encourage you to clarify what little I have here, espcially to drop Hamdi and include Johnson v. Eisentrager. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.42.254.14 ( talk) 15:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
so much detention info should not be in the intro. this is what subsections and sub-articles are for. All that research deserves a proper home... and camp x-ray etc have only existed for less than 10% of the bases' lifespan... so for due weight some of the lede ( the legal blow-by-blow stuff)needs to get moved... 72.0.187.239 ( talk) 07:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the final sentence from the third para of the WP:lead section. The removed sentence read, "As of 2009, only US law has applied to these unlawful combatants held at Guantanamo." I have a nit to pick with this assertion, and think that the para reads OK without it. The nit which I would pick is that, as I understand it, nothing changed in 2009 so that US law would apply here where formerly it did not. The rest of the paragraph makes the point that US law always did apply, but that the US government was not applying that law. That is a bit convoluted to explain in the lede and, as I said, IMHO the rest of the para reads OK without hammering that point home in the lede.
In the same paragraph, I have changed "These are combatants who formerly were not fully protected by the Geneva Conventions for various reasons." to read "These are combatants who are considered 'unlawful combatants' and who were formerly not being afforded protection under the Geneva Conventions for various reasons." As I understand it, the point to be made here is not that the protections afforded by the conventions changed in 2009, but that the application of the convention by the US changed in 2009.
Having said that, I also want to opine than none of this material belongs in the lead section of an article on the topic of "Guantanamo Bay Naval Base". IMHO, the material doesn't belong in this particular article at all. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 23:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The military has withheld the evidence against detainees asserted to be linked to terrorist organizations or enemy states.
i deleted this sentence - it is far too broad and misleading in a negative way against the military and could breed distrust and fuel conspiracy theorists. The military has held bck certain information deemed to sensitive for airing in public courts due confidentiality of sources and methods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.158.117 ( talk) 01:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
With over 9,500 U.S. sailors and Marines
i don't think this is accurate - there were 2200 personnel on base pre 9/11, peak of 7500 last year and there are now 6000 personnel there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.158.117 ( talk) 01:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The article states: "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 U.S. gold coins per year, to the 1934 equivalent value of $4,085 in U.S. dollars", howver the Reuters article it references says: "The United States pays Cuba $4,085 a month in rent for the controversial Guantanamo naval base". So which is it, per month or per year? The article statement seems unclear as to whether it was modified from $2,000 per year to $4,085 per year or to $4,085 per month. Is there another source for this? - Generica( talk) 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
For at least 25 years, Americans have been able to direct dial telephone calls to Guantanamo Bay using what seems to be a special circuit routing arrangement. It is dialed as 011 + 53 (Cuba's international calling code) + 99. I do not know at this time if Cuba, generally, can be dialed from the United States, and I feel certain that 99 is not part of Cuba's internal numbering plan.
On the other hand, Canada has had direct dial to Cuba since the mid or late 1980s, using country code 53, but has never been able to dial Guantanamo Bay. I have seen internal phone company documents that indicate a "Mark Code" of 011 was used for Cuba in the 1980s - this was used to identify the destination for billing purposes: the computer would read 011 and retrieve the appropriate name and price rates to apply to a call. Whether such codes are still in use is not known to me. GBC ( talk) 07:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)