This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 7 July 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Guantánamo Bay Naval Base. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Archive 1: November 2004 – August 2005 |
Does anyone have any issue with adding a portion regarding the Cuzco Wells Cemetery aboard the base? User:Aneah 02:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Can some change the climate table to list Fahrenheit first, as that is the standard used on the base itself? 98.221.141.21 ( talk) 23:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I am curious which steps Cuba has taken to force the closure of the camp. Military action is out of the question unless it can be made diplomatically unpaletable for the U.S. to respon militarily, but what about proxy attemps through the OAS or through the UN? It seems like there is a lack of popular demand for the action in Cuba, despite it being the U.S. on their land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.249.83 ( talk) 19:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
There are recordings of two phone calls between LBJ and McNamara that refer to this event, which are available at http://www.archive.org/details/lbj640207
Perhaps, this article can mention these. Alidev ( talk) 15:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible for someone to archive the talk page? There are items on here are rather old. Recommendation is archive pre-2010. Thanks! User:Aneah 17:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Updated a dead link on this point, and re-wrote a sentence that cited the article as standing for the proposition that the uncashed checks from the US to Cuba for G-Bay "are kept" in Castro's desk. Upon reviewing the 2007 article, it actually says that years ago in a television interview the checks were shown by Castro as being stuffed in a desk. Since the article is 4 years old, and in any case, does not claim that the checks were still kept in the desk at the time of publication (and cannot attest to the current state of affairs in 2011), I felt it would be more accurate to say Castro once showed the checks stuffed in his desk, since that's really all the source verifies.
It begs the question though, is it even necessary to mention that at one point (and possibly still) the checks are stuffed in Castro's desk? Perhaps it plays a part in showing Castro's disdain for the checks and contention that G-Bay is invalidly occupied by the US?
USC Law Attorney ( talk) 12:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
USC Law Attorney ( talk) 12:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
But then again, for so many years, having quite a bit of fighting forces around the base... kind of hard not to "acknowledge" spending that kind of money... User:Aneah 06:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I moved pretty much all of the detail about the lease to the wikipedia article about the lease itself. ( Martin | talk • contribs 20:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)) Update: I see that the linked to page ahs been changed to a disambiguation page on the treaty of relations. The Treaty of Relations mentions the lease, but is not central to it. ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC))
Many articles have a "Representation in The Media section" that list instances of the topic appearing in movies, TV shows, novels, etc. Guantanamo Naval Base features prominently in the notable movie A Few Good Men but this is not mentioned in the article. Has this been discussed before? Vincent ( talk) 05:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Recently, there was a Who tag placed in the text referring to the two people that still(?) pass through the Northeast gate into the base daily in order to perform their job. I'm not sure whether it is significant or not to name these people and was wondering if anyone could possibly offer some clarification. The only notoriety that these two individuals have is that they have been passing through the gate to work on the base since 1959. Any input on this is welcome. User:Aneah 13:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I've glanced through the page history and archives and I can't find anything about where someone stated that the WP:OP tag was being applied and for what reason. If anyone can provide any information with regards to this, great. If not, then the tag should be removed. User:Aneah 04:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
in the Spanish American war paragraph
The Marines landed with naval support, requiring Cuban scouts to push off Spanish resistance that increased as they moved inland. ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC))
I have submitted this IP to the administrators [3] for consideration due to continuous unconstructive edits to this page.
Genocidas malparidos y encima lamebotas del Pentágono... say nothing, see no evil, hear no evil; dimwitted knownothings. Are you all so devoid of any conscience or so ignorant to unquestionably parrot the word of the Pentagon regarding the usurped Cuban territory to set up a torture center, not only violating Cuban sovereignity but openly carrying out a vicious blockade of Cuba for over half a century?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.254.71 ( talk) 22:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
This article: ^ Anthony Boadle. "Castro: Cuba not cashing U.S. Guantanamo rent checks". Reuters. Retrieved 17 October 2013. says that the payment is monthly. This is incorrect. I will try to locate a correct source online. Note that this detail is in the "Main" article, so it is a judgment call as to how much needs to be be included in this summary. How relevant is the payment? ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC))
The main article on the lease does discuss the lease amount, and has the same article referenced, although noting that the payment period is incorrectly reported in the article, and that the annual payment is due on July 2nd, the effective date of the lease (see the original lease agreement).( Martin | talk • contribs 04:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC))
The paragraph "Spanish Colonial Era" talks about the British. Where is Spain?? ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC))
The lead says "leased [...] for $2,000 until 1934, for $4,085 since 1938 until now". Refs are missing. $2,000 and $4,085 what per what? $2,000 million per year? $2,000 per month? What the heck are we trying to say? -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 19:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
For he record, it seems that every USN source lists Gitmo as "Naval Station Guantanamo Bay", not "Guantanamo Bay Naval Base", (and without the accent above the 'a'). Personally I think the page should be moved, but I see there was a quite a bit debate about this in the past. Thoughts anyone? - theWOLFchild 04:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The payment of $2,000 was increased to $4,085 in 1934. ref Kramer, Paul (July 30, 2013). "A Useful Corner of the World: Guantánamo". The New Yorker. Retrieved June 16, 2016. /ref The new amount was paid by checks from the United States Treasury, payable to "The Treasurer General of the Republic". ref name="rent"> "Castro: Cuba not cashing US Guantanamo rent checks". Reuters. 17 August 2007. /rf
The lease amount was changed in 1973 to $3676.50 and in 1974 to $4085. See Michael J Strauss "The leasing of Guantanamo" Prager Security International, Appendix 10 quoting a diplomatic cable of May 18 1973, and one of May 8, 1974. ( Martin | talk • contribs 18:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC))
The reference below does not substantiate the change in payment amount to the current level.
ref Elsea, Jennifer K.; Else, Daniel H. (November 17, 2016). Naval Station Guantanamo Bay: History and Legal Issues Regarding Its Lease Agreements (PDF). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 9 December 2016. /ref
( Martin | talk • contribs 21:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC))
I took off the carets because something was not working. Could not figure it out. Dropped text
There isn't one. It looks like there should be? Jd2718 ( talk) 02:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The article says the year that the rental payment was change was 1934. There is no original document that supports this change in rent, even though any change to the lease must be by mutual consent (per the one document that year - the 1934 Treaty of Relations). On the other hand, the book I cited, which has been reverted, Michael Strauss's "the leasing of Guantanamo Bay" has in appendix 12, documents that suggest a much later date. And appendix 10 indicates that the dates of the two changes to the rental amount were 1973 and 1974. ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)) I will upload images of those pages for those of you who do not have access to the excellent book, as time allows ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)) Table of contents here : http://www.gbv.de/dms/spk/sbb/toc/590933531.pdf
I naturally object to the unsubstantiated reversion ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC))
Please do not remove the [Citation needed|reason=Cited PDF does not support year 1934|date=April 2017] without providing a citation that supports the assertion of 1934. Especially since you deleted my citation of Michael Strauss Appendix 10, which your citation suggests as additional reading. ( Martin | talk • contribs 01:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC))
Here is a scan of the cited page in Appendix 10 demonstrating that the citation is valid. http://persistentvegetativestate.blogspot.com/2017/04/appendix-10-of-michael-strauss-book.html ( Martin | talk • contribs 03:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC))
The 1934 treaty did not change the amount, and did not change the amount for inflation, and did not mention that the US had gone off the gold standard. While one may surmise that something like that must have happened, and that it happened in 1934, is there any reliable documentation that that is what happened? Some source should be cited, so that that footnote can be checked for plausibility. There are many careless, even incorrect, writings about the history of the lease. ( Martin | talk • contribs 20:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)) There is some question about whether the amount was changed prior to 1973. Here is a quote from the Strauss book that questions an earlier modification to the lease amount: "amount is tendered as present equivalent in lawful money of US of (sic) gold coin referred to in agreement from 1934 (sic) when gold coinage was discontinued in the US., until May 8, 1972 value of old US gold dollars was fixed at $1.693125 in lawful money of US. On May 8th, 1972, value of old US gold dollars was adjusted to $1.83825 in lawful money of US.
Strauss does report that the "value of gold coin" was changed from 1.693125 dollars to 1.83825 dollars to 2.04250 dollars, the last two values being set in 1973 and 1974. This would mean that corresponding to the $1.693125 is a payment of $3386.25, to the $1.83825 value is a payment of $3675.50, and to the $2.04250 value is a payment of $4085.00. He does not state this exactly however, so it can be used only as a partial check on what other reliable sources say, as to the year of the change, possibly. ( Martin | talk • contribs 20:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC))
ok. Here is a post that says more specifically about the changes in rental payments. It's a blog, not suitable for a footnote in the article itself, but gives some ideas about what took place, by someone who has put more effort into looking for the facts than most of the people asked to do an article for the May issue. https://dwkcommentaries.com/tag/bahia-honda-cuba/ ( Martin | talk • contribs 13:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC))
Please tell me why you would call Cuba communist. Communism is stateless so you can't call Cuba communist can you? 2.28.242.51 ( talk) 18:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe that blogs, even carefully considered blogs, are not suitable for footnotes in the main article. I notice that dwkcommentaries is used in a footnote, and I do feel it should be removed, partly because the notion referenced is incorrect, and partly becauuse the source itself is not the standard type for a reference - ie it is the unchecked opinion of one person. ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC))
The footnote in question is [35] Does cuba have a right to terminate the lease. Clearly it does have that right. When the lease was negotiated, the US saw itself as a protector of Cuban independence, of the Cuban people, and the Cuban Government. The US had just fought on the Cuban side for the Cuban independence from Spain. Teddy Roosevelt was "a hero" at San Juan Hill. The lease (and you can easily check this yourself) was made with the intention that the US was a protector of Cuba, and the naval station allowed the US to continue to protect Cuba, while withdrawing its land forces. After the Bay of Pigs, it was clearly evident that the US had no intention to protect Cuba, and all Cuba was able to get was a promise to not invade again. This is a refusal to give Cuba somehting it had a right to exepect, and is a material breach of contract. No wonder the Cubans have repudiated the lease, as a material breach, not needing even to invoke the more general recognized international norm of "clausula rebus sic stantibus". (
Martin |
talk •
contribs 17:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC))
Just to be more complete, here are the reasons that could be advanced (as far as I know) that the lease is invalid:
>1 The lease was invalid when signed. Cuban president Palma who signed the lease exceeded his authority under the Cuban Constitution. The 1901 Cuban Constitution contained the restriction, from the Platt Amendment, That the government of Cuba shall never enter into any … compact with any foreign power … which will … permit [them] … to obtain … control over any portion of the island." The United States was and is a foreign power. Palma could have constitutionally signed a lease only for property not on “the island”. The lease does contain provisions for Cuba’s later acquisition of title to any lands leased to the US. The Isle of Pines was one such plausible source of lands.
>2 The initial conditions for the lease have never been fulfilled. The US must pay rent, as long as it occupies Guantanamo Bay and Bahia Honda Bay The United States of America agrees … to pay [Cuba] … as long as the former shall occupy … said areas of land by virtue of said agreement.” Since the US will never occupy Bahia Honda, the lease can never be consummated.
>3 Breach of the lease (Breach of contract)
When Cuba was invaded in the Bay of Pigs, the United States did not come to her defense. That the revolutionary government is the government that was owed protection is seen by the fact that the revolutionary government cashed the 1959 lease check, without objection from the United States. All the other benefits of the lease were due to them, as well.
Checks are not legal tender for the payment of any debt. The lease specifies pay in gold, not by check. The financial blockade makes checks problematic in addition to their being non-compliant.
The lease says rent is $2000 in gold coin, not $2000 in dollars. Some argue that “gold coin” is a unit of measure. [If so, what it measures is gold, not dollars. edited 7/13/2021 M Gugino] $2000 in gold was 99 ounces in 1933, when the US halted exchange of gold for dollars. In 2017, 99 ounces of gold is worth $125,000.
The prison is a zoning violation “for no other purpose”. It is not a brig. Pacta sunt servanda.
In 1940, the naval and coaling station was expanded to a Naval Base, without Cuba’s consent.
The US explicitly gave up the right to intervene in 1934, yet invaded in 1961, without the right. Kennedy’s promise to never again invade fell short of the USA’s obligation to protect Cuba.
>4 The terminating conditions of the lease have occurred .. The lease endures for “the time required”. Required by whom and for what purpose? The purpose of the station is to maintain the independence of Cuba, the protection of the Cuban people, and to defend the government of Cuba. The “government of Cuba” no longer requires the naval and coaling station for “its own defense”.
>5 International law - Clausula rebus sic stantibus This is an internationally recognized norm, especially applicable to long running agreements, when the underlying conditions make it inconceivable that one side will fulfill its promise to the other. In this case, it is inconceivable that the US will protect the Cuban government. The lease cannot be recognized as valid under international law, since international law cannot be used to uphold fantasy. ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand this: "also called GTMO because of the airfield designation code". The reference link given after the full sentence doesn't explain the "GTMO" at all. GTMO is not listed under ICAO airfield designation codes. Cuban codes start with MU and the article lists MUGM as the active airfield within the base, which once again raises the question - what is "GTMO" then? It should be either written or referenced what designation code system exactly is used here, because it clearly is not the most common ICAO airfield code system. Is there some kind of US Navy airfields designation code system? -- 62.65.213.54 ( talk) 13:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
And back to the same old . . . Since 23 May this year the lead in this article has been saying, "(also called GTMO, pronounced Gitmo as an acronym, by the U.S. military)".
The abbreviation "GTMO" is incorrectly listed as an acronym at The Free Dictionary.
It is surely clear that "GTMO" is NOT an acronym. Wikipedia defines an acronym as "a word or name formed from the initial components of a longer name or phrase". Of all dictionaries and English language reference works usually regarded as authoritative, e.g. Collins, Webster's, Oxford and Cambridge I have not found one that does not state either explicitly or directly that an acronym is derived from a name or description consisting of more than one word. "GTMO" is clearly an abbreviation created by the selection of a few letters from just one word, "Guantanamo". It therefore does not qualify as an acronym.
abbreviations.com correctly lists it as a "term".
Neither is it, properly speaking, any kind of code. In fact, it is simply an abbreviation, conventionally written in military style block caps and conventionally (or lazily?) pronounced as a word "Gitmo", with the vowel added to make the pronunciation easier.
Any other representations, opinions or further information should be made here within 7 days. Given none, after that time, the article will be corrected thus: "also abbreviated GTMO, usually pronounced Gitmo by the U.S. military and others ..." Hedles ( talk) 22:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Person only notable for his connexion with Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Tacyarg ( talk) 20:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 ( talk) 10:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base → Guantánamo Bay Naval Base – It might be a good idea to align this article with the diacritic that is seen on Guantánamo Bay Dawnseeker2000 02:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Under the header "Detention camp" the first sentence of the second paragraph says "the base was used to detain several hundred enemy combatants". This is false as is commonly known. It would be correct to say i.e. "the base was used to detain several hundred men that were accused of being enemy combatants". -- Querstrebe ( talk) 22:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
It appears to me that the United States is in violation of the lease in several ways, including the mode of payment and the permited uses. The lack of a term also suggests the lease was not an agreement between equals. Even the British returned Hong Kong after 99 years!
I think the article should address this issue. I expect the situation has been assessed in secondary sources. Can someone come up with a neutral reference, ideally from the international law viewpoint? Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 21:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
The summary of the "agreement" introduction does not reflect any of the text of that section. Martin | talk • contribs 17:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 7 July 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Guantánamo Bay Naval Base. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Archive 1: November 2004 – August 2005 |
Does anyone have any issue with adding a portion regarding the Cuzco Wells Cemetery aboard the base? User:Aneah 02:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Can some change the climate table to list Fahrenheit first, as that is the standard used on the base itself? 98.221.141.21 ( talk) 23:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I am curious which steps Cuba has taken to force the closure of the camp. Military action is out of the question unless it can be made diplomatically unpaletable for the U.S. to respon militarily, but what about proxy attemps through the OAS or through the UN? It seems like there is a lack of popular demand for the action in Cuba, despite it being the U.S. on their land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.249.83 ( talk) 19:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
There are recordings of two phone calls between LBJ and McNamara that refer to this event, which are available at http://www.archive.org/details/lbj640207
Perhaps, this article can mention these. Alidev ( talk) 15:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible for someone to archive the talk page? There are items on here are rather old. Recommendation is archive pre-2010. Thanks! User:Aneah 17:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Updated a dead link on this point, and re-wrote a sentence that cited the article as standing for the proposition that the uncashed checks from the US to Cuba for G-Bay "are kept" in Castro's desk. Upon reviewing the 2007 article, it actually says that years ago in a television interview the checks were shown by Castro as being stuffed in a desk. Since the article is 4 years old, and in any case, does not claim that the checks were still kept in the desk at the time of publication (and cannot attest to the current state of affairs in 2011), I felt it would be more accurate to say Castro once showed the checks stuffed in his desk, since that's really all the source verifies.
It begs the question though, is it even necessary to mention that at one point (and possibly still) the checks are stuffed in Castro's desk? Perhaps it plays a part in showing Castro's disdain for the checks and contention that G-Bay is invalidly occupied by the US?
USC Law Attorney ( talk) 12:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
USC Law Attorney ( talk) 12:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
But then again, for so many years, having quite a bit of fighting forces around the base... kind of hard not to "acknowledge" spending that kind of money... User:Aneah 06:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I moved pretty much all of the detail about the lease to the wikipedia article about the lease itself. ( Martin | talk • contribs 20:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)) Update: I see that the linked to page ahs been changed to a disambiguation page on the treaty of relations. The Treaty of Relations mentions the lease, but is not central to it. ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC))
Many articles have a "Representation in The Media section" that list instances of the topic appearing in movies, TV shows, novels, etc. Guantanamo Naval Base features prominently in the notable movie A Few Good Men but this is not mentioned in the article. Has this been discussed before? Vincent ( talk) 05:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Recently, there was a Who tag placed in the text referring to the two people that still(?) pass through the Northeast gate into the base daily in order to perform their job. I'm not sure whether it is significant or not to name these people and was wondering if anyone could possibly offer some clarification. The only notoriety that these two individuals have is that they have been passing through the gate to work on the base since 1959. Any input on this is welcome. User:Aneah 13:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I've glanced through the page history and archives and I can't find anything about where someone stated that the WP:OP tag was being applied and for what reason. If anyone can provide any information with regards to this, great. If not, then the tag should be removed. User:Aneah 04:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
in the Spanish American war paragraph
The Marines landed with naval support, requiring Cuban scouts to push off Spanish resistance that increased as they moved inland. ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC))
I have submitted this IP to the administrators [3] for consideration due to continuous unconstructive edits to this page.
Genocidas malparidos y encima lamebotas del Pentágono... say nothing, see no evil, hear no evil; dimwitted knownothings. Are you all so devoid of any conscience or so ignorant to unquestionably parrot the word of the Pentagon regarding the usurped Cuban territory to set up a torture center, not only violating Cuban sovereignity but openly carrying out a vicious blockade of Cuba for over half a century?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.254.71 ( talk) 22:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
This article: ^ Anthony Boadle. "Castro: Cuba not cashing U.S. Guantanamo rent checks". Reuters. Retrieved 17 October 2013. says that the payment is monthly. This is incorrect. I will try to locate a correct source online. Note that this detail is in the "Main" article, so it is a judgment call as to how much needs to be be included in this summary. How relevant is the payment? ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC))
The main article on the lease does discuss the lease amount, and has the same article referenced, although noting that the payment period is incorrectly reported in the article, and that the annual payment is due on July 2nd, the effective date of the lease (see the original lease agreement).( Martin | talk • contribs 04:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC))
The paragraph "Spanish Colonial Era" talks about the British. Where is Spain?? ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC))
The lead says "leased [...] for $2,000 until 1934, for $4,085 since 1938 until now". Refs are missing. $2,000 and $4,085 what per what? $2,000 million per year? $2,000 per month? What the heck are we trying to say? -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 19:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
For he record, it seems that every USN source lists Gitmo as "Naval Station Guantanamo Bay", not "Guantanamo Bay Naval Base", (and without the accent above the 'a'). Personally I think the page should be moved, but I see there was a quite a bit debate about this in the past. Thoughts anyone? - theWOLFchild 04:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The payment of $2,000 was increased to $4,085 in 1934. ref Kramer, Paul (July 30, 2013). "A Useful Corner of the World: Guantánamo". The New Yorker. Retrieved June 16, 2016. /ref The new amount was paid by checks from the United States Treasury, payable to "The Treasurer General of the Republic". ref name="rent"> "Castro: Cuba not cashing US Guantanamo rent checks". Reuters. 17 August 2007. /rf
The lease amount was changed in 1973 to $3676.50 and in 1974 to $4085. See Michael J Strauss "The leasing of Guantanamo" Prager Security International, Appendix 10 quoting a diplomatic cable of May 18 1973, and one of May 8, 1974. ( Martin | talk • contribs 18:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC))
The reference below does not substantiate the change in payment amount to the current level.
ref Elsea, Jennifer K.; Else, Daniel H. (November 17, 2016). Naval Station Guantanamo Bay: History and Legal Issues Regarding Its Lease Agreements (PDF). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 9 December 2016. /ref
( Martin | talk • contribs 21:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC))
I took off the carets because something was not working. Could not figure it out. Dropped text
There isn't one. It looks like there should be? Jd2718 ( talk) 02:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
The article says the year that the rental payment was change was 1934. There is no original document that supports this change in rent, even though any change to the lease must be by mutual consent (per the one document that year - the 1934 Treaty of Relations). On the other hand, the book I cited, which has been reverted, Michael Strauss's "the leasing of Guantanamo Bay" has in appendix 12, documents that suggest a much later date. And appendix 10 indicates that the dates of the two changes to the rental amount were 1973 and 1974. ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)) I will upload images of those pages for those of you who do not have access to the excellent book, as time allows ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)) Table of contents here : http://www.gbv.de/dms/spk/sbb/toc/590933531.pdf
I naturally object to the unsubstantiated reversion ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC))
Please do not remove the [Citation needed|reason=Cited PDF does not support year 1934|date=April 2017] without providing a citation that supports the assertion of 1934. Especially since you deleted my citation of Michael Strauss Appendix 10, which your citation suggests as additional reading. ( Martin | talk • contribs 01:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC))
Here is a scan of the cited page in Appendix 10 demonstrating that the citation is valid. http://persistentvegetativestate.blogspot.com/2017/04/appendix-10-of-michael-strauss-book.html ( Martin | talk • contribs 03:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC))
The 1934 treaty did not change the amount, and did not change the amount for inflation, and did not mention that the US had gone off the gold standard. While one may surmise that something like that must have happened, and that it happened in 1934, is there any reliable documentation that that is what happened? Some source should be cited, so that that footnote can be checked for plausibility. There are many careless, even incorrect, writings about the history of the lease. ( Martin | talk • contribs 20:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)) There is some question about whether the amount was changed prior to 1973. Here is a quote from the Strauss book that questions an earlier modification to the lease amount: "amount is tendered as present equivalent in lawful money of US of (sic) gold coin referred to in agreement from 1934 (sic) when gold coinage was discontinued in the US., until May 8, 1972 value of old US gold dollars was fixed at $1.693125 in lawful money of US. On May 8th, 1972, value of old US gold dollars was adjusted to $1.83825 in lawful money of US.
Strauss does report that the "value of gold coin" was changed from 1.693125 dollars to 1.83825 dollars to 2.04250 dollars, the last two values being set in 1973 and 1974. This would mean that corresponding to the $1.693125 is a payment of $3386.25, to the $1.83825 value is a payment of $3675.50, and to the $2.04250 value is a payment of $4085.00. He does not state this exactly however, so it can be used only as a partial check on what other reliable sources say, as to the year of the change, possibly. ( Martin | talk • contribs 20:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC))
ok. Here is a post that says more specifically about the changes in rental payments. It's a blog, not suitable for a footnote in the article itself, but gives some ideas about what took place, by someone who has put more effort into looking for the facts than most of the people asked to do an article for the May issue. https://dwkcommentaries.com/tag/bahia-honda-cuba/ ( Martin | talk • contribs 13:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC))
Please tell me why you would call Cuba communist. Communism is stateless so you can't call Cuba communist can you? 2.28.242.51 ( talk) 18:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe that blogs, even carefully considered blogs, are not suitable for footnotes in the main article. I notice that dwkcommentaries is used in a footnote, and I do feel it should be removed, partly because the notion referenced is incorrect, and partly becauuse the source itself is not the standard type for a reference - ie it is the unchecked opinion of one person. ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC))
The footnote in question is [35] Does cuba have a right to terminate the lease. Clearly it does have that right. When the lease was negotiated, the US saw itself as a protector of Cuban independence, of the Cuban people, and the Cuban Government. The US had just fought on the Cuban side for the Cuban independence from Spain. Teddy Roosevelt was "a hero" at San Juan Hill. The lease (and you can easily check this yourself) was made with the intention that the US was a protector of Cuba, and the naval station allowed the US to continue to protect Cuba, while withdrawing its land forces. After the Bay of Pigs, it was clearly evident that the US had no intention to protect Cuba, and all Cuba was able to get was a promise to not invade again. This is a refusal to give Cuba somehting it had a right to exepect, and is a material breach of contract. No wonder the Cubans have repudiated the lease, as a material breach, not needing even to invoke the more general recognized international norm of "clausula rebus sic stantibus". (
Martin |
talk •
contribs 17:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC))
Just to be more complete, here are the reasons that could be advanced (as far as I know) that the lease is invalid:
>1 The lease was invalid when signed. Cuban president Palma who signed the lease exceeded his authority under the Cuban Constitution. The 1901 Cuban Constitution contained the restriction, from the Platt Amendment, That the government of Cuba shall never enter into any … compact with any foreign power … which will … permit [them] … to obtain … control over any portion of the island." The United States was and is a foreign power. Palma could have constitutionally signed a lease only for property not on “the island”. The lease does contain provisions for Cuba’s later acquisition of title to any lands leased to the US. The Isle of Pines was one such plausible source of lands.
>2 The initial conditions for the lease have never been fulfilled. The US must pay rent, as long as it occupies Guantanamo Bay and Bahia Honda Bay The United States of America agrees … to pay [Cuba] … as long as the former shall occupy … said areas of land by virtue of said agreement.” Since the US will never occupy Bahia Honda, the lease can never be consummated.
>3 Breach of the lease (Breach of contract)
When Cuba was invaded in the Bay of Pigs, the United States did not come to her defense. That the revolutionary government is the government that was owed protection is seen by the fact that the revolutionary government cashed the 1959 lease check, without objection from the United States. All the other benefits of the lease were due to them, as well.
Checks are not legal tender for the payment of any debt. The lease specifies pay in gold, not by check. The financial blockade makes checks problematic in addition to their being non-compliant.
The lease says rent is $2000 in gold coin, not $2000 in dollars. Some argue that “gold coin” is a unit of measure. [If so, what it measures is gold, not dollars. edited 7/13/2021 M Gugino] $2000 in gold was 99 ounces in 1933, when the US halted exchange of gold for dollars. In 2017, 99 ounces of gold is worth $125,000.
The prison is a zoning violation “for no other purpose”. It is not a brig. Pacta sunt servanda.
In 1940, the naval and coaling station was expanded to a Naval Base, without Cuba’s consent.
The US explicitly gave up the right to intervene in 1934, yet invaded in 1961, without the right. Kennedy’s promise to never again invade fell short of the USA’s obligation to protect Cuba.
>4 The terminating conditions of the lease have occurred .. The lease endures for “the time required”. Required by whom and for what purpose? The purpose of the station is to maintain the independence of Cuba, the protection of the Cuban people, and to defend the government of Cuba. The “government of Cuba” no longer requires the naval and coaling station for “its own defense”.
>5 International law - Clausula rebus sic stantibus This is an internationally recognized norm, especially applicable to long running agreements, when the underlying conditions make it inconceivable that one side will fulfill its promise to the other. In this case, it is inconceivable that the US will protect the Cuban government. The lease cannot be recognized as valid under international law, since international law cannot be used to uphold fantasy. ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand this: "also called GTMO because of the airfield designation code". The reference link given after the full sentence doesn't explain the "GTMO" at all. GTMO is not listed under ICAO airfield designation codes. Cuban codes start with MU and the article lists MUGM as the active airfield within the base, which once again raises the question - what is "GTMO" then? It should be either written or referenced what designation code system exactly is used here, because it clearly is not the most common ICAO airfield code system. Is there some kind of US Navy airfields designation code system? -- 62.65.213.54 ( talk) 13:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
And back to the same old . . . Since 23 May this year the lead in this article has been saying, "(also called GTMO, pronounced Gitmo as an acronym, by the U.S. military)".
The abbreviation "GTMO" is incorrectly listed as an acronym at The Free Dictionary.
It is surely clear that "GTMO" is NOT an acronym. Wikipedia defines an acronym as "a word or name formed from the initial components of a longer name or phrase". Of all dictionaries and English language reference works usually regarded as authoritative, e.g. Collins, Webster's, Oxford and Cambridge I have not found one that does not state either explicitly or directly that an acronym is derived from a name or description consisting of more than one word. "GTMO" is clearly an abbreviation created by the selection of a few letters from just one word, "Guantanamo". It therefore does not qualify as an acronym.
abbreviations.com correctly lists it as a "term".
Neither is it, properly speaking, any kind of code. In fact, it is simply an abbreviation, conventionally written in military style block caps and conventionally (or lazily?) pronounced as a word "Gitmo", with the vowel added to make the pronunciation easier.
Any other representations, opinions or further information should be made here within 7 days. Given none, after that time, the article will be corrected thus: "also abbreviated GTMO, usually pronounced Gitmo by the U.S. military and others ..." Hedles ( talk) 22:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Person only notable for his connexion with Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Tacyarg ( talk) 20:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 ( talk) 10:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base → Guantánamo Bay Naval Base – It might be a good idea to align this article with the diacritic that is seen on Guantánamo Bay Dawnseeker2000 02:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Under the header "Detention camp" the first sentence of the second paragraph says "the base was used to detain several hundred enemy combatants". This is false as is commonly known. It would be correct to say i.e. "the base was used to detain several hundred men that were accused of being enemy combatants". -- Querstrebe ( talk) 22:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
It appears to me that the United States is in violation of the lease in several ways, including the mode of payment and the permited uses. The lack of a term also suggests the lease was not an agreement between equals. Even the British returned Hong Kong after 99 years!
I think the article should address this issue. I expect the situation has been assessed in secondary sources. Can someone come up with a neutral reference, ideally from the international law viewpoint? Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 21:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
The summary of the "agreement" introduction does not reflect any of the text of that section. Martin | talk • contribs 17:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)