Talk:Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

Cemetery

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)

I saw that there was a cemetary there. I think that is somewhat remarkable - to have a cemetary (for US personnel??) on a leased military base? Is that usual? Is it allowed by the terms of the lease? (Did they conger with the Cuban government?) Do you know when it "started", or who authorized it, etc... ( Martin | talk • contribs 05:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC))

Fahrenheit First

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)

Never mind, I'll just do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.141.21 (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Cuban Attempts to Force Closure

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)

Yes I have the same question. I did see somewhere that Cuba introduced at resolution at the UN, but then withdrew it. I did not see the purpose of the resolution, or understand the reason for the withdrawl, but I assume it was an objection of some sort, and withdrawn for lack of support. ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC))

Technically, the Cuban government does not recognize the base at Guantanamo. Also, the United States and Cuba do not have official diplomatic relations, although a small office exists in Havana. Speculatively, the Cuban government would not do anything to force the closure of the camp. I would further speculate that until US/Cuban relations exist, then the view of the Cuban government would be to ignore the camp, unless there is something that would get passed which would also allow the base to be shut down and the property therein returned to the Cuban government. Militarily, force would be out of the question. While the base's defenses are minimal compared to that of the Cuban army nearby, the possible threat of retaliation that exists from bases in Florida, may help to keep things in a permanent state of check. Aneah|talk _to ^me 06:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"Technically"? They do not recognize the legality of the base, but they know it is there, and as I noted just above, they do at times object officially. As you point out, the base hardly needs more than the fence as a protection from Cuba. In the '60s, there was talk of false flag operations to serve as an incident, reported in Johnathan Hansen's book. The Cuban Interest Section in Washington DC[1], as it happens, is being forced to close just now (26 November 2013 article), due, undoubtedly, to some US policy. [2]( Martin | talk • contribs 05:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC))

The water crisis in 1964

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)

Archive

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)

Checks stuffed in drawers...

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)

It's been rumored for years that Castro keeps the checks in a filing cabinet, his desk, or a cigar box. Until someone can come up with something verifiable, the point is moot. The checks are not cashed. My understanding is that his belief is that cashing the checks is akin to acknowledging the base.

acknowledging the base? The base is not legitimate. It was leased under duress, which was normal for the time, but is no longer. In addition, both sides need to abide by the terms of the lease, and the US is in material, fundamental, and anticipatory breach. Only a valid lease can make the base legitimate. ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC))

USC, by "begs the question" I assume you mean "raises the question". I am confident that you have heard of the distinction; surprised that you use the frowned-on meaning when a normal phrase is available. ( Martin | talk • contribs 00:01, 25 March 2013 (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))

A Few Good Men

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)

The problem with a "Representation in the Media section" affords much in the way of interpretation. Yes, A Few Good Men presents a lot of of content from Gitmo, however, many of the representations would wind up portraying more of the detention camp, which should fall under the those appropriate categories. This article, is more of a representation of the base itself, which does have a history that is notable aside from the detention facilities. It may be something that could be linked as a list on a separate article divided into Fictional and Non-fictional sections. Some items would include a Few Good Men, Bad Boys 2 (where at the end of the movie they wind up at the Northeast Gate attempting entry), the Harold and Kumar movie, the Michael Moore movie, several books (fiction and non-fiction) etc. User:Aneah 13:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Two Cubans

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)

The last two have retired. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKEs4mE7INs at 7:15 ( Martin | talk • contribs 02:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC))

WP:OR?

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)

What does this sentence mean?

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))

Interesting. I never really noticed that before. I typed the whole sentence into Google and it came up on a variety of web sites. It definitely needs to be re-written. Aneah|talk _to ^me 20:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:131.204.254.71

I have submitted this IP to the administrators[3] for consideration due to continuous unconstructive edits to this page.

User has been temporarily blocked by adminstrators. Aneah|talk _to ^me 20:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

I have to agree with 131.204.254.71. The thing literally happened — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.242.51 (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Cited article is not correct

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))

Spanish Colonial Era

The paragraph "Spanish Colonial Era" talks about the British. Where is Spain?? ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC))

It's in South-Eastern Europe. Why? 2A0A:EF40:122D:7801:2822:3B37:8963:DB4F (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Leased

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)

Originally, it was $2,000 per year payable in U.S. gold coins. When the U.S. stopped making those for general circulation in 1934, it was recalculated based on what the original amount was worth then. Since the revolution, the U.S. has been sending Cuba a check every year, which is never cashed, because Cuba rejects the treaty. Jonathunder (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the "recalculation" was unilateral. I see no documentation about the payment change. One of the cited articles says that the Treaty of 1934 changed the rental amount; however if you examine the text of the treaty, this is not mentioned. ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC))

An issue is raise whether the US can unilaterally - for any reason - change the payment. I think at the least that any change to an agreement would need to be by agreement. Obvious, no? ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC))

The lease amounts have been recalculated on a few more occasions. Straus's book documents this. ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC))

Name

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)

deleted text that cites an inaccurate New Yorker article

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

Section on Cuban claim

There isn't one. It looks like there should be? Jd2718 (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, someone with reputable sources can add a new section about Cuba's claim to the area. The opening section already has some sources after this sentence: "At the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2013, Cuba's Foreign Minister demanded the U.S. return the base and the "usurped territory"..." that may help to find more information. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm better at locating sources than at writing, and I certainly no longer know how to properly format citations in WP articles.

That the claim is contemporary - 2 sources, Washington Post 3/21/16 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/03/21/cuba-wants-back-the-illegally-occupied-base-at-guantanamo-the-u-s-isnt-budging/ - Guardian, same day, likely identical original source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/21/raul-castro-demands-return-guantanamo-bay-obama-visit

That the Cubans have, since 1959, rejected the agreement - 1 sources - report from pepperdine, 1999, at then very end in appendix B quote "The Castro government does not recognize that treaty. Every year a formal ceremony is held by the Cuban government and the lease-payment check is officially burned. " https://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/master-public-policy/content/capstones/rethinkingcuba.pdf

That the Cubans have, since 1959, rejected the agreement - of the 5 sources in the article's current lede, 1 is a dead link, one is a book (I do not have access, one does not directly address the issue, one is a good source, and one is probably a primary source: Good: new.com (Australian) title "Cuba says US must shut Guantanamo Bay" http://www.news.com.au/world/force-feeding-hunger-strikers-breaches-law/news-story/662992e7699bd35e09706aca32bae1be Likely primary: a translation from a Cuban ministry of foreign affairs publication is probably a primary, not a secondary source "Guantanamo Yankee Naval Base of Crimes and Provocations" a translation of "GUANTANAMO, BASE NAVAL YANQUI DE CRIMENES Y PROVOCACIONES" 1977 Guantanamo, Yankee naval base of crimes and provocations, 1970, (Cuban) Ministry of Foreign Affairs, translated 1977 by U.S. Joint Publications Research Service (PDF)

Would this be enough to create a section? Jd2718 (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Those sources are enough material to use for adding a section about Cuba's claim to the base. I may do it, but not in the next few days.

For citing references, one easy way is add the webpage between ref tags, so it looks like: <ref>https://use_the_exact_link_between_tags</ref> then save the editing changes. Goto Refill and type in the article's name then click Fix page; finally, save changes again to show proper references. --Frmorrison (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The change of the rental amount. Michael Strauss says it was 1973 and again in 1974

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 article should recognize that sources disagree. There are A LOT of sources that support the 1934 date. And only one that supports 1973 and 1974. Could be Strauss is right, but calling his book "excellent" does not settle the matter. Jd2718 (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears that both parties are correct. In 1934, the rent of 2,000 in gold was converted to be over 3,000 so that dollars could be sent instead of gold. In 1973 and 1974, the payments were adjusted again. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there a source for the 1934 date for a change in amount? I have not seen one, nor have you cited one. Strauss not only "says" the amount was changed in 1973 and again in 1974, but prints an except from the government instructions that order that change. This is the only source I know of that reports the date of the change in payment amount. The Department of State did not reply to a relevant FOIA on the issue, and since any change to the lease agreement requires the assent of Cuba, there should be some documentation on that assent which would also demonstrate the date. None of this is available or appears to have happened.(!) I have also gone to the National Archives outside of DC (in Maryland) to try to find a ledger showing the amount that the US has sent, but my one visit was not successful, and other planned attempts have been thwarted by weather (snow day) or more pressing business. So far this is all I have found. There are of course many careless articles (like the rent is "monthly"), but these can be seen as unreliable. And I note that the article that you cite does refer to Michael Strauss, as one of four, for "further reading". ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC))

The 1934 date is the date of the new Treaty of Relations, but that new treaty is a revision of the 1903 Treaty of Relations, and not a revision of the lease agreement. In fact, the 1934 Treaty of Relations goes to great pains to insist that it (the 1934 treaty) is not changing the lease agreement. It does seem, I agree, that it makes one change, one modification, to the health clause, in Article IV. It does not however mention changing the payment from "in gold" to "by check". So there's that problem with your theory. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/dip_cuba001.asp ( Martin | talk • contribs 19:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC))

You seem to like your source, which is ok. But as you are trying to interpret the treaty, you have begun to engage in Original Research which is not.

Here a handful of sources that claim 1934, they are very easy to find, I'm including them as naked links: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/05/15/why-the-u-s-base-at-cubas-guantanamo-bay-is-probably-doomed/ http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/guantanamo-bay/ https://newrepublic.com/article/119503/guantanamo-bay-costs-mindboggling-expenses-running-prison http://www.concordmonitor.com/Articles/2016/03/From-Archives/bocbaird-cmforum-030916

The 1934 treaty says the US gets to make the rules over the leased area, and in that same year the Gold Reserve Act required that all US goverment payments were to be made in dollars instead of gold (this removed the gold standard), so some point, the value of 2,000 dollars of gold in 1903 was converted to 1934 US dollars in the yearly lease payment. In appendix 10 of the book shows that the payment was set in 1974 to be 4,085, but not in 1934. I will add a new source for it. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the post below is long, but here is the essential objection - the 1934 Treaty of Relations does not mention the rent. Articles that say that the rent was changed in 1934 must cite some source other than the 1934 Treaty of Relations. They do not do this. They do not cite anything, but they seem to be referring to the 1934 Treaty of Relations. They are simply not correct. Read that document for yourselves. It is two pages. Not hard.

A) Here is the problem with the first citation (the Washington Post article)

It says in the article "A second lease, signed in 1934, similarly embraced uncertainty. It raised the rent to $4,085, but provided no termination date. The agreement could be ended by American withdrawal or by a bilateral settlement, but not by Cuban action alone."

1. the 1934 Treaty of Relations does not mention the rent.

2. He says "second lease". The 1934 Treaty of Relations is not a "second lease" It goes out of its way to say that the original lease is still in force.

(4/23) 3. The washington post article says the rent was raised to $4000 in 1934, and quotes a New Yorker article. The New Yorker article says something else: that in 1934 the rent was raised to $4085.

NOTE: As far as "original research", I dont think that actually reading the source document to find out what it says should be called "original research". The point of the tag "original research" is that "original research" material cannot be verified, because it has not been published, but the 1934 Treaty of Relations is online for anyone to look at if they care to. See Yale, the Avalon project. Or Google.

B) Here is the problem with the second citation (the Crime Museum)

1. the 1934 Treaty of Relations does not mention the rent.

2. It says "By 1934, The Platt Amendment was annulled." Abrogated. And it was the 1903 Treaty of Relations that was abrogated, not the Platt Amendment. This is a careless handing of the various documents. And it was "In 1934", not "By 1934".

3. This new document increased the amount of money that the US paid Cuba, an increase of $2,000". That would be $2000 $2000=$4000. That is the first time I have seen that number ($4000). And how did he learn that? No citation for this assertion.

C) Here is the problem with the third citation (The New Republic)

1. the 1934 Treaty of Relations does not mention the rent.

2. the article says "a reaffirmed treaty stated". The lease was reaffirmed, not the treaty. The old treaty was abrogated. The new treaty was negotiated.

3. the article says "could only be terminated with the consent of both the U.S. and Cuba."

3a. Yes, but any lease can be terminated by mutual consent.

3b. The new treaty does state that the US can abandon the property unilaterally, as the lease also implies. So "only" gives the wrong impression. It implies that Cuba could keep us there forever.

4. The article says "In 1934, the lease was converted to dollars (the equivalent of $4,085 today)" Here the claim is not that the rent was raised by $2000 to $4000, as in the previous citation but that the cost of gold coins had risen so that $2000 in gold coins cost $4,085 to buy. The lease does not require that gold coins minted in 1903 be used to pay the lease, so it is not clear what this sentence could mean. Does it mean that gold coins with a face value of $2000 actually cost $4,085 to acquire? That seems unworkable and unlikely historically for currency, if you think about it. Again, any evidence? Or did he just make this up as what probably might have happened?

D} Here is the problem with of the fourth citation (The Concord Monitor)

1. It does not say what you say it says. It says "The United States later upped the amount it paid for the lease to $4,085 a month." Later. When is later?

2. The claim that Roosevelt may the lease permanent is misleading. The lease is for the time required. The 1934 Treaty of Relations does say that the US can leave early, but that right can also be found in the payment terms in the original 1903 lease. Does permanent mean that we will never leave no matter what? What president would commit to that?

( Martin | talk • contribs 22:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC))

-----

It may be that the US went off the gold standards in 1933, but how or why that should affect the obligation to pay in gold coin is not clear, and how the US can unilaterally decide not to acquire gold coins from someplace else is also not clear. ( Martin | talk • contribs 01:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC))

-----

You say, above, that "The 1934 treaty says the US gets to make the rules over the leased area". The 1934 Treaty of Relations does not say this or address this question. Article III of the first of the two lease documents does address jurisdiction. ( Martin | talk • contribs 01:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC))

The Wikipedia page on Original Research, section on primary and secondary sources describes what you are doing: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Jd2718 (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there some sentence in particular that you find to be incorrect, or unverifiable? I don't quite understand what it is that you object to. ( Martin | talk • contribs 03:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC))

You are interpreting the treaty directly. That is WP:Original Research. I urge you to read the policy in its entirety. Jd2718 (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The articles you cite above claim that the rental amount was changed in 1934. Strauss's work is a secondary work and his work is the one I cite as the source for a later date: a secondary source. "Your" author's breezy sentences do not agree with each other. I looked at the 1934 treaty to see if any of your sources had some support, but I didn't find anything there that makes me think that Strauss is incorrect. Strauss's book, by comparison, seems to me to be a much more careful source. It has copies of checks, and of relevant government cables. It's an entire book on the lease. Google did not scan his book, but you must be able to get through inter-library loan, or at the local law school. I got it on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Leasing-Guantanamo-Praeger-Security-International/dp/0313377820 ( Martin | talk • contribs 00:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC))

You are not citing Strauss, but the treaty in the appendix. That is a reproduction of a primary source. You are arguing whether other sources are correct or incorrect based on your direct reading of the treaty. That is Original Research. Jd2718 (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The appendix does not cite the treaty. It is an excerpt from the cable that Strauss included to shed some light on when and how the change in rental amount happened. You will note that it says "extraneous material deleted". (Did you find the book, by the way?) I think you are out on a limb here. I really came to post this slightly larger except from his book that I ran across, not related specifically to this topic, but just because he is such a careful writer: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1276292.files/leasing of guantanamo bay.pdf ( Martin | talk • contribs 15:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC))

Do you think that page viii in the table of contents is not secondary and/or is not indicative of a change in amount in those years?Your concern seems to be that there might be a novel way to interpret the digits 1973 or 1974. ( Martin | talk • contribs 16:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC))

For those who are interested, here is more about Michael Strauss [4] He teaches at a school for diplomats, in Paris[5]. ( Martin | talk • contribs 16:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC))

rental amount changed for inflation in 1934 - citation needed

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))

Communism is stateless.. So why call Cuba communist if it's a state?

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)

If I recall correcctly, there was an argument in Russia over the idea of "communism in one state", when they more or less dropped the idea of world-wide revolution as a practical matter, leaving the battle one assumes to the inexorable collapse of capitalism, ie to God. In any case, the use of the concept of a "communist state", ie the recognition of existence of places that are not communist, seems to have occurred in the past without much logical anguish. ( Martin | talk • contribs 17:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC))

dwkcommentaries - not a proper footnote for the main article

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)

- #1 Material Breach - Failure to perform

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.

- #2 Material Breach - Non payment

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.

- #3 Material Breach - Partial payment

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.

- #4 Material Breach - Zoning

The prison is a zoning violation “for no other purpose”. It is not a brig. Pacta sunt servanda.

- #5 Material Breach - Zoning

In 1940, the naval and coaling station was expanded to a Naval Base, without Cuba’s consent.

- #6 Anticipatory Breach of 1903 lease and Material Breach of 1934 Treaty.

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))

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120520013640/http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16/46550.htm to http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16/46550.htm

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

GTMO - what code system?

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)

Thanks for pointing that out, GTMO is not the airport code (MUGM is that one) but GTMO was used as an abbreviation of Guantanamo. See this 1940s ID badge for an usage of GMTO. Also in the 1960s, the newspaper was called the Gitmo Review. The IP editor that wrote that GTMO was used as the airfield code back on 15 September 2015 has been copied incorrectly hundreds of times. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

GTMO - NOT an acronym either

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)

Proposed merge with Erik Saar

Person only notable for his connexion with Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Tacyarg (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Nonsensical suggestion, the guy is, after all, the author of a book. Suppose someone wants to review books by former GIs, and has no interest in Guantanamo? Geo Swan (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Tacyarg, Erik Saar description and description of his book should stand alone.kdcaseycole42

Oppose merge, on the grounds that the book has received coverage sufficient to warrant independent notability. It might be better to move the page to the title of the book, discussing the author also on that page (per WP:1E). Klbrain (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Closing, given the consensus not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (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)

• Oppose per references cited in the article, the accent is not used. 162 etc. (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

enemy combatants

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)

Violation of the lease agreement

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)

Normal US contract law should be enough to invalidate the lease. The lease (as any agreement) imposes obligations on both parties, and the US has abandoned any pretense of defending the Cuban government (see the opening agreement). A close reading of the lease betrays many material breaches by the us, giving Cuba the right to repudiate, which it does at the UN each year. Just done recently for 2022.

If you want to look at international law, pretty much for the purposes of allowing other nations to say that they feel that the lease is no longer in force, if it ever was, you could point to the simple "pacta sunt servanda" which asserts that promises must be kept. It is an international norm, and also self-evident. This is not rocket science.( Martin | talk • contribs 02:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC))

Improper summary of "Agreement"

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)

What do you propose that would be better? Anastrophe (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

the current text is close enough. But note that no lease is "permanent" and is not called "Permanent" in the lease. Note that the USA can walk away from the lease, and Cuba cannot force them to stay. Also the usual reasons for termination apply: material breach, anticipatory breach, and mundane stuff like non-payment of rent.( Martin | talk • contribs 02:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC))