How come Gulag Guantanamo is on Cuba?

Question

I mean, how come America can run this weird prison where they can hold people forever without charging them, or letting them see a lawyer, or have their day in court, or any other normal civil right that any other prisoner may have, and they do it all on Cuba? What kind of a world does America want for God's sake?

Answer 1

Some of the other posters here should see a video called "The Road to Guantanamo". It describes the misery three young British muslim men were put through when they were picked up as "foreign fighters" while on an innocent trip. It's now believed that most of the people held in Guantanamo were not terrorists.

The US has never treated prisoners of war this way before. By using weasle words to get around the legalities, Bush and Co. are calling these people "combatants and terrorists" rather than POWs. POWs have rights under the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention was grudgingly abided by during WWII by the Nazis! It disturbs me that my country is now weasling around and behaving in such an immoral and probably illegal way.

There is proof that the US has tortured these people. Torture doesn't produce good leads; people will tell you anything to keep from being hurt. This immoral behavior doesn't even have the benefit of producing good information! I never thought Americans would stoop to this level.

I hope that the World Court will look into this some day. I sincerely believe that Rumsfeld and others should be tried in the Hauge for crimes against humanity.

Anything goes in war, one poster said. Nope. Not until now. There was the Geneva Convention which came about after WWI when the Germans behaved horribly by gassing British, Canadian and US troops. The US promoted the Geneva Convention, guaranteeing humane treatment of POWs, and now we don't follow it ourselves. That's very sad. Even if the people we're holding were horrible people, and I'm not convinced that they are, why should the US stoop to that level? Like your mama told you, two wrongs don't make a right. I thought we were better than that.

Want to question my patriotism? Don't. My family has been in this country for 400 years this year. We were Jamestown settlers. I also have ancestors who met that boat :-) (Shawnee and Cherokee ancestors.) My family has had men fight in every war from colonial times to the present. One son is a former army medic (who served in Gulf I) and two grandsons are in the Marines at present. One of the boys did two tours in Iraq. My son-in-law was in Iraq and Afghanistan.. I'm entitled to say it like I see it. My flesh and blood has been put on the line.

Answer 2

Because when America gave Cuba it's freedom after the Spanish-American War (it was a Spanish colony and seized during the war) a treaty was signed to allow the US to use the Gitmo facilites as a Navy Station. Happenned well before Castro took over and continues for now. Really is no longer a key installation and probably will be shut down and returned some day but I am guessing it will be after free elections are held in Cuba and a democratic government is established. Annual payments are made to an account to ensure the communist governement cannot actually get the money but payments are made; the treaty has actually already expired or expires shortly but since the US and Cuban governments do not have formal ties the payments willl keep being made on the assumption that the treaty provisions have to be discussed and re-negotiated before it becomes void-since they don;t talk that is not happening so the base is still used and will remain so.

Answer 3

The literal answer to your question about the existence of the base at Guantanamo Bay is this: The US had that base there before Castro's revolution and we haven't given it up.

As far as the prisoners held there, there is significant debate as to whether or not foreign nationals held as enemy combatants actually receive the same protections as US citizens.

Stemming from the 1942 USSC Ex Parte Quirin ruling, enemy combatants are not entitled to POW status and they are to be tired and punished by military tribunals. The text of this ruling makes it very clear whom is to be regarding as an enemy combatant. It is those who fight without uniform.

Thus, they do not have the same civil rights as those that are citizens. Nor do they enjoy the protections accorded to POW's in the Geneva Accords.

Answer 4

I have a degree in international law, and I've studied this before.

First of all, under normal circumstances, two types of people can be captured and held by the government: Prisoners of War (under the Geneva/ Hague Conventions) and criminal defendants (under state penal codes.) Both of these groups of people have rights that are protected by law. (For example, prisoners can't be tortured, and criminal defendants have the right to trial by jury.)

However, the Bush Administration are naming the Guantanamo Bay captives as a third, quasi-legal category: Enemy Combatants. Since Bush essentially invented this category, they do not have rights. (He claims that they are not POWs because under the Geneva Conventions, POWs need to be in uniform and have clear chains of command.)

In the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of 1987, countries are held responsible for torture happening on THEIR territory. The United States claims that it can escape legal LIABILITY because Guantanamo is technically Cuba's land and only "one lease" since the Spanish-American Wars. They put it on Cuba for this reason. If it were on "US soil", prisoners could sue under the Aliens Tort Act, even as non-citizens.

To answer your last question:

America wants a world where America has supremacy. As an American citizen, I'm saying this with neutrality: it's perfectly true. The US wants supremacy. This is seen through Grossman (US's ambassador to the UN)'s refusal to sign the Rome Treaty authorizing the International Criminal Court, which could essentially prosecute the US for human rights violations.

Answer 5

What do you do with prisoners of war or those who wage war?
You either kill them or hold them until the war ends.
You took a simple question and complicated it with your ideas of what is legal and what is not. First, if Bush was committing a crime, the Democratic Congress would have started the impeachment process. They have not. Either the Democrats are under the control of the President or they are not. Have you listened to any of the news lately,
The DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST PARTY is doing their best to rip the Presidency from Bush and if he was holding these war mongers illegally, the Socialists, would have Bush out of office and the criminals would be setting up Burka shops for the women in this country.

Answer 6

It's there to prevent Cindy Sheehan from visiting the terrorists and protesting.

Answer 7

It's in guantanamo sepcifically to avoid the jurisdicion of us courts. No surprise there.

Answer 8

were you attacked?
we were!

war is war,
these aren't normal every day criminals.
they are enemy combatants at war with my country!
this is fact!

i strongly suggest you take your post
and put it where the sun don't shine.

Answer 9

When you are fighting a war anything goes!

Answer 10

IF WORLD COURT WOULD DO SAME TO BUSH-CHENEY-RUMSFELD-RICE- THEN EQUAL JUSTICE WOULD BE SERVED..