• merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    5 days ago

    Guantanamo Bay is such a strange legal thing.

    In 1898 the US invaded Cuba as part of the Spanish-American war. A few years later, Cuba was militarily occupied by the US, and the military governor of the US organized a constitutional convention. Unsurprisingly, under those circumstances, the new Cuban constitution contained language the US wanted. One of those things was the right to establish naval bases on land leased or purchased from the Cuban government. So, the Cubans “leased” the Guantanamo Bay area to the US Navy forever, and the Navy established a base there.

    Fast forward a few decades and Fidel Castro and friends overthrow the Cuban government. The revolutionaries don’t have the power to take on the US, so Guantanamo Bay remained in US hands. So, now the US retains this fiction that it’s “leasing” the land at Guantanamo Bay from the Cuban government. But, the puppet government that signed that lease no longer exists, and the current government no longer recognizes the lease. It just doesn’t have the military power to evict the squatter.

    The end result is that it’s a military base that’s not on US soil, and not in a country with friendly relations with the US. If it were on US soil, American laws would apply. If it were in a country with friendly relations with the US, then that country would have sovereignty over the land and could limit what the US could do. By being in occupied territory of an enemy country, the only laws that apply are the military’s laws. Theoretically, that means that the place is at least bound by the Geneva Convention. But, practically, they just ignore that because it’s inconvenient.

    The end result is that anybody sent to Guantanamo is maybe theoretically under military law. But, practically, they’re under whatever rules the Commander in Chief can convince his military to follow. It’s definitely a place that should not exist, and I look forward to the day when Cuba has enough power and/or friends to finally kick the US out.

    • Allonzee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Neolib good cops/fascist bad cops

      Both perfectly fine with homeless Americans dying in the streets in droves, both on the same bribe take from the same wealthy “donors” to protect their exploitation grift from the people as they stoke social issue wedges that are often symptoms of the economy they protect from us to keep us divided and hating each other more than the owners who laugh as we tear one another apart. Divide and profit. Easier than putting us in chains, cleaner than running dissenters over with tanks. Turn us on each other.

      An economy is supposed to be a lowly tool to efficiently distribute goods and services for the benefit of a society. That means an economy should reward prosocial vocations like teachers and nurses, and punish the pursuit of private, antisocial greed. Instead, those that own our economy rule us in oligarchy. The tail is wagging the dog, and it’s inhuman and perverse. That didn’t start with Trump, his rise is a symptom of the perversion that the trickle down economic lie put on steroids.

  • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    145
    ·
    5 days ago

    The installation and its grounds are sovereign US soil. It doesn’t matter what Cuba says or wants.

    • tate
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      147
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      It is most certainly not sovereign US territority. We began leasing it from Cuba in 1903.

      ETA: If it were US, the prisoners there would have rights. That’s the whole point of putting a prison there.

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        150
        ·
        5 days ago

        Leasing doesn’t mean that it’s not sovereign territory. It just means you pay the country for being there.

        I swear the opinion that Lemmy users have of their understanding of topics which are extremely obviously beyond their knowledge never ceases to amaze me.

        • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          119
          ·
          5 days ago

          The base, which is considered legally to be leased by the Cuban government to the United States, is on territory that is recognized by both governments to be sovereign Cuban territory.

          Source

        • tyler@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          5 days ago

          lol so everyone else has shown how you clearly don’t understand sovereign territory, but it’s also pretty clear you have no clue what “leasing” means either. Do you think leasing somehow magically gives you ownership of something? Like if you lease a car from the dealership do you think you own that car?

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          5 days ago

          For some legal purposes we treat it like soverign soil. But it isn’t actually soverign soil or we wouldn’t be leasing it.

        • mohammed_alibi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          I swear the opinion that Lemmy users have of their understanding of topics which are extremely obviously beyond their knowledge never ceases to amaze me.

          This part, he is right though. About himself. Hahahaha! Oh the shame!

          • syreus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            That commenter is definitely toxic but I think they are right here by definition.

            https://pesd.princeton.edu/node/671

            It’s clear that the US has absolute unlimited control within the area. Cuba cannot and/or will not contest the US within that area.

    • MrNesser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      You realise the US would have to care for all the deported people in what would now be a refugee camp.

      Technically as well they aren’t event getting deported just relocated to a camp in US territory.

      I suppose you could say they are concentrating the problem in one place.