Talk:Guantanamo Bay/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Geneva Clarification

I removed information accusing the Bush Administration of violating the Geneva Conventions and took some time to explain when and why the Geneva conventions do not apply, that US law has sole authority over these detainees, and the US case law provides that they shall be tried via Military Tribunal. The original entry made it sound as if Bush himself decided to violate the prisoners Geneva rights and the Supreme Court had to step in; I tried very hard to clarify that the Hamdan case only garuntees these unlawful combatants Habeas Corpus but still gives requires that they be tried via military tribunal.~~

Bad citation

Citation 14 is a broken link. --70.185.111.183 (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Fake Real McDonald's Photo

Check out the photo used for the supposed Guantanamo Bay McDonald's. The sky is white-ish, but around the McDonalds sign, the sky is blue. Also notice the telephone wires that run in front of the sign, but are not apparent elsewhere in the photo. Total photoshop. I'd delete it, but maybe someone logged in should do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.126.151 (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know when this picture of the McDonald's was added, but I remember it just like this, with the concertina wire, approximately September 1994. The photo is not a fake. Krzink (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It would have been trivially easy for User:71.248.126.151 to click on the picture, and verify for themselves that the image was downloaded from an official DoD site. Geo Swan (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The link is broken that the image description links to, but it is confirmed by this website too:https://www.nexnet.nexweb.org/pls/nexlodge/lodge_page?p_lodge_number=3 --Ummel (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Merged Things

I merged in a couple things that were mentioned on a duplicate article called "Guantanamo Base" but not mentioned here. If we want to make a separate article on the base alone, it should rather be called "Guantanamo Bay Naval Station" or "Naval Base Guantanamo Bay". But, I don't think that is necessary. --Mrwojo 05:03 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)--24.233.99.142 (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)--24.233.99.142 (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not two articles, bur there should be made a distinction between the bay (Spanish name, for sailing, Cuban rule, location A) and the base (English name, for walking, US rule, location B). -DePiep 14:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC), suppressing puns.
Besides this: The city is spelled Guantánamo, and so is the bay. This is OK in Spanish. But the naval base has an US (English) name, which should be withoud accent: Guantanamo Bay. Both texts are correct on the map. I suggest the title (!) takes this change. Now its mixed. -DePiep 14:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"The base became a strategic strongpoint in the American fight against Communism during the decades following World War II"

Really? How come? I can't find any activities developed here to fight comunism, for example, the Infamous "school of the americas" to train latin america soldiers in counterinsurgence, and torture was in Panama (a host of latin america dictators was trained there) but in Guantamamo.....Nothing ! Cuye 09:49, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why no reference to the "Grenada 17"?

'Cuz we don't know about that? (I don't, anyway :-) ). Feel free to elucidate in the article! Stan 14:43, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Thank you, Stan, for your generosity of spirit. I am not prone to clear and concise commentary myself. The Taliban and Al Qaeda suspects are not the first to enjoy the hospitalities offered in prison at Guantanamo Bay. Maybe you could find something in this: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR32002203?open&of=ENG-GRD . Ted

Exclave comparison

Compare with other foreign establishments: Subic Bay, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Macao

I don't quite understand this - why are Gibraltar, Hong Kong and Macao anything like Guatmo? Pete/Pcb21(talk) 10:49, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There's a vague analogy with foreign territories carved out around bays, but either it needs to explain that, or go away. I'd vote for removal, the analogy is greatly stretched and kind of pointless anyway. Stan 14:55, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I vote to keep the analogy; it links a number of different territories, keeping out of his home country control, usually with a treaty obtained by the use of force or with the attempted use of force Milton 13:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Keep the comparison. It covers temporary and permanent leased areas. Occupied/ceded areas. Leases not renewed and the orderly end of a lease and adjacent occupied/ceded areas. A microcosm of this particular form of colonialism/foreign control. garryq 23:23, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

Wait a minute....is this really NPOV? "The U.S. control of this Cuban territory has never been popular." Popular with whom? This should be specified that the Cuban government disapproves of the base, and why. It seems to me that a blanket statement of unpopularity isn't appropriate.

I support, it is necesary to specify with whom, I suggest "The U.S. control of this Cuban territory has never been popular with cubans." Milton 13:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

...the U.S. will pay 2000 gold coins (about $4000 in today's money)... Something doesn't seem right. I would like to know where I can get a $2 gold coin.

Two key points - that's "today's money", with much inflation, and the unit of money is likely not dollars. It would be good to find out which monetary system was intended, presumably whatever Cuba was using. Stan 14:56, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

After 106 years of hostile occupation (since 1898), maybe the United States would consider leaving the base and returning the territory to the Cuban people. Since 1959 Cuba has made it clear that it wants the United States to leave, bearing in mind that the lease agreement was imposed by force on Cuba in 1902 -- either Cuba accepted the platt amendment giving the United States the right of intervention in Cuban internal affairs, and the right to establish military bases on Cuban territory, or the US forces would continue occupying the island. According to applicable international law today, the treaty is invalid as contrary to jus cogens, self-determination, and the doctrine of "unequal treaties". Of course, international law is not identical with its enforcement. And the fact that the US occupation of Guantanamo is illegal does not change the realities of power. The norms are clear. We have a situation of a complex of violations of international law -- with complete impunity, since no-one can force the United States to observe international law. This does not mean that international law does not exist. It only means that there is no enforcement mechanism and that the United States can and does get away with violating international law with impunity. Another reason for invalidity of the lease agreement the use of the base for decades now for purposes not in accordance with the lease --which allowed for the use of Guantanamo bay as "naval and coaling facilities, and for no other purpose". The use as an internment center for 32 000 Haitians, 20 000 Cuban boat people and 700 Talibans clearly constitutes a material breach of the lease.

Whereas China could persuade the UK to leave Hong Kong and Portugal to leave Macau, Cuba has no such leverage.

So the illegal occupation of Guantanamo bay continues. But we should not give it our recognition as a legitimate lease -- a "perpetual lease" as the United States claims -- because it was imposed by force.

I gave a lecture on this topic at the university of British Columbia, published in 37 U.B.C. law review 277-341 (2004) -[1] -- Professor Alfred de Zayas, Geneva

Who cares what lecture you gave? The U.S. there. ------Keetoowah 14:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So, what is your point? Are you trying to suggest that only Americans are entitled to an opinion as to the legality and justice of the US occupation? Are you trying to insult the other guy? I found his comments interesting. I think providing a link to an expanded discussion of his points is worthwhile. -- Geo Swan 15:12, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Yes, it's not like noone from the University of Geneva has anything interesting to say about International law...Rama 15:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph definately NPOV. I've edited to try and make it so. 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Iwalters Much better. Iwalters 04:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting points, but not without bias. I think that a decision should not be made regarding the legality of the United States presence in Gitmo. This is not the forum for that. The article needs to include the following points (or a more accurate version of them) but not a bias towards one or the other. 1. The United States opines that they are within the rights granted by international law. 2. The Cuban government disagrees.

We should give the base back to the "Cuban people" when the Cuban people actually control the island. As it stands, Fidel Castro and his butchers control Cuba. So, no, the U.S. is not going anywhere. Jtpaladin 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, most of the human rights violations on the island of cuba are conducted by U.S. military at Guantanamo. Besides the absurdity of your claim, please contribute to the improvement of this article, not a political discussion. Malc8214:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic, the fact is, regardless of who is ultimately right, both sides, the US and Cuba, each make reasonable and defensible arguments to support their case regarding the legitimacy/illegitimacy of GITMO. The only responsible, neutral, and encyclopedic solution is to present both sides of the argument, and let the reader decide... ...really guys, fighting over which one-sided, prejudiced, hyperbolic argument should be in the article--how utterly unacademic (professional historians, amateurs, propagandists, or whatever you people happen to be).

--189.156.185.112 (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuban view

I have a google news alert on Guantanamo Bay, and it has turned up for me several editorials from Cuban newspapers that claim the treaty under which the lease was granted restricts the use of the naval base to purely naval purposes. (It was originally a coal refueling station.) All other purposes, like using it for Prisons, are violations of the treaty. -- Geo Swan17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I know that The US government informed the Cuban government of its intention, prior to building the prison camps. I do not know what the official Cuban reaction was, but, it is worth investigating, as it would logically have a direct impact on the treaty-legality of the camps.

--189.156.185.112 (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong was different

The Brits had a lease with a limited term. 99 years. They left when the lease expired. They didn't leave early, due to Chinese pressure. The US lease is, I believe, indefinite. -- Geo Swan 17:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. Hong Kong was made up of two parts: an original part ceded to Britain permanently, and a new part leased for 99 years. Aaronrp 22:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The terms of the lease to the U.S. say it lasts until both countries agree to end it, or until the U.S. stops using the base for the purpose of refueling ships. Jonathunder 05:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Either way Macau was certainly "given" to Portugal ("In 1849, Portugal declared the colony independent of China. This was recognised by the Chinese government in 1887.") and China still took it in 1999. Like someone wrote, Chine just had the leverage...
87.196.193.177
I guess I have to read about Macau.
The gist of my understanding re Hong Kong, which I have not taken the time to refresh, is similar to what Jonathunder says above, with the additional wrinkle that the British allowed the original part and the leased part to become socially integrated into a single unit to the point that it was unworkable when the lease expired to treat them separately.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

the base and the prison should be separate articles

The naval base has a unique history. The information about the prison and it's relationship to the "war on terror", alleged human rights abuses, etc, while valid as a subject bear little relation except in the most general way to the unique history of this geographical location. It seems illogical to have all this stuff about US legal wrangles in an article about a place in Cuba. (Editdroid 16:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC))

Certainly separating out its use as a prison as a separate article seems logical enough, especially since its use as a prison facility is othoganal with its position as a place of dispute between Castro and the United States. Caerwine19:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually there are three aspects; the geographical location, the base and the prison. Logically, the first is most separate, so that should be moved first. But then there's too little on that for a separate article. The base and the prison are very much linked, though. People who search for 'Guantanamo Bay' are at the moment most likely looking for info on the prison, so it makes sense to have that here. The distinction between the two might be emphasised a bit more, but the two are already separated, so I don't really see a problem. The only reason might be that the prison bit is rather long. Long enough for a seaparate article. People will then just have to click another link (although with the present speed of Wikipedia that is not as much a minor issue as it should be, alas) DirkvdM 19:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I was actually looking for information on the invasion of Guantanamo bay which is a seperate article. The wikipedia articles should not be structured just on current interest. That geographcial and historical information will still be relevant long after the prison is empty of iraqis/afgans. Since the invasion (1898) is seperate...I completely concur (actually came here to raise that point but saw it had been raised). Just like Effects of Hurricane Katrina is a seperate article for New Orleanseven though many are probably looking for it TODAY when they go there. 24.211.135.6 13:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. At the moment, there's not much info on the bay itself, but that's ok. We can have a stub for Guantanamo Bay that includes some general information on the base and a cross-reference to Guantanamo Bay (military base). We should structure information consistently rather than cater to the bias of an influential segment of the readership (or editorship). In other words, just because the base is top-of-mind with North Americans, we don't have to reflect that bias in the structure of the encyclopedia. If you live in the Carribean, and particularly if you are Cuban, you would reasonably expect to see Guantanamo Bay treated like any other geographic location. --Lee Hunter 19:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This article in its current form is a disgrace. For any subject covered here I would expect that the introductory section would contain at most one sentence on any current issue, controversial or not. The introductory paragraph or two would contain summary historical, geographical, or national information with a brief reference to any current issue concerning the topic at hand. Instead, someone (or multiple someones) has hijacked the topic to make it their personal protest against current US policy and activity. I'm not up to changing this myself but I really hope some cooler heads can prevail and make this a little more focused on the facts. Es330td 22:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Merger

How do you feel about merging Camp Delta, Camp X-ray Camp Iguana, and Camp Echo as a subsection to Guantanamo Bay? Wouldn't it be better to have one, well-written, NPOV article, without all the mispellings and typos. Joaquin Murietta 22:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The base has a long history and there is quite a lot of interest in the prison. I agree with some of the comments further up the page that there is enough material for the base and prison to have separate articles. Jonathunder 22:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Calling 24.161.149.229

User:24.161.149.229, I urge you to create a userid, so people can talk to you.

You are introducing highly questionable assertions about the ages of the detainees who were minors. I believe that some of the information you introduced is simply false. Other assertions you have made give the appearance of a highly biased point of view. Maybe you are new here. Wikipedia contributors are supposed to aim for a neutral point of view.

First, at least one of the minors, Omar Khadr]], who was born in Canada, was under 16 when he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay. The American authorities were well aware of his identity. Should we accept the US claim about the ages of the minors in Guantanamo at face value? Since they have been caught, red-handed, putting out incorrect information they can have no credible excuse to get wrong, I do not believe we should accept their claims at face value.

Now, if you believe the US claims should be put forward here, without challenge, I call on you to explain yourself. -- Geo Swan 15:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Statistics (BBC)

He, this is getting odd

Yet a thorough analysis by an American law professor and a defence lawyer of information released by the US defence department revealed last week that 92% of the 517 Guantanamo detainees had not been al-Qaeda fighters.

Of these, 40% have no clear connection with al-Qaeda, and 18% have no connection with either al-Qaeda or the Taleban.

In total, 60% are there because they have been accused of being associated with a group which the US government regards as a terrorist organisation.

Most detainees are regarded as enemy combatants.

Among the criteria reportedly used to define an enemy combatant are these: possession of a rifle; possession of a Casio watch; and wearing olive drab clothing.

In Afghanistan it has long been regarded as normal for every adult male to have a gun, because there was so much violence in the country.

Casio watches and olive-coloured clothes can be bought in every market in every town in the country.

But where do all these prisoners come from, anyway?

According to the Pentagon, 95% of them were not captured by the Americans themselves.

Some 86% were handed over in Afghanistan and Pakistan after a widespread campaign in which big financial bounties were offered in exchange for anyone suspected of links to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.

The US lawyers quote the text of one of the notices the Americans handed out: "Get wealth and power beyond your dreams... You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taleban forces catch al-Qaeda and Taleban murderers.

"This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life."

So, according to the figures supplied by the Pentagon, it looks as though more than 440 men out of the total of 517 at Guantanamo were handed over to the Americans in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a direct result of these bounties. [2]

Not sure where your stats are coming from, the detention center currently houses 377 people and has released around 340 with another 85 to be released as soon as negotiations can be finished to find a country that will house these people safely.

UN report on Guantanamo

I believe the article needs to be amended to include information about the new report on Gitmo by the UN. It can be foundhere. I would do it myself but I can't think straight at the moment. Hempeater 22:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The recent UN report is not only biased it is based on lies. It was written by the likes of China who cannot tell the United States and other freedom loving nations how to treat prisoners. The camp is fully legal, and is a nessassary tool in order to combot international terroism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.105 (talk • contribs) .
Although it is clear the Bush administration is not happy with the report it would be a mistake to dismiss all criticism as bias. The amount of circumstantial evidence does warrant serious questions. Any suspected murderer would be convicted on the evidence presently available. If the report is wrong then the US could simply allow Humam Rights organisations to investigate. Furthermore, there seems little reason to prevent an indepth examination by an independent US prosecutor.Holland Nomen Nescio 16:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
195.93.21.105 - the report had five authors:
Paul Hunt New Zealand
Leila Zerrougui Algeria
Leandro Despouy Argentina
Manfred Nowak Austria
Asma Jahangir Pakistan
I don't believe any of them are from China.
Bush administration spokesmen criticized the committee members for not agreeing to visit the detention facility with the limitation that they would not be allowed to have any contact with the detainees themselves. They would be allowed to see detainees through one-way glass mirrors. They said this would be the same tour that Senators and other VIPs received. However the DoD was caught staging detainee interviews the Senators saw. -- Geo Swan 07:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
In respons to the statement made by the anonymous contributor that "the camp is fully legal": Not only has the US failed to establish that the prisoners are unlawful combatants (see article); it has also failed to establish that all the prisoners are combatants (see Section 25, UN Report on Guantanamo). PJ 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


In response to my last comment defending the Bush administration, your last statement must have a response - you have ommitted China, which did write part of the report, yet even you yourself admit that the likes of Algeria, and the military dictatorship of Pakistan, both nations with severe track records of human rights abuses. No reprasentative of these nations has actually have visited the camp as you admit, which means they have no basis in fact, only acounts of what may be going on. People seem suprised that suspected terroists, many of whom were found fighting for the taliban are being treated like criminals - most of these people are dangerous and the United States has not brocken international law.

Please note: It is important that you cite your sources, merely stating opinions gets us nowhere. First, reading the UN Report on Guantanamo, it does not mention the name of any Chinese co-author. Secondly, I don't see how you can dismiss a person's credibility out-of-hand, simply based on their nationality. Such a claim needs to be backed up. Thirdly, the reason why none of them has visited the camps is that the US refused to comply with "the minimum requirements for such a visit" (see Article, as well as Section 3 of the Report, for further details). So that is actually an argument against your thesis, since it points to an unwillingness to cooperate with the UN. The report is nonetheless based on credible material, e.g. interviews with former detainees, reports from lawyers acting on behalf of detainees, official US records and reports from various organisations (see Section 4 of the Report for further details). Finally, in your last comment you simply stipulate that the US has not breached international law. But the very fact that, as you say, these detainees are being treated as criminals, constitutes a violation of the Geneva Convention as well as the UDHR (see article on "Geneva Convention"; and articles on "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and "Right to a Fair Trial"). PJ 18:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
But. But...But if Pakistan is a dirty "military dictatorship", then the poor people that were handed over by them are probably victims of that oppressive regime! More seriously, what people are "surprised at" is that suspects that have not been charged or brought to trial, and against whom not a shred of evidence has been produced, are being treated as criminals. As such we must assume that they are innocent, as we would you. Try them and if they're guilty as one or two might be, do what you want with them. What's so hard about that? Answer: because then Bush &c would have to admit that they're running a lynch mob instead of a government.213.78.235.176 04:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the white house criticized the writers of the report for not even bothering to visit the camp before making judgements about it. [3]

International pressure to close Guantánamo grows[4]Holland Nomen Nescio 15:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Third Geneva Convention

It is stated in the introduction that "the Third Geneva Convention makes no distinction between 'Prisoners of War' and 'illegal combatants'". This seems to me incorrect. A reading of the Third Convention shows that it does distinguish between 'Prisoners of War' [lawful combatant] and 'illegal combatants' [unlawful combatant]. What it says is that if there is any doubt as to whether the person is a lawful combatant or not, the person shall be treated as if being a lawful combatant until his/her status has been determined by a competent tribunal. See http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm). PJ 14:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. So be bold and correct it. For more details on POW and illegal combatant you can look at unlawful combatant.Holland Nomen Nescio 15:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive/POV update

I think Contents 1-20 should be archived, except perhaps section 2 on merged things, as they are all from 2005 or before and the discussions on them have ceased. Furthermore, no one here is currently disputing the neutrality of the article, so why does the warning still exists on the article page? I'll be bold and remove it; if I'm bold and wrong someone can put it back. :) JoelHowe 02:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I archived all the old discussions but left all the ones relating to the merger or ones that had been discussed this year. Hopefully this will make the page more manageable. JoelHowe 02:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

McDonalds at Gitmo sub heading

Would anyone be opposed to me creating a McDonalds ===Sub Heading=== for that information, I think there are still more articles out there that I can expand it with.

There's some base geography over at the "Timeline" article (oddly). If we complete a move of the geographical bay (see below), and ideally move the prison stuff to its own article, then there should be a "Base geography" section that things like this would fit in. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

RE Mcd at Gitmo. I strongly object to this subheading being included as it trivialises the subject. Suggest it goes into the article on McDonalds. On the assumption that it belongs there I regret that I had to delete it. --Gazzetta08:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The McDonalds went in down there in either 1986 or 87. It was a huge impact on the base. I don't have documentation for this though aside from living there on base from 1982 - 1985 and again 1987 - 1989.Aneah (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


-- not a big enough deal in the grand scheme of Qtmo to have has a separate heading - maybe something on the marine ecology on base would be more relevant and worthy of a subheading —Precedingunsigned comment added by 98.249.158.117 (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Added Image

I added another image, mainly because I was curious to see the actual footprint of the US occupation.TigerDigm 20:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit by 213.31.193.119

Claiming that no other foreign state supports the view of the Bush administration. Is there proof of this statement, and if so, would this statement jeapordize the neutrality of the article? TigerDigm 15:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Why no accent? Page move requested

The name of the bay is "Guantánamo Bay", not "Guantanamo Bay". Why do we have it like this? I've requested a move. Any thoughts?Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree, I support the correct spelling with accents, let's move the page. MikeZ 09:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The name of the bay is "Guantánamo Bay", but the name of the Navy base is "Guantanamo Bay". The intro should be changed accordingly, and maybe the redirect at "Guantánamo Bay" should be changed to a geo-stub.
—wwoods 10:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
How about moving this to Guántanamo Bay and part of it to U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay?ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I support the proposed move and also ROGNNTUDJUU!'s suggestion of moving the naval base content to its own article. As it stands now the current title is incorrect for both the geographical location AND for the naval base (since "Guantanamo Bay" is not really the official name of the base). --Lee Hunter 23:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose unless someone fixes the spelling of the U.S. naval base in the article. Gene Nygaard 18:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. ROGNNTUDJUU! 18:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the proposed page move. The article is about the area as a whole, the correct name of which is Guantánamo Bay. (The different spelling of the US military base is, as noted above, now reflected in the relevant section of the article.) --Picapica 22:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. There should be two articles: Guantánamo Bay for the geographical feature, and Guantanamo Bay as the common name for "U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay". Clearly they are two separate things (for one thing, the base does not encompass the entirety of the bay, half of which is under Cuban jurisdiction). I have put together a draft at Guantánamo Bay/Draft, which cuts out most of the information which belongs solely in the article about the US base. I believe that separate articles would make it easier to settle POV disputes. (Additionally, I believe that the Camp X-Ray/Delta/etc. prison should have its own article, but we can settle that another day.) --Dhartung | Talk23:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Now, that is a good idea. I would definitely support that. Maybe the majority of the page here could be moved to "U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay", "Guantanamo Bay" could redirect there (or vice versa--no big deal either way), and "Guantánamo Bay" could refer to the bay itself. I think that that'd work just fine, but in any case, the page for the bay itself (or for the bay/base, if we don't split them up) ought to be accented. Matt Yeager♫ (Talk?) 01:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh. It appears that the page has been moved. I didn't know that we had reached consensus. Oh well. =P Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Policy is normally five days of discussion AND consensus before a move. I've asked Timwi to explain why the move was done regardless. --Dhartung | Talk 04:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, was kind of consensus, and I guess as the name obviously did not fit the article he was just bold.ROGNNTUDJUU! 05:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I've moved my draft to Guantánamo Bay (Cuba), and I'll modify this article accordingly. Cheers.--Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Since the geographic feature now has its own article at Guantánamo Bay (Cuba), this article--on the U.S. Navy base--should be moved back to Guantanamo Bay.
—wwoods 09:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
As noted, I did not support the move of the article before consensus was reached. I think the bruised feelings are evidence that the move was premature. --Dhartung | Talk 16:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary style needed here

The various sections that pertain to the detention of prisoners are now by far dominating this huge article. PerSummary style (a featured article requirement), I propose for those sections to be moved to a daughter article called Detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (itself would have daughter articles of its own for each camp and maybe other sub-topics). Replacing these moved sections would be one summary section with ===History of detention===, ===International concern===, and ===Legal proceedings=== as subsections. We also may want to have a section devoted to the various camps added as well (it would concentrate on the camps themselves and not what went on in them since the ==Detention of prisoners== section would already talk about that). This format would serve those readers who want an overview of the installation and its operations without going into excessive detail on the last several years of its history while at the same time providing links to a cohesive more-detailed treatment of the sub-topic. It would also give us more room to expand the other parts of this article. --mav 00:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your general point although I'm not certain I agree with the name. Obviously Camp X-Ray, Delta, and so on have their own redirects here. I think this should of course wait until the question of a move is settled (see Talk section above).--Dhartung | Talk 23:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

The paragraph inserted by the anon did not seem completely useless to me.? ROGNNTUDJUU! 23:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history, the user was REMOVING that section, not ADDING. Since it is a good section, it was restored each time the user deleted it.--Metros232 23:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, missed that, may I delete my stupid question here then? ROGNNTUDJUU! 00:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

systematic bias? too much current news?

Has anybody noticed that 3/4 of the article is what you hear on the news? It should all be moved on to a seperate article.--hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 05:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note the above discussion about the page move. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me make this clear

I will not let politically-motivated individuals re-edit this entry to what it was; it should be about GITMO; not prison camps; So, keep it up...it won't last long. Windon60

Nobody owns an article. Consensus was to move the part about the United States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to its own article. What was done now, moving the Guantánamo Bay article to Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) and the naval base part here is against the consensus and shows disrespect for other users who discussed this as well as for the people of Guantánamo Bay, which is a bigger area than just the naval base. ROGNNTUDJUU! 13:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I wish to make it clear that I did not support the move of this article to the accented version. The naval base has an official name with no accent, and the common name for the naval base is "Guantanamo", not even "Guantanamo Bay". It's been at the wrong place for a while now. I believe that the English name "Guantanamo" most commonly refers to the naval base rather than the Cuban city. These articles do, however, require separation, which is why I went ahead and created a separate article. It is my belief that regardless of naming, there should be two articles, one for the bay, and one for the base (as a tangential matter, I also believe that the prison issues should have their own article, but that's outside of this discussion.) In any case, please don't make inane assumptions about others' motivations. --Dhartung | Talk 16:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was see below. —Nightstallion (?) 11:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move - 5 March

From WP:RM: Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on this page.

Add # Support to the followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Propose No move. Pages remain as they are.


  1. Strong support :-) MikeZ 14:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    Pls let me further clarrify my prefered solution:
    Separate disambiguation page is not needed. MikeZ 11:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support --Windon60 17:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong support. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Support 1st choice perfect. --Rebroad 17:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support 1st choice --—wwoods 20:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. Support AFAICT no other State has a Naval Base called Guantanamo Bay, this name alows for dirct linking from the text. It is a name used by the Government[5] and redirects from Guantanamo Bay (US Naval base) and Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) with a "|" could be used for text where just "Guanta(á)namo Bay" is needed--Philip Baird Shearer 12:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support and encourage everyone to consider this new proposal by PBS. It would simplify many inline references.Jonathunder 18:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support PRRfan 18:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Upon the stair 22:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support AjaxSmack 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support I am mainly concerned with separating the article content; the names are up to the community.--Dhartung | Talk 09:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support 2nd choice --—wwoods 20:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support 2nd choice --Rebroad 16:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Thumbelina 20:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Bubba ditto 01:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to add more proposals above this comment. with Approval voting people can vote for as many proposals as they wish and tactical changes of votes is encouraged. Please state which is 1st choice, 2nd choice etc. For each proposal that doesn't succeed, votes will be carried over to 2nd choice votes.


Discussion

Add any additional comments

From my talk page:

Thank you for helping with that. You set up a poll that was already ongoing above as I had indicated by saying consensus was to move the article, could you please change that? ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it better that there is another vote on this issue with a clear statment of what is wanted. The former request was not formatted clearly "The name of the bay is "Guantánamo Bay", not "Guantanamo Bay". Why do we have it like this? I've requested a move. Any thoughts?" and I could not find an entry on the 3rd March for the proposed move. The votes seem to be (but they are confusing so it is not easy to tell) 5 (includeing the proposer) to 3. That would meet the 60% threshold but as the request was to move is not clearly formatted, it does not no harm to do another poll and clarify the consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate, I support the splitting of the article, and I support the naming of the article on the bay as "Guantánamo Bay". I'm less certain about the naming of the base. For one thing, the most common name in English is simply "Guantanamo", but this is also the English name for the Cuban places. For another, other bases are named "Naval Station ____" without the "U.S." part. I would prefer that "Guantanamo" be the name of the article with "Naval Station Guantanamo Bay" (and "United States etc.") as redirects. I think that "Guantanamo" and "Guantanamo Bay" (no accent) should both be disambiguation pages pointing to the city, the bay, the province, and the naval station (well, the second doesn't need to point to the province and the city). That would most closely match search behavior. If we want to map usage, though, then "Guantanamo" and "Guantanamo Bay" should both point to the naval station, with a separate (disambiguation) page accessible at the top. --Dhartung | Talk 16:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The official name on its website is U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay. I think that disambiguation pages are not needed if there are only two articles to be disambiguated. It is sufficient to start the article with a note where the respective other article can be found. ROGNNTUDJUU! 18:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I am really not trying to complicate this further, but the official name seems to be "United States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba". The usage "Naval Base" is even present on the official website! (This just seems to reflect "base" as a generic term, though, not a hierarchy or historical change.) And to give a pointer to a name that should be associated with the detainee facilities, that's Joint Task Force-Guantanamo Bay. --Dhartung | Talk 18:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I asked about this point last year, and got this response:
"Hope you're prepared to be a little more confused. He's the best explanation I can give. NAVSTA is the naval station itself (a command). The Naval Station is considered a command and is only responsible for itself.
The CO of NAVSTA is also The CO of NAVBASE. The Naval Base is the entire facility. Every inch of land w/in our fenceline is part of the base. Consequently, everybody on this base falls under this umbrella. That includes all tenant commands residing on the base. COMNAVBASE could almost be paralleled to "Governor" of a small town.
Hope this answers your question."
So we probably want to say "Guantanamo Bay is a U.S. Navy base ..."
—wwoods 19:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Right, I should have remembered how it works (brother was Navy...). The base is the land, the station is the administrative unit (and there have been, and still are, other commands subject to the CO's authority, such as "Naval [Air] Station Leeward Point", the base airfield, the Marine Corps, and the Seabees -- and the JTF). --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Since several people were saying "Support" but then going to to suggest something significantly different, I have added more than one "Support" option so that it includes the various options being proposed. Hope you all agree this should make it much clearer what people are actually voting for! --Rebroad 18:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A tie suits no one. You can vote for more than one option so please consider voting for my third option as a compromise.--Philip Baird Shearer 12:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Not enough options

I agree that there should be separate articles to describe the Geographical location and the navy base. In addition there should be an additional article, with description of all the prisons and detention centres.

In my opinion those descriptions of the prisons should be brief, and each prison should have an article devoted to them. They used to each have an article devoted to them. The guy who merged them did a really crappy job. And the history of their edits strongly suggest that their real intention was to obfuscate information that was embarrassing to fans of President Bush's detainee policy. He (unfairly IMO) accused me of starting articles about Guantanamo detainees in order to spoof Google. He accused me of trying to multiply the number of hits those who searched for Guantanamo, and abuse would find. He initiated the formal deletion steps against close to a dozen articles I started.

When he first leveled this accusation against I thought it was ridiculous and impractical, in addition to being unethical and a betrayal of the wikipedia community. But, after doing some research, I realized that he was correct about it being practical. Many commercial sites, and some other nonprofit sites, republish wikipedia articles, so, for many topics, most of the google hits are mirrors of wikipedia articles.

When attempting to get others to agree to delete the articles I started failed, he merged the articles on the prisons with the support of just one other wikipedian. I believe he was guilty of exactly what he accused me of. I think his partisan and insincere merge had a powerful negative impact on the usefulness of the Wikipedia's coverage of Guantanamo issues.

Anyhow, if we are going to vote, we should be voting on whether this existing article, whatever it is called, should contain so much material about the prisons, or whether it should be moved to article(s) about the prisons. -- Geo Swan20:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have formatted in a more familar style alowing for other people to add more proposals. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Geo Swan, please avoid personal attacks, especially during a vote. This vote to separate the geographical bay and the naval base is sufficient for now. We can handle a split of the prison from the naval base article at a later date, and I would strongly support such a move. The amount of material on the detentions dwarfs the naval base article, and neither topic is served well. Please reconsider voting on this issue, since it does not prevent the problems you have raised from being solved. --Dhartung | Talk 21:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Since there were no real objections on this one particular matter, I moved Guantánamo Bay (Cuba) to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Nobody disagrees with this, right? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Outcome

—Nightstallion (?) 11:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This contradicts itself: Guantánamo Bay --> Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Guantánamo Bay --> redirect toGuantanamo Bay is not possible at the same time. As the naval base is written without accent I think the accented version should be on the location with a link to the naval base. De mortuis... 23:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Now that we have separated the article, we should discuss the linking and disambiguation issues. Guantanamo Bay is now a disambig, but so is Guantanamo (disambiguation). We have lots of redirects, some which don't currently work because they point to other redirects. We have lots of links, many of which point to a non-working redirect, or to one of the disambig pages, or to an illogical destination. In short, we need to tidy up. Let's start by listing all of the related articles here. Then we can sort the links to point to the correct article and talk about how best to disambiguate. I would prefer we not have more than one disambig page for Guantanamo-related articles; I think that's confusing. Jonathunder 16:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. As above (and after much deep thought), I recently created Guantanamo (disambiguation) given that Guantanamo/Guantánamo refers to more than just the base and bay – i.e., locales in Cuba. If anything now, Guantanamo Bayshould redirect to Guantanamo (disambiguation) (since the latter is top-level and the numerous terms are generally coincident in some way). Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not think Guantanamo should redirect to Guantanamo (disambiguation). Guantánamo is the name of a Cuban province and a Cuban city. If there are links to Guantánamo that are meant to go to the naval base they should be changed rather than Guantanamo redirect to a disambiguation page. De mortuis... 23:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I somewhat disagree: if anything, the city of Guantanamo should be moved to Guantánamo (or even Guantánamo, Cuba) which has precedent – e.g., São Paulo, Brasília – while Guantanamo should redirect to Guantanamo (disambiguation). Why? The unaccented version is not the name of either locale per se but an English rendition of the name. Moreover, I will reiterate the intro for Wikipedia:Disambiguation below:
Disambiguation in Wikipedia and Wikimedia is the process of resolving ambiguity—the conflict that occurs when a term is closely associated with two or more different topics. In many cases, this word or phrase is the "natural" title of more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different topics that share the same term or a similar term.
The unaccented version can be ambiguously (and easily) construed as any or all of the items the DAB lists – something which the DAB is meant to obviate. It is not meant for editorial benefit but for visitors who may confuse like terms ... and I've yet to be convinced that the above doesn't satisfy this.
If there are no objections (and this was last addressed last year), I will at least (propose to) move the city toGuantánamo. E Pluribus Anthony 03:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I tend to think this is a valuable improvement. It's almost certain that something close to 99% of Wikipedia references toGuantanamo or Guantanamo Bay (not to mention Google) are meant for the naval base. Since the Cuban city unambiguously uses the diacritic, and the American base unambiguously does not, it's probably most useful for Wikipedia purposes to make those redirects or DABs. Since there is a strong contingent on Wikipedia that increasingly prefers using diacritics and native spellings (I'm in another move vote where this is an issue), the relatively few articles where the intended target is the Cuban city will tend already to use the diacritic, which will automatically send them to the "correct" article. References without the accent, however, are rarely going to refer to anything but the naval base. As a practical matter I think this arrangement would work quite well. --Dhartung | Talk 05:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed moves/redirects

Hello! In light of recent moves, redirects/DABs, and discussions above, a few related moves and redirects have been proposed. Please weigh in! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Seriously - how can you have a page about Guantanamo bay without a link to the excellent film 'The Road To Guantanmo' - could someone who know how to wiki add this info. - thank youhttp://www.channel4.com/film/newsfeatures/microsites/G/guantanamo/index.html 83.71.104.192 23:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)minktoast - http://minktoast.net

Inaccurate infromation?

"Since 2001, the naval base has contained a detainment camp for persons alleged to be militant combatants captured in Afghanistan and later in Iraq that the U.S. maintains are not protected under the Geneva Convention." Is this inaccurate infromation?

It's somewhat true, although the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp article says it's since 2002. I don't recall any of the captives being taken from Iraq, as the terms of the Geneva Conventions do apply there. -- Randy2063 03:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
There are two questions here. Were people captured in Iraq transported out of the Iraq war zone? And, if captive from Iraq were transported out of the war zone, were they transported to Guantanamo?
  • Hiwa Abdul Rahman Rashul was captured in Iraq, transferred to a CIA prison in Afghanistan, and later transferred back to Iraq, where George Tenet asked Don Rumsfeld to detain him off the books -- ie a ghost prisoner. A Washington Post story quote officials who asked their identy to be kept confidential, who state that Rashul was just one of many captives transported out of the War Zone.
  • I am not aware of any evidence of captives taken in Iraq ending up in Guantanamo. Note: The Bush administration's position is that the war on terror is a global war. Jose Padilla was classified as a captive in the war on terror even though he was captured in the USA. I have no doubt that if Zarqari was captured he would be not be afforded the protection of POW status by the Bush administration. But, he is senior enough that he would not be handed over to military intelligence. -- Geo Swan 22:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Since July 11, 2006, the US administration has reluctantly shifted their policy on Geneva Conventions after a Supreme Court decision (see this Washington Post article) (and this BBC article). Geneva Conventions do apply at GITMO This means GITMO is not a "detention camp" but a Prisoner of War Camp. This also means the captives are not "detainees", but Prisoners of War. The word "detainee" is not defined under the Geneva Conventions[6] As a matter of fact, their confinement in GITMO is another game that is being played to try to circumvent the law. GITMO is foreign property that has been leased by the United States and therefore it is the current administration's hope that laws don't apply there. This whole "detainee" schtick allows Bush and his fellow criminals can get away with bypassing due process of law and torturing Prisoners of War. The US newspapers continue the detainee propaganda although the Supreme Court has decided they are indeed Prisoners of War under Geneva. Please include the other point of view in the article now.Kgrr 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly POV

This:

Guantánamo Naval Base is where the good guys forced bad guy Félix Cortez back to Castro's Cuba in Tom Clancy's novel "Clear and Present Danger".

seems blatantly non NPOV to me. "good guys"? "bad guys"? I've actually read the book, and I vaguely remember this, but maybe somebody more knowledgeable (ie better memory) can help out. I think it should read along the lines of

Guantánamo Naval Base is where the US forced Félix Cortez back to Castro's Cuba in Tom Clancy's novel "Clear and Present Danger".

if included at all.

Another problematic entry in the "Fictional representations and mentions of Guantanamo" section: "Michael Moore's 2007 movie Sicko features a trip to Guantánamo for the sake of free medical care." While the accuracy of Moore's documentaries can be questioned, I don't think Sicko deserves to be mentioned in a list of fictional works. :) MMad 22:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Guantanamo v. Guantánamo

The objection has been raised that there should be no accent, based on a Google search which yielded Anglicized spellings. The problem is, if you do a search with your preferences set to Spanish, the hlanguage from which the name actually comes, there are plenty which include the accent.

For obvious reasons, accents are often not included in foreign-language webpages. Thus, using an English web search is triply problematic: 1) It's the Web, "you can't trust everything you read", 2) You're set to English, and 3) Even the foreigners often leave the accent out!

Pronunciation in Spanish begs the accent. PaladinWhite 13:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The consensus as I understand it is that, while our article about the place itself is called Guantánamo bay, our articles about US facilities there don't use the diacritic, per common use among US government and media sources.-GTBacchus(talk) 15:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Relevant naming conventions include WP:COMMONNAME and WP:UE. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
That was my understanding. That as the U.S. naval base and other U.S. facilities don't have the acute, we spell these pages Guantanamo accordingly. However the diambig was wrong and should be Guantánamo so I changed it. All being said, the edit summary by Philip Baird Shearer : "Name of the Base does not contain any funny foreign sqiggles" wasn't very clever.--Zleitzen(talk) 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is quite acceptable to describe them as Funny Foreign Squiggle because it emphasises that they are not English accent marks and it is what some foreign loan words have in English until they become Anglicized. One does not généraly write hôtel. A Google search returns

  • about 316 English pages for Guantánamo-Bay-Naval-Base site:gov.
  • about 9 English pages for Guantánamo-Bay-Naval-Base -Guantanamo-Bay-Naval-Base site:gov
  • about 199 English pages for -Guantánamo-Bay-Naval-Base Guantanamo-Bay-Naval-Base site:gov

So common usage by the people who own the base (and rent the land) is without the funny foreign squiggle and we should reflect common usage and WP:UE. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, "funny foreign squiggle" is the most professional and respectful way I can think of to refer to diacritics. How else could one possibly make the point that the name of the Naval base in question is spelled without an acute accent in most English language sources, except by calling accent marks "funny foreign squiggles"? Nobody but Frenchmen and Communists actually knows the correct terms for the damn things. What is this, the English Wikipedia, or the funny foreign Wikipedia?-GTBacchus(talk) 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean illegally occupy the land? Nil Einne 02:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

The current Cuban government rejects the Cuban-American Treaty, arguing that it violates article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and therefore considers the U.S. presence in Guantánamo to be an illegal occupation of the area.

This sentence is incomprehensible to anyone not familiar with the subject matter. Shinobu21:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Without citation, the introduction claims that Cuba claims that the "Cuban-American Treaty, which established the lease in 1903, now violates article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the law of treaties[7],"

Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force
A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations

However, this claim is absurd since article 4[8] of the treaty states

Non-retroactivity of the present Convention
Without prejudice to the application of any rules set forth in the present Convention to which treaties would be subject under international law independently of the Convention, the Convention applies only to treaties which are concluded by States after the entry into force of the present Convention with regard to such States.

I suggest removing this assertion unless you can actually find a source that confirms that the Cuban government does hold this nonsensical position. Perhaps the section could be re-written to say that it violates the spirit embodied in this act, or it violates a widely recognized norm of justice embodied in this act. AdamRetchless 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have heard of one law that either was made or became retroactive. It is to do with an amendment of Sweden's constitution, but it went only a few months...back in time. Which rules allows for a document to be retroactive by over 50 years...???
If there is a know it all on this page, which documents are made retroactive for 60 or 70 years?(82.134.28.194 (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

May I add that Spain was forced to clear of from Cuba? Maybe we could pronounce that Spain broke the Vienna Conventions by giving in to preassure. (Hows that for some retroactive victim blaming?) (82.134.28.194 (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

suicide? -- see talk

Guantanamo restraint chair used for enteral feeding. Note plastic bag to protect cushion from involuntary bowel movements and micturation.

The article stated, as a fact, that three captives committed suicide on June 10th, 2006. This is incorrect. The families of the dead men had concerns. A blue ribbon panel of forensic pathologists agreed to do an independent post-mortem. They could not confirm the American claims because the DoD declined to provide sufficient cooperation. Dr Patrice Mangin reassured the dead men's families that it was not unusual for pathologists to remove and discard organs like the brain and liver, once they have taken samples, because they spoil quickly and spectacularly. However Mangin noted that the dead men's throats had been with-held. This was not normal, and prevented his team confirming that they had been hung. All three men had been long-term hunger-strikers. The most clearly innocent man, the one who had been cleared for release, had been force-fed for over eight months, having a feeding tube forced down his throat. There had been complaints that the Guantanamo authorities had been making the force-feeding as painful as possible. Six months earlier the camp authorities had started strapping the men into painful "restraint chairs" during their force-feeding. There are reports that inexperienced guards were inserting and removing the feeding tubes.

It is quite possible that the men didn't suffocate because they hung themselves, but rather that they suffocated while the choked to death because their throats were too traumatized from the brutal and inexpert force-feedings they were being made to endure. Without the men's throats suicide by hanging can't be confirmed. Iatrogenic manslaughter can't be eliminated.

The DoD also failed to comply with the blue-ribbon panel's request to examine the sheets that the men were said to have used to hang themselves.

The article also stated, as a fact, that the captives had only made 41 suicide attempts prior to the three men's death. This is a total bullshit spin-doctor figure, and should not appear in the wikipedia as a stated fact. Carol Rosenberg, a Miami Herald reporter, describes being stunned when the director of the prison infirmary, when giving reporters a tour, casually mentioned that all 48 beds were filled by a mass suicide bid a few years earlier. Joshua Colangelo-Bryan was told he could no longer meet with Juma al Dossari, one of his Bahraini clients, because his visits triggered suicide bids. Colangelo-Bryan was told that al Dossari had made a dozen suicide bids. Most men who made suicide bids tried multiple times. The numbers just don't add up.

IMO "detainees" is a biased term. It implies a legitimacy to the captive's detention -- when the legality of their detention is still before the US Judicial Branch. So I changed "detainee" to "captive".

Cheers! Geo Swan 22:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am moving the following comments to after my comments, to avoid confusing other readers. Please conform to the talk page conventions. Geo Swan (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. you are so far off base with your comments. guards were not doing the intubations - doctors were - your 'painful as possible' comments have zero basis in fact - 'complaints'? - from whom and how were those claims verified. 'painful restraint chairs'? leave the editorializing for the op-ed page = puh-lease.
  2. good grief - and then their throats were cut out and sent to area 51 for examination by aliens? just the facts please - your theories have no place on Wikipedia - it is quite possible that i was just beamed down from planet nebulon - nanoo-nanoo
  3. you are so blatantly putting you personal spin on this article it is ridiculous - you opinion is that you don't like 'detainee' so you are changing it - if that is not bending the facts to match your world view i don't know what is.
  4. the detainees are trying to kill themselves all the time. they will consider themselves martyrs with virgins awaiting them in an islamic heaven if they actually accomplish it. the us military is actually preventing these idiots from killing themselves because it would be a pr nightmare in the other direction if more of them actually did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by98.249.158.117 (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A request

It is not mentioned anywhere what is the expiry date of US lease, considering 1898 pr 1903 whatsoever. Please provide this information. Was the lease for 100 years or for unlimited time? —Precedingunsigned comment added by 83.156.240.57 (talk) 19:15, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Cuban-American Treaty says, "As per the agreement, the Republic of Cuba will perpetually lease to the United States the Guantanamo Bay area (surrounding areas of land and water) for the purpose of coaling and naval stations."
—wwoods 22:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Aren't there other clauses? Clauses that restrict the USA to using it solely as a coaling station -- not a prison? Geo Swan (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to dig up the source, but the base has been sending a flat check to the Government of Cuba since it began leasing the base. When Fidel took over, he cashed a couple of the checks but has since decided against this as he would be acknowledging the existence of the base.Aneah (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

air fields...

This article makes no mention of either of the airfields (McCalla Point *defunct and Leeward Point) at GITMO.Dreammaker182 05:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

McDonald's photo...

That photo of the Bay's McDonalds is definatly a photo shop. Shouldn't it be deleted? Its fake? SomeGuy —Precedingunsigned comment added by 144.32.126.16 (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Guantanamo Bay Navy Exchange and BEQ.jpg has the McDonalds in it right above the Navy Exchange on left hand side. Sure the other image is a bad photo, over exposed, but there really is a McDonalds there. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.jtfgtmo.southcom.mil/wire/WirePDF/issue28v8.pdf page 14 shows the image is mostly covered by text and that's why it looks like that. Why don't you find a better one. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded this photo, and I can assure everyone it is not photoshopped or altered in any way. Geo Swan(talk) 02:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI - I have tons of photos from Gitmo from living there and I have some yearbooks and I think I may even have some base books/newspapers/other things from that time frame. Please let me know if you need any assistance or help. I believe there might be some people there that are stationed there now that I might know and might be able to local, verifiable documents at the Base Library and Base Museum. Aneah (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


There is most definitely a McDs on QTMO - i have had many filet o' fish there after getting skunked fishing on the bay. djmrunfast

Clarification, Please

It seems that there are things within this article that do not belong here. I propose a some research and delving more into the history of Guantamano Bay from when it was established to current. Include a paragraph on the prisons, but to be honest, leave that to a separate article(s). Allow me to give some brief notes as to what I see wrong with this article:

  • This is an article about a military installation, yet there is very little mention about the geography of the base.
  • Other military articles have listings of commands, I see nothing of that sort here.
  • There was some argumentative commenting about how certain franchises have come to operate there and possibly be in violation of the 1903 agreement. Unless you are a lawyer, why argue a moot point? There are ways around it. If the franchise in particular is owned/operated under license to the USGovernment, do you walk a fine line?
  • From my opinion, I see more stuff that shouldn't be there, than should. Cultural References (i.e. Representations and Mentions...) could almost be it's own page.

Things needing inclusion - List of commands. Geography and climate. Winward vs. Leeward and the Ferry Schools Landmarks Aneah (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 

I dont doubt that there is a McD's there, I just think the photo looks a bit off. If i'm wrong so be it. Just wanted to check. SomeGuy

The statements in this article complaining about the government-owned fast-food franchises on the base somehow being a violation of the Treaty obligations ("The United States of America agrees that no person, partnership, or corporation shall be permitted to establish or maintain a commercial, industrial or other enterprise") seems very strange. It is *extremely* normal for military bases to have fast food franchises within them for the benefit of the soldiers and their families living there. Business conducted internally between soldiers and their military can hardly be taken to constitute a commercial enterprise. This is not a case of the US government using the base for fishing purposes and then selling the fish on the world market, which was the intent of that clause. So I don't think these statements should be included in this article, as it's clearly a situation where we're quoting a newspaper journalist who doesn't know what he or she is talking about. Glen —Preceding unsigned comment added by74.173.245.253 (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of biased confusing text

This was removed, by me, ---:

The United States controls the land on both sides of the southern part of Guantánamo Bay (Bahía de Guantánamo in Spanish) under a lease set up in the wake of the 1898 Spanish-American War: the 1903Cuban-American Treaty, the terms of which were preserved by the 1934 Treaty of Relations.[1][2] Cuba disputes the validity of the lease under international law. Cuba's longtime status as a weakened colonial possession of Spain ended not long before it negotiated the lease; its status during the negotiations as a weakened colonial possession of the United States does much to explain the lease's lopsided terms. Cuba argues that these circumstances run afoul of the customary law of treaties, as codified in Article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which holds that a treaty provision obtained by force is not binding. [3][4]The applicability of the Convention is questioned in light of its Article 4, which states that its rules apply only to treaties concluded after it comes into effect. Still, for any treaty subject to its rules "independently of the Convention", Article 4 regards application of those rules "without prejudice." Further, its nature as a convention or codification of customary international law means that theConvention's rules express the customary law of treaties understood to apply in all cases. Here, then, Article 52 of the Convention codifies an established customary law of treaties that voids provisions obtained by force, applying to the Cuban-American treaty as to any treaty; if it could not be so applied, it would not have been added to the Convention.[5]

---

Beam 06:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Closure of the detention center listed in the background section

On January 22, 2009 President Barack Obama ordered the closure of the detention center for suspected detainee by signing orders.

This line is at the top under the history section, but is just thrown in without any previous mention of the establishment of a detention center. Besides being horrible stylistically (Ordered the closure... by signing orders. ??? Come on!), it doesn't belong there. Put it down with the rest of the info on the detention center. RocketMann (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Renaming article

The actual name of this article should be Naval Base Guantanamo Bay or U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay. The US Navy always puts the type of installation before the name...i.e. Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Naval Station San Diego,Naval Air Station North Island. Please also refer to the station's website link at the bottom of the page. --203.10.224.61 03:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no such place as Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, or Naval Base Guantanamo Bay. There are (US) Naval Bases, but Guantanamo is not one of them. It is a Naval Station. There is a difference, and the article is inaccurate. The correct name is Naval Station Guantanamo Bay [see http://www.navy.mil/local/guantanamo/]. Reversing the order, as civilians do, to Guantanmo Bay Naval Station, might be O.K., but calling a Station a Base is just incorrect. Dvejr (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC) DVEJR 3Feb09

I've relocated this section to the bottom of the article. Going by the dates on the comments herein, that is where it belongs.
I've also placed a {{Move}} request at the top of this talk page. Please dicsuss the proposed move below. --Boracay Bill (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on requested move

support See the official U.S. Navy page at https://www.cnic.navy.mil/guantanamo/ -- Boracay Bill(talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

responsible use of tags...

Someone placed a conflict of interest tag on this article. But I don't see an explanation of the tag here on the talk page. Surely there should be an explanation, or the tag should be removed. Agreed? Geo Swan (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the unexplained tag. Geo Swan (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Source Needed

"On January 22, 2009, he signed an executive order which mandated the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp within a year.While mandating the closure of the detention facility, the naval base as a whole was not subject to the order and will remain operational indefinitely."

While I'm fairly certain that the base itself will remain operational indefinitely even if Camp Delta ends up closed, it's still a personal assumption on my part (I didn't add the above to the article, BTW) and therefor can't be taken as fact. So I'm asking if anyone has a reliable source that verifies the above statement? I've searched and searched, but everything I find simply refers to the closure of "Guantanamo Bay", which is quite vague and misleading. In fact, I came to this page lookingfor a source to verify the above statement. Spartan198 (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Spartan198

I paused over this yesterday when it popped up on my watchlist but didn't challenge this. I choose to interpret "will remain operational indefinitely" as "nothing definite is said about how long it will remain open". Since it has been challenged, however, I've rewritten the sentence to read "While the order mandates the closure of the detention facility, the naval base as a whole was not subject to the order." and cited the White House press release quoting the order itself as a supporting source. Speculation about the fate of the naval base is not supported by this source. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OR versus AND

In the beginning of this article (as of article state: 9:21am EST, March 31, 2009) we read, "Examples of unlawful combatants, inferred from the Geneva Conventions and recognized in Case Law, include those who: are not members of the armed forces of a party state, those who do not wear military uniforms or those do not carry their arms openly, and those who resume hostilities after being paroled. "

My question is whether the authorship was aware of the difference between a disjunction (OR) versus a conjunction (AND).

This matters for the following reason:

Example 1) Unlawful combatants are defined as non-members of armed forces AND those who resume hostilities.

has a very different meaning than...

Example 2) Unlawful combatants are defined as non-members of armed forces OR those who resume hostilities.

Specifically, in Example (1) the unlawful combatant must meet both criteria (very narrow definition) whereas in Example (2) the unlawful combatant must only meet one of the set of criteria (what I assume the geneva convention states, but I have no idea).

I just want someone to clean this up, also in part for my own knowledge. Furthermore, the use of a comma (,) is taken to mean "AND." Thus, in its current state the entire sentence is a long conjunction with sub-phrase disjunction in the middle. At the very least, unclear. Maybe we can re-write it as a list. For instance: "Examples of unlawful combatants, inferred from the Geneva Conventions and recognized in Case Law, include those who either, (1) not members of the armed forces of a party state, or (2) do not wear military uniforms, or (3) those do not carry their arms openly, or (4) resume hostilities after being paroled.   SKYchild 13:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I know the difference between OR and AND. If you want to make a grammatical change do it... no need for talk page. (who wrote this?)
I would like to make such a change but I do not know exactly what the Geneva Convention say on the matter. Thus, if I make an executive decision about whether an "or" should remain as a disjunction, I run the risk of misrepresenting the original document as well as making this article less accurate. Maybe point me in the direction of the section you are "inferring" from and I will do the homework to clean up this sentence. Skychildandsonofthesun (17:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Whoever wrote, "Yes. I know the difference between OR and AND. If you want to make a grammatical change do it... no need for talk page," did not leave their signature so I have no way of contacting you. Please remember to sign your posts guys... like this -> --  SKYchild  15:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld included?

While Hamdi v. Rumsfeld is undoubtedly an important case in the context of United States habeas law and wartime detention generally, it provides little guidance as to the fate of the non-citizen detainees who are being held outside of the (traditional) territorial jurisdiction of United States federal courts. (A second question is why Ex Parte Quirin is included, but Johnson v. Eisentrager is not, given that the latter contains the relevant features of non-citizens outside the territorial jurisdiction of federal courts, whereas the former contains at most one of those features.)

There are three highly relevant Supreme Court cases concerning the legal status of the Gitmo detainees and their habeas petitions, however. Those cases are Rasul v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush, the latter being arguably most relevant, because most current. If we're going to mention a (contemporary) case in the introductory section of the article, it should be Boumediene, or perhaps Hamdan.

I'm curious if anyone has any reason why Hamdi is currently being included in the article, particularly in such a prominent position. If no one has a clear justification for it, I will make the appropriate changes myself in about a week.SS451 (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I put in the original law references to give some background because this article was way off before (mostly talkign about Bush "illegally violating geneva conventions" and "abusing detainees" without much talk of what law applies here). I'm no expert and would encourage you to clarify what little I have here, espcially to drop Hamdi and include Johnson v. Eisentrager. —Preceding unsigned comment added by144.42.254.14 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

lede is long

so much detention info should not be in the intro. this is what subsections and sub-articles are for. All that research deserves a proper home... and camp x-ray etc have only existed for less than 10% of the bases' lifespan... so for due weight some of the lede ( the legal blow-by-blow stuff)needs to get moved... 72.0.187.239 (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes in the lede

I have removed the final sentence from the third para of the WP:lead section. The removed sentence read, "As of 2009, only US law has applied to these unlawful combatants held at Guantanamo." I have a nit to pick with this assertion, and think that the para reads OK without it. The nit which I would pick is that, as I understand it, nothing changed in 2009 so that US law would apply here where formerly it did not. The rest of the paragraph makes the point that US law always did apply, but that the US government was not applying that law. That is a bit convoluted to explain in the lede and, as I said, IMHO the rest of the para reads OK without hammering that point home in the lede.

In the same paragraph, I have changed "These are combatants who formerly were not fully protected by the Geneva Conventions for various reasons." to read "These are combatants who are considered 'unlawful combatants' and who were formerly not being afforded protection under the Geneva Conventions for various reasons." As I understand it, the point to be made here is not that the protections afforded by the conventions changed in 2009, but that the application of the convention by the US changed in 2009.

Having said that, I also want to opine than none of this material belongs in the lead section of an article on the topic of "Guantanamo Bay Naval Base". IMHO, the material doesn't belong in this particular article at all. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

too broad and misleading

The military has withheld the evidence against detainees asserted to be linked to terrorist organizations or enemy states.

i deleted this sentence - it is far too broad and misleading in a negative way against the military and could breed distrust and fuel conspiracy theorists. The military has held bck certain information deemed to sensitive for airing in public courts due confidentiality of sources and methods. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 98.249.158.117 (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

9500

With over 9,500 U.S. sailors and Marines

i don't think this is accurate - there were 2200 personnel on base pre 9/11, peak of 7500 last year and there are now 6000 personnel there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.158.117 (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Lease payment - per month or year?

The article states: "A 1934 treaty reaffirming the lease granted Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay, modified the lease payment from $2,000 in U.S. gold coins per year, to the 1934 equivalent value of $4,085 in U.S. dollars", howver the Reuters article it references says: "The United States pays Cuba $4,085 a month in rent for the controversial Guantanamo naval base". So which is it, per month or per year? The article statement seems unclear as to whether it was modified from $2,000 per year to $4,085 per year or to $4,085 per month. Is there another source for this? -Generica(talk) 23:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Communications

For at least 25 years, Americans have been able to direct dial telephone calls to Guantanamo Bay using what seems to be a special circuit routing arrangement. It is dialed as 011 + 53 (Cuba's international calling code) + 99. I do not know at this time if Cuba, generally, can be dialed from the United States, and I feel certain that 99 is not part of Cuba's internal numbering plan.

On the other hand, Canada has had direct dial to Cuba since the mid or late 1980s, using country code 53, but has never been able to dial Guantanamo Bay. I have seen internal phone company documents that indicate a "Mark Code" of 011 was used for Cuba in the 1980s - this was used to identify the destination for billing purposes: the computer would read 011 and retrieve the appropriate name and price rates to apply to a call. Whether such codes are still in use is not known to me. GBC (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Agreement Between the United States and Cuba for the Lease of Lands for Coaling and Naval stations". The Avalon project, Yale Law School. February 23, 1903. Retrieved 2007-06-20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "Treaty Between the United States of America and Cuba". The Avalon project, Yale Law School. May 29, 1934. Retrieved 2007-06-20. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ de Zayas, Alfred (19 November 2003), The status of Guantanamo bay and the status of the detainees., University of British Columbia Faculty of Law: Office of the Dean of the Law School at the University of British Columbia, retrieved 2007-06-22 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ COHA Research Staff (15 March 2007). "A Constructive Plot to Return Guantanamo Bay to Cuba in the Near Future". Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Retrieved 2007-06-22. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guantanamo_Bay/Archive_2&oldid=1089775977"