If the U.S. has cut off diplomatic relations with Cuba, then why is it that we still use Guantanamo Bay?
98440
Guantanamo Bay was a U.S. Base when it was a U.S. territory. WHen Castro took over, he allowed the U.S. to lease it for 30 dollars a month. But as of today Castro does not take the payment.
612208
What in the world for? Cuba has nothing US wants, needs-no oil,no minerals, gems, no natural resources-would just be a drain on US economy.
603301
Cuba stopped invading other countries when the USSR ran out of money.  Since they are no longer a threat to anybody but themselves, there's no point invading them.
112128
The U.S. control of this Cuban territory has never been popular with the Cuban government or the Cuban people. The Cuban government strongly denounces the treaty on grounds that article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties declares a treaty void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force — in this case by the inclusion, in 1903, of the Platt Amendment in the Cuban Constitution. The United States warned the Cuban Constitutional Convention not to modify the Amendment, and was told U.S. troops would not leave Cuba until its terms had been adopted as a condition for the U.S. to grant independence, making the Geneva Conventions applicable to the 1903/1934 treaty upheld by that Amendment.\n\nThe United States holds that by cashing the first check received in accordance with said treaty, Castro's government effectively ratified the lease, and cannot unilaterally change its mind after the fact on account of political tensions or ideological differences. It further argues that all claims regarding an original violation of sovereignty under the Platt Amendment, and questions of an illegal military occupation, became moot once the new and independent revolutionary government freely reaffirmed the base's legitimacy.
1029949
Actually, we've moved away from empire. We used to have more foreign territories and be more aggressive supporting the Monroe Doctrine in the Americas, but we got rid of most of our territories and have taken a more hands-off approach to issues in the Americas.\n\nNow, every important country has gone through various stages, including expansion and empire type stages. And there is no certainty that the US will not go through the same thing in the future. But we seek no empire - heck, most of us would like to dump Puerto Rico - and we've given sovereignty back to many of our one time possessions / territories, e.g. Philippines, Panama canal, etc.\n\nThere has been no concentration of power in the executive, considering the recent power grabs by the legislature / judiciary in oversee the President in exercising his powers, such as trying to limit his ability to conduct national security intelligence gathering by wiretap or phone records.\n\nThis kind of power jousting has been going on for 225 years, and isn't about to stop now. Actually, the judiciary has been the worst offender regarding usurping power most recently. And after Watergate, Congress had attacked the powers of the presidency.\n\nAt this time, the executive and legislature have regained a parity. I do not see the executive having gotten out of control in the least.\n\nIf anybody claims that today we have some kind of dictatorship, they are peddling nonsense, and have a shameful ignorance of US history.
1007997
first , for complaints.... go to...\n\nhttp://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/cuba9848.htm\n\nthen\nhttp://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y06/jun06/20e5.htm\n\nfor more info on this here .....\n\nEXCERPT FROM THE NET>>>SOURCE HAS BEEN GIVEN\n\n\nThe term "terrorism," in practice, means the terrorism that THEY carry out against US. And the U.S. is not alone in this practice - it is probably close to universal. Cuba is certainly not alone in being treated this way. There is very rich literature documenting the practice generally.... Even the orders of the World Court calling on the U.S. to terminate its "unlawful use of force" (i.e., international terrorism, or maybe even aggression) against Nicaragua, and the supporting Security Council resolution (vetoed by the US), are unknown [in the U.S.], and if brought up, dismissed as proof that the Court is "anti-American" and irrelevant. The Cuban case is unusual because it is so clear, certainly since JFK ordered his staff to launch "the terrors of the earth" against Cuba....\n--Noam Chomsky, September, 2002\n\nTo understand the politics of Cuba, it is necessary to understand the role of the US in Latin America and elsewhere. By examining the history of the US aggression and intervention, we can see clearly the motives that have driven its foreign policy and what it is capable of given the motive and opportunity. It will then be easy to see why the Cuban people must take what seem to us to be extraordinary measures to counter this threat. For them, it is truly a matter of life and death. Recent developments -- shifts in popular opinion in the US, etc. -- are the basis for some optimism that Cuba/US relations may soon improve. Cubans must, however, exercise extreme caution if they are not to meet a fate similar to that of the former USSR, Yugoslavia and others. As William Blum states in the introduction to his recent essay, US Aggression and Intervention, in The Guardian (CPA), \n\nThe engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but by the necessity to serve other imperatives: \n\nto make the world safe for American corporations; \nto enhance the financial statements of defence contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of Congress; \nto prevent the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model; \nto extend political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a 'great power'. \n\nit will come as no surprise to readers that some international organizations, do not see Cuba as democracy. Following is a rebuttal of a typical criticism of the Cuban electoral based on an excerpt (in italics) from a report on human rights in Cuba by a commission of the Organization of American States (OAS). The section entitled "Elections for the National Assembly of People's Power and the Provincial Assemblies" begins:\n\nThe American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man establishes the right to vote and to participate in government at Article XX, in the following terms. \nArticle XX. Every person having legal capacity is entitled to participate in the government of his country, directly or through his representatives, and to take part in popular elections, which shall be by secret ballot, and shall be honest, periodic and free.\n\n38. Political rights, as considered by the Declaration, have two clearly distinguishable aspects: the right to directly exercise power, i.e., to participate in government; and the right to elect those who are to exercise it, i.e., the right to vote. This presupposes a broad conception of representative democracy, based on popular sovereignty, in which the functions by which power is exercised are performed by persons chosen in free and fair elections.\n\nThis is the case in Cuba. In addition to having the right to vote, every Cuban of voting age has an equal opportu
315216
We tried to kill Castro in the Bay of Pigs fiasco under the Kennedy administration. At that point in history, he was a threat to the US because Cuba was communist and only lies 90 miles from our door step.  Kennedy's plan in the Bay of Pigs was to land Cuban refugees to kill Castro, but the plan failed miserably because as soon as the refugees land in Cuba, the local Cubans came running up and massacered them.  Thus, part of the answer to your question is that we haven't killed him because his people won't let us kill him.  Also, now we don't really see the need to kill him because he is no longer a threat.  The Soviet Union collapsed so Cuba doesn't have anyone to back it up against the US.  The embargos the US placed on Cuba have held him in check too because Cuba has remained one of the poorest nations in the world due to the fact that it can't trade with the US.  If you go to Cuba, you only see cars from the 1970s and things like band aids are rationed.  The US still maintains a watchful eye on Castro, aka Guantanamo Bay, but the need to take him out has subsided.
1067097
We probably should end the embargo, it is the cuban exiles in this country that fight to keep it. And since they are concentrated in florida, and are an important voting bloc in a very important Presidential state, (remember 2000?), no politican is going to alienate them.\nsorry, but it probably will stay until Castro dies.
523228
It should be obvious, considering the fact that the U.S. govt. often distorts the truth to shift blame or to rationalize actions such as "interrogation". According to the United Nations view on what defines "torture", the U.S. has clearly crossed the threshold between interrogation and torture. Examples: Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and even during the Vietnam War.
829639
Platt amendment was repealed. And I quote wikipedia:\n\nExcept for U.S. rights to Guantánamo Bay, the Platt Amendment provisions, which Cubans considered an imperialist infringement of their sovereignty, were repealed in 1934, when a new treaty with the U.S. was negotiated as a part of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Good Neighbor policy" toward Latin America.
149591
If that happens the US will pull all our funding and whatever troops that are under their peacekeeper control.\n\nWithout US support there is NO UN.  \n\nSo they can try.  I would love to get rid of that organization it has done nothing but steal, bad mouth the US and Israel, and waste our money.\n\nWe haven't done anything that we shouldn't have anyway.  Well the Bay of Pigs but that was Kennedy leaving the Cubans out to dry
679623
Because whether it is right or wrong to do, it's a political loser.\n\nWhoever votes to lift the embargo will lose Florida in the election. Then there is the sugar agri-businesses, who would then have Cuban cane sugar to compete with. More political costs.\n\nLet's face it - politicrits are re-election whores at heart, and have no courage to make such a bold move.\n\nPersonally, I am against trade with any of those bad countries. But I understand that politics and principle rarely mix.
182542
Are you all under 40? If you are then I can understand why you think we should stop santions. I lived through it all, hiding under our desks at school for drills, the fear we went through with that guy. Please go back and read more about him and Kennedy.   EDIT:\n\n1961---The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-backed invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs failed. Shortly after taking office, President Kennedy approved the CIA's plan, inherited from the Eisenhower administration, to invade Cuba and oust Fidel Castro's Communist government. The United States launched the invasion three months into Kennedy's administration. Over 1,400 Cuban exiles, trained and equipped by the CIA, landed on Cuba's coast without air cover. The success of the invasion depended on a large uprising against Fidel Castro. However, the CIA had underestimated Castro's military strength and his popular support. All of the exiles were captured or killed by the Cuban armed forces within three days.
107610
Numerous UN Treaties (accepted and ratified by the US) which set forth standards for treatment of prisoners (see Abu Gharib) including the Geneva Convention (which the US has said we are no longer following in the 'war on terror'). \n\nAlso, civil rights violations -- numerous treaties forbid holding citizens indefinitely without trial (see US v. Padilla), denying them access to attorneys (see Hamdi v. Rumsfeld), or violating our own constitutional laws (warrantless wiretapping).
944746
The illegal Mexicans are loyal to Mexico, so don't try blowing smoke up our butts.  The Cubans are loyal to Cuba, not Castro.  When and if democracy ever comes to Cuba, there will be a major reduction of population in south Florida.
1026792
The people in Guantanamo were taken from the battle field therefore they aren't protected by the constitution (they aren't American citizens)  The are not a part of an organized state sponsored military therefore they are not protected under the Geneva Convention.  Military tribunal is the only correct answer.  The Supreme Court is wrong and the decision should be overturned by congress.
633899
The Mexican, Cuban, and other foreign people need a place to go where they will be accepted. If this place happens to be America then so be it. Its inhumane to shoot people trying to cross the boarder or to send them back to Cuba after traveling across a fairly substantial strentch of water. We're the great American melting pot and it would be great if that could continue  peacefuly.