Talk:Guantánamo Bay
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Guantánamo Bay is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of Mid priority within the scope of Wikiproject Cuba. | |
|
Cuba To-do:
|
||
- Looking for Talk:Guantánamo Bay/Archive 1 (formerly Talk:Guantánamo Bay)?
Contents |
[edit] Inaccuracy?
The last line of the article says: "Washington still pays the rent, set a century ago at 2,000 gold coins a year and now worth just over $4,000, even though the Cuban government refuses to cash the checks?"
That works out to $2 per gold coin, which doesn't seem like it could be accurate. Does anyone know what the true conversion is?
if the lease was only 99 years then why does the U.S.A. still occupy it?
[edit] location strategy
why did the americans choose to put the prisoners in guantanamo bay?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.68.236.209 (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC).
- Because President Bush's legal advisors, notably Alberto Gonzales, Myers, and John Yoo, told him that prisoners held there would not be protected by US law. -- Geo Swan 01:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Additional Vandalism
Washington still pays the rent, set a century ago at 2,000 gold coins a year and now worth just over $4,000, even though the Cuban government refuses to cash the checks.
I'm sure that's vandalism but im new and do not know how to revert.
[edit] Lease
"The U.S. government obtained a 99-year lease that began on 23 February 1903". The article is unclear about how this is being interpreted in light of the fact that the original lease was set to expire in 2002. Did the 1934 treaty extend the "lease" indefinitely, or at least is that the claim of the US? I've read elsewhere that the lease is set to expire in 2033. Is that at all a reasonable interpretation? anthony 01:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- The article goes on the say, "A 1934 treaty...made the lease permanent unless both governments agreed to break it..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.132.188 (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Navigation rights?
Do Cuban ships have navigation rights to the inner bay through the U.S.-controlled area? Does the U.S. have a defined right to sail in the coastal waters? -- Beland 20:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Incoming links
...need to be checked and cleaned up, as many will be for the naval base and/or detention camp.
Also, do we really need seperate articles for the "bay" and the "naval base" - wouldn't it be more logical to have one article on the territory of "Guantánamo Bay"? --kingboyk (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
