Vote and/or see current results at:
http://www.lp.org/poll/should-the-us-shut-down-guantanamo-bay
Posted to IPR by Paulie
46 Comments
Comments are closed.
July 29, 2026
Your Premier Source on Third Parties and Independent Candidates Since 2008
Vote and/or see current results at:
http://www.lp.org/poll/should-the-us-shut-down-guantanamo-bay
Posted to IPR by Paulie
Comments are closed.
Trent Hill said: “And Guantanamo was GIVEN to the U.S., in exchange for freedom. Was it a coerced deal? Definetly. But then again, so was the Treaty of Paris (1783).”
How is the Platt Amendment and the 1783 Treaty of Paris analogous? They simply are not. The Platt Amendment forced Cuba to give up lands for naval bases (originally there were two – Guantanamo Bay and Bahia Honda, but Bahia Honda was shut down in exchange for enlarging Gitmo). Nothing in the 1783 Treaty of Paris was remotely analogous. The Treaty of Paris was signed when Britain finally saw the light and realized it couldn’t win, it wasn’t coerced into signing. And even if they were coerced you’ve got the roles the wrong way around. For the 1783 Treaty of Paris to have any similarity to the Platt Amendment that was forced on Cuba, we would need for there to have been some provision in the Treaty of Paris granting France (who helped the USA gain independence rather like how the USA helped Cuba gain independence) the right to one or two naval bases along the US coast in PERPETUITY. Nothing like that happened. And for the Platt Amendment to resemble the 1783 Treaty of Paris it would have meant that the US should have been “coerced” into recognizing Cuban independence just as Britain was “coerced” into recognizing US independence.
Elian was seized in a dramatic raid by thugs because Janet Reno and the Clinton administration liked dramatic raids by thugs. Given that the Clintonistas are a significant, if not a majority, of Obama appointees, it seems like we ought to reflect on the Clinton years and expect more of the same.
Thus, if you and seven dozen of your friends decide to open a new church, expect to get barbecued like the Davidians were.
Keeping Elian in the US would have been a kin to saying that the parent of a child who has the legal custody rights cannot have the child because of his political affiliation.
“Elian was remanded to the custody of one Fidel Castro. I think the cousins had a better claim on him, unless you know something about Elian’s parentage that I don’t.”
I dont support the final decision on the case. He should’ve been remanded to his father, or barring that, his cousins.
none of the family members ever suggested that he was abusive
As you might expect, they did:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elians-father-rejects-accusations-of-abuse-and-pleads-for-return-of-son-719160.html
This is not to say whether the accusations were true or not, but they did exist.
Elian was remanded to the custody of one Fidel Castro. I think the cousins had a better claim on him, unless you know something about Elian’s parentage that I don’t.
And keep in mind that I would’ve loved nothing more than to have seen that boy remain in the US. My wife is Cuban and im sort of woven into the Cuban-American culture because of that.
Steven,
I dont believe international custody claims are handled in Family Court–when they have foriegn policy/economic issues intertwined with them, they’re handled by larger courts.
There is NO DOUBT that Mr. Gonzalez had legal custody. He was the father, and none of the family members ever suggested that he was abusive, noncommittal, whatever. They just said the kid would be better off the US then in CUBA (an issue they were probably right about)–but the Father had indisputable custody.
His father, having legal custody, demanded he be sent back–so he was.
There is a well established Family Court system that determines such matters here in the US. It is NOT the Federal Courts that determines child custody matters.
IF Mr. Gonzalez had legal custody, he merely could go to the Family Court in south Florida to establish his claim. This he refused to do. And don’t say Mr. Gonzalez could not get there from the Workers Paradise as he was able to get to the Cuban Estate in Maryland.
PEACE
It first developed in the 60s, but the boatlift expanded it pretty egregiously. Alot of the early migrants didnt stop in Miami..they went on to New Orleans, Hazelton, or Jersey.
Without that, Little Havana would not like exist, and thus Versailles would not exist (my favorite restaurant).
I thought Little Havana was there from the 60s?
Like last time?
Oh wait, there were no reprecussions.
Well, they were still a Soviet protectorate then, but not anymore. Again, I don’t want to get into a lot of details here.
Reprecussions can be threatened behind the scenes, too. Avoiding them may be driving the policies.
But, yet again, it does not matter.
The Cuban communist regime would have its days numbered if commerce and tourism were opened. But, this would not be good for some powerful people in several countries, including Cuba — and the US. That is as much as I will say on that particular subject.
Oh–and for the record: Im very glad Castro DID open up the Mariel port. Without that, Little Havana would not like exist, and thus Versailles would not exist (my favorite restaurant).
“but I have read a few things which suggest to me that they are concerned with worse reprecussions from the US if they were to let everyone who wants to leave to do so. ”
Like last time?
Oh wait, there were no reprecussions. The US accepted every single immigrant.
No, the immigrants are DEEPLY afraid of their ardently communist fellow-citizens and of their government–who will kill, torture, or generally make their life hell if they catch people trying to emigrate.
Well, like I said, I could be wrong – but I have read a few things which suggest to me that they are concerned with worse reprecussions from the US if they were to let everyone who wants to leave to do so.
I don’t have any references at my fingertips, and really I think the more crucial point is that it would quickly become a moot point if trade and tourism was opened up.
“This is at least partially, and I think mainly, at the behest of the US. Cuba tried it the other way with the Marielitos…they don’t so much want to keep people that don’t want to be there. ”
Not so. The Marielitos was an embarassment to Cuba and had it continued uninhibited, Cuba would have a MUCH smaller population (and Miami a much longer one). Mariel’s port was eventually closed by Cuba because it was embarassing them so much. An agreement was later made between both governments, but it was essentially toothless, since the boatlift was over.
“The US dry feet policy, like you said, is the real problem…The US will turn people back if they are caught in the water, and that should change. ”
How THAT the real problem? Is it a problem, I think so. but it isnt a bigger problem than communist Cuba threatening to kill, detain, or harass anyone who tries to leave the island.
How many here have been to Gitmo besides me?
Only via “Google Earth”
🙂
PEACE
How many here have been to Gitmo besides me?
MW
Your understanding is incorrect. The main impediment to Cubans immigrating freely to the US is Cuba…the communist government does not allow them to leave.
This is at least partially, and I think mainly, at the behest of the US. Cuba tried it the other way with the Marielitos…they don’t so much want to keep people that don’t want to be there.
The US dry feet policy, like you said, is the real problem…The US will turn people back if they are caught in the water, and that should change.
But really, if we did 1-3, I think 4 and 5 would become a moot point, since the communist regime in Cuba would be conquered quickly by real life capitalism, probably with very little or no blood, just as happened in most former Soviet bloc nations already.
Steven R. Linnabary,
Elian wasnt sent back to Cuba becasue he was under 18. He was sent back because his mother died during the trip and his father was back in Cuba. His father, having legal custody, demanded he be sent back–so he was.
Cubans simply have to set their feet on dry ground in American soil–and then they are legal immigrants to this country.
Unless you happen to be under 18. Then jack booted thugs with machine guns will kick in your cousins door, kidnap you, and force you back to the workers paradise.
One of the worst things that the Klinton administration ever did, IMHO. OTOH, that alone may have cost Gore the Florida vote and forced the rest of us to watch idiots holding “COUNT ARE VOTES” signs.
PEACE
Paulie,
Im for 1-3.
Number 4 im less sure of. Id need to study more about the deal.
Number 5. Your understanding is incorrect. The main impediment to Cubans immigrating freely to the US is Cuba…the communist government does not allow them to leave. If they’re caught while trying to leave, they face dire consequences. Our policy is VERY free-immigration oriented. Cubans simply have to set their feet on dry ground in American soil–and then they are legal immigrants to this country.
This policy exists becuase at one point there were thousands of cubans floating over in flotillas and the US Coast Gaurd, US Navy, and Private citizens would float just behind our international maritime border and scoop them up. Eventually disputes almost broke out over wether citizens were scooped up on the US side or the Cuban side.
If we removed the “Dry Feet” policy, Cuban privateers (or family members) could float behind the maritime border in their yachts and rescue Cubans from tyranny. My tio (uncle)-in law has a yacht that would do just fine.
Trent,
I have an alternate proposal:
1. end the embargo
2. end all restrictions on private individuals or companies trading with Cuba
3. end all restrictions on Americans visiting Cuba that are imposed by the US regime
4. return Guantanamo to Cuba
5. allow any Cubans that the Cuban regime lets out to immigrate freely to the US (my understanding is that the major impediment to this is the US regime, not the Cuban regime)
If we do these things, I think we will have a free Cuba pretty quickly – not just Guantanamo, but the whole island.
No “Yes, A century ago” option? Man, these polls just get lamer and lamer!
“Guantanamo isn’t rightfully a US possession, but that doesn’t mean we couldn’t use it to put an end to the Castro regime.”
We dont have to use it at all. We could simply put it up for sale, or open immigration from South Florida/Jersey/New Orleans to the area and simply GIVE it to whoever inhabits it.
A plan:
a.) sell it.
or
b.) Open immigration and give away, which would look like this
-We open immigration to Guantanamo (now called Free Cuba), especially from South Florida, Jersey, and New Orleans. No one is stopped from going there, but undoubtedly Cuban-Americans will migrate there in MUCH larger numbers.
-We simply un-annex the area, leaving it to the locals to govern it.
In either case, Free Cuba will end up in Cuban-American hands. In both cases, those people will help to bring about the end of the communist government in Cuba.
and even if we didn not withdraw it or sell it, we could make it US territory and THEN we WOULD accept defections from Cuba.
“I might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure the US does not accept Cuban refugees by way of Guantanamo Bay.”
No, they dont. Because Guantanamo is not considered US territory. Im suggesting that it SHOULD be. We ought to put Guantanamo up for sale and withdraw our military and base from the area. No doubt the Cuban-Americans would purchase it and create a “free cuba”.
Clearly, just the mere mention of “Guantanamo” will forever have repulsive connotations the world over much as the mention of Auschwitz or Birkenau and other atrocity laden places do today. Forever.
To change this, maybe turning the area over to “Free Cuba” would erase this memory, for some. The area easily could be turned into a sanctuary for those escaping the current regime on the rest of the island.
And it would be easier for escaping Cubans to get to, no need to hope an inner tube will keep one afloat all the way to Key West.
It is easy to imagine a gambling mecca with free (and secret) banking, perhaps even with reasonable drug laws. Maybe the (pre 1999) Hong Kong of Cuba.
Guantanamo isn’t rightfully a US possession, but that doesn’t mean we couldn’t use it to put an end to the Castro regime.
PEACE
The LP should just have a Daily Poll ” Are you a Libertarian? Yes, No, Maybe”
http://www.lp.org/poll/what-is-your-background-0
What is your background?
Libertarian Party member
39% (153 votes)
Former Libertarian Party member
8% (30 votes)
Non-member libertarian
44% (172 votes)
Non-libertarian
10% (40 votes)
Total votes: 395
Im quite sure that Cubans would rather Guantanamo Bay remained part of the United States then going back to communist Cuba–it’d give them another way to “escape to freedom”.
I might be wrong, but I’m pretty sure the US does not accept Cuban refugees by way of Guantanamo Bay.
As a separate but somewhat related issue, I don’t think the Cuban communist regime would last very long if the US ended its embargo. At this point I think that this is the main thing that is preventing regime change in Cuba.
The LP should just have a Daily Poll ” Are you a Libertarian? Yes, No, Maybe”
I dont neccesarily disagree with Richard, I just think his reasons are rediculous. Im quite sure that Cubans would rather Guantanamo Bay remained part of the United States then going back to communist Cuba–it’d give them another way to “escape to freedom”.
I agree with Richard. I don’t see any reason for the US regime to continue to operate the Guantanamo base, nor do I see it as a benefit to myself as someone the US regime claims as a subject.
“No. They fought a war of independence against England. The US fought a war of conquest against parts of Mexico. The two are not analogous. ”
And Guantanamo was GIVEN to the U.S., in exchange for freedom. Was it a coerced deal? Definetly. But then again, so was the Treaty of Paris (1783).
The U.S. admits that Guantanamo is part of Cuba. That is why the Bush administration told the U.S. Supreme Court that no U.S. court had any jurisdiction over how the U.S. treated prisoners there.
The Soviet Union had a somewhat analogous base on the southern coast of Finland, after World War II. It was an enclave, no adjacent to the Soviet Union. However, in the mid-1950’s, the Soviet Union voluntarily handed it back to Finland.
paulie – I know you must be joking.
Is there an objective time limit on when such proposals are to be considered serious?
Israel has occupied certain territories for 40 years, and there are many people who are actively and seriously proposing that they be returned.
Is there something, other than “might makes right,” which justified the US conquest and occupation of northern Mexico in your view, or is it just that it would be inconvenient to return it?
Or Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina, etc back to England?
No. They fought a war of independence against England. The US fought a war of conquest against parts of Mexico. The two are not analogous.
The power of US states to secede from the US should be re-established. Within states, I advocate for institutionalizing the right of counties, cities, etc., to secede from the states, ideally down to the individual level.
paulie – I know you must be joking.
Should we also give California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah back to Mexico?
Yes. Get the US out of the occupied territories.
I would definitely release the captives into Cuba. Then I would probably use the land as a recruitment station for my non-statist, free society.
“Mr. Winger,
Should we also give California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah back to Mexico?”
Or Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina, etc back to England?
hmm. We should tell Cuba that we’re no longer leasing it, but that it is now ours. Set up the machine gun nests. Since when do we negotiate with states? :p
Mr. Winger,
Should we also give California, Nevada, Arizona and Utah back to Mexico?
Why do people assume that only Libertarians vote in this online poll?
Perhaps it is a good sign that 52% of those who voted in an LP poll said “yes”. I’m certainly beginning to think that.
The United States should not only close the camp, but give the area back to Cuba. We forced Cuba to give control of that territory to us as a condition for setting Cuba free, in 1902.