Sunday, August 16, 2015

Why the US has no right to occupy Guantanamo

The lease has expired
The lease specifies that the coaling and naval station is “for the time required”. With the advent of a nuclear navy, a coaling station is not required. For anything.
Required, for what?
The lease, signed February 23rd 1903, says that the purpose of the lease is “To enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof”. The US has failed to act to maintain the independence of Cuba and to defend the people thereof. This is a material breach of contract.
Anticipatory breach
John Kennedy’s promise to not invade Cuba was, and is, an anticipatory breach, and of the essence, because his promise falls short of the promise made in 1903 to protect the people of Cuba.
Zoning Violation
The construction of a prison, without the mutual agreement of the Cuban government, is a violation of the zoning: “and no other purpose”.
Abandonment
The lease is for Bahia Honda and Guantanamo. The US abandoned Bahia Honda. According to the lease, the US agrees to pay in gold, in exchange for access, “as long as [the United States] shall occupy and use said areas of land...”. “Areas” is plural; more than one.
Non Payment
The lease calls for payment “in gold”. Checks are not legal tender for payment of debts, and they have not been accepted by the Cuban Government in payment. Cash only.
Unconstitutional agreement
The Cuban Constitution prohibited “any treaty to permit any foreign power to obtain control over any portion of [Cuba].” And the United States knew it, at the time. Cuba was leasing to the US land at the Bay that it did not have clear title to at the time. This was "fixed" by Cuba's agreement to acquire the land, so that the US occupation could not be objected to. The problem was not that Cuba did not have title to the land. The problem was that the land was on the island of Cuba. This was a violation of Article I, added to the Cuban Constitution in 1901. Cuba should have negotiated a lease for land off the island, possibly the Isle of Pines.

No comments: