• Guantanamo Bay detainee found dead in his cell after 10 years in prison without trial
    68 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37785074]1. Actually, accepting the check does mean they recognized the contract. When they accepted the cash, they accepted the purpose of the check. Only now they claim it was out of confusion. 2. And the base their legal case by invoking Vienna Convention articles that we didn't even sign. 3. According to US courts, Cuba has sovereignty but the US has jurdisiction. 4. The only problem is that the US doesn't want to give it up an Castro doesn't want to take it. 5. The only way Cuba's going to get the land back is by becoming democratic, as per the Helms-Burton Act of 1996 Castro says the only way he's going to get the land back is when the US collapses.[/QUOTE] 1. No, it doesn't. Because they did not recognize the [I]contract[/I], they do not need to abide by the terms of the contract, and therefore do not need to accept the purpose of the money. Essentially the US handed money to someone other than who they originally were paying, and that person kept it. 2. See 1, but reversed, with the contract being the Vienna Convention, and the role of Cuba and America switched. 3. US courts have no jurisdiction, both in their reasoning (Cuba has sovereignty, therefore Cuba has supreme authority and sole jurisdiction, hence the meaning of the word sovereignty), and in the fact that there is no standing contract that gives the US any say on the matter. 4. Yes. 5. Or they can take it, which they don't want to do because, y'know, America. [editline]24th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=codemaster85;37786472]because obama can go on a whim like a dictator and just do what he wants.[/QUOTE] In the instance of military bases, yes, he can. The only time he can't is when he needs funding authorization from Congress. This isn't a matter of funding.
[QUOTE=Savyetski79;37777590]'Murica.[/QUOTE] Yes because nothing like this can happen anywhere else, countries like Russia have such nice prisons. [editline]24th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JerryK;37779956]here's the difference german POWs were soldiers fighting in a war these people are [b]alleged[/b] terrorists it's just funny because america is actually no better than the "savages" that we claim to fight[/QUOTE] Um, these 'savages' are not nice people. Whatsoever. The US has some pretty bad shit on its record but it is nothing like on the level of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37788065']1. No, it doesn't. Because they did not recognize the [I]contract[/I], they do not need to abide by the terms of the contract, and therefore do not need to accept the purpose of the money. Essentially the US handed money to someone other than who they originally were paying, and that person kept it. 2. See 1, but reversed, with the contract being the Vienna Convention, and the role of Cuba and America switched. 3. US courts have no jurisdiction, both in their reasoning (Cuba has sovereignty, therefore Cuba has supreme authority and sole jurisdiction, hence the meaning of the word sovereignty), and in the fact that there is no standing contract that gives the US any say on the matter. 4. Yes. 5. Or they can take it, which they don't want to do because, y'know, America. [/QUOTE] 1. They accepted the payment and they knew what it was for. The treaty is between the US and the Republic of Cuba. Not the US and a sole person or administration. Cuba still today is formally the Republic of Cuba. It was only much later that they blamed the cashing of the check on "confusion" 2. Americas not a signatory of the VCLT and thus doesn't recognize article 52, so we agree? And even if the US was a signatory article 53 would justify the treaty as it was signed in 1903. 3. US courts have already considered the legality of G-Bay, essentially they agree that ultimately its Cuba's land, but the US has jurisdiction. What you fail to understand is that Gitmo is considered a quasi-dependent territory, and thus the lease is valid in the point of view of the US, as the US doesn't recognize the Vienna Convention. Right so we agree then that arguing about legality is essentially pointless as both nations believe that they are right from a legal standpoint and hold the others to laws that they either have not signed or no longer recognize. also I laughed a little when you suggested a war would start over water pipes. With a key Soviet ally at the height of the Cold War and Kennedy as president. What were you thinking?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37788065']1. No, it doesn't. Because they did not recognize the [I]contract[/I], they do not need to abide by the terms of the contract, and therefore do not need to accept the purpose of the money. Essentially the US handed money to someone other than who they originally were paying, and that person kept it. 2. See 1, but reversed, with the contract being the Vienna Convention, and the role of Cuba and America switched. 3. US courts have no jurisdiction, both in their reasoning (Cuba has sovereignty, therefore Cuba has supreme authority and sole jurisdiction, hence the meaning of the word sovereignty), and in the fact that there is no standing contract that gives the US any say on the matter. 4. Yes. 5. Or they can take it, which they don't want to do because, y'know, America. [editline]24th September 2012[/editline] In the instance of military bases, yes, he can. The only time he can't is when he needs funding authorization from Congress. This isn't a matter of funding.[/QUOTE] Although he is commander and chief of armed forces, he really cant just shut it down. Where is he going to put these "terrorist". Its fucking political suicide. If he was going to do it, he would do it in his second term.
Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, May you find peace with Allah.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;37788096]Yes because nothing like this can happen anywhere else, countries like Russia have such nice prisons. [editline]24th September 2012[/editline] Um, these 'savages' are not nice people. Whatsoever. The US has some pretty bad shit on its record but it is nothing like on the level of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.[/QUOTE] you mean [b]alleged[/b] Al Qaeda and Taliban members
[QUOTE=codemaster85;37788772]Although he is commander and chief of armed forces, he really cant just shut it down. Where is he going to put these "terrorist". Its fucking political suicide. If he was going to do it, he would do it in his second term.[/QUOTE] Several states, mine included, made offers to make room for them in state prisons. [editline]24th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Disotrtion;37788509]1. They accepted the payment and they knew what it was for. The treaty is between the US and the Republic of Cuba. Not the US and a sole person or administration. Cuba still today is formally the Republic of Cuba. It was only much later that they blamed the cashing of the check on "confusion" 2. Americas not a signatory of the VCLT and thus doesn't recognize article 52, so we agree? And even if the US was a signatory article 53 would justify the treaty as it was signed in 1903. 3. US courts have already considered the legality of G-Bay, essentially they agree that ultimately its Cuba's land, but the US has jurisdiction. What you fail to understand is that Gitmo is considered a quasi-dependent territory, and thus the lease is valid in the point of view of the US, as the US doesn't recognize the Vienna Convention. Right so we agree then that arguing about legality is essentially pointless as both nations believe that they are right from a legal standpoint and hold the others to laws that they either have not signed or no longer recognize. also I laughed a little when you suggested a war would start over water pipes. With a key Soviet ally at the height of the Cold War and Kennedy as president. What were you thinking?[/QUOTE] I'll get back to this one.
[QUOTE=JerryK;37788851]you mean [b]alleged[/b] Al Qaeda and Taliban members[/QUOTE] I never said anything about the fact we can have the wrong people, i said as a group, we are better than the taliban.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.