« The US and Guantanamo Bay Issue Background: Guantanamo and the United States since 1898 In 1898, the United States intervened in the Caribbean and Pacific to ...» Document abstract
$6.95
7 word format
Language : english
international relations
presentation
date published
29/11/2006
review : not yet assessed
level : Advanced
requested 6 times
SummaryIn 1898, the United States intervened in the Caribbean and Pacific to fight against Spanish imperialism. In the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, the United States occupied Cuba from January 1899 to May 1902. On February 25, 1901, Senator Orville H. Platt introduced in Congress “the famous amendment that bears his name” (Aguilar 1972), which shaped the American intervention in Cuban affairs. It also proposed the creation of an American naval base in Cuba. The bill became law on March 2. In spite of a strong opposition in the country, Cuba conceded that a restricted independence was better than a military regime (Aguilar 1972) and included the amendment in its 1901 Constitution. In 1903, the Lease of Coaling or Naval Stations Agreement Between the United States and Cuba Treaty specified that, in exchange of “the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba, … the United states shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas” (Treaty Series No. 418). Since then, Guantánamo Bay has been under U.S. control.
Although the Platt Amendment was abrogated by Cuba in 1904, a new agreement was negotiated between the Roosevelt administration and the American-friendly Caffery-Batista-Mendieta government. It kept the “Platt spirit” (Dominguez, Smith 1988) by not changing the status of Guantánamo, “so long as the United States of America shall not abandon the said naval station of Guantanamo or the two Governments shall not agree to a modification of its present limits” (Treaty Series No. 866). Thus, the new Treaty of Relations established a “lease in perpetuity” (Dominguez, Smith 1988).
Since the revolution in 1959, Cuba has wanted to terminate the lease, but it is has not been able to do so without American consent (Ratner, Ray 2004). In opposition to the lease, Fidel Castro has always refused to accept the rent of about $4,085 a year. On October 29, 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Castro declared that the only effective guarantee “that there will be no aggression against Cuba” would be five points , including the U.S. withdrawal from Guantánamo Naval Base (Blight, Brenner 2004). This request was supported by the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries in its First Summit Conference , held in Belgrade in 1961 (Ricardo Luis 1994), but the movement was not influent enough to change the U.S. foreign policy.
Although the Platt Amendment was abrogated by Cuba in 1904, a new agreement was negotiated between the Roosevelt administration and the American-friendly Caffery-Batista-Mendieta government. It kept the “Platt spirit” (Dominguez, Smith 1988) by not changing the status of Guantánamo, “so long as the United States of America shall not abandon the said naval station of Guantanamo or the two Governments shall not agree to a modification of its present limits” (Treaty Series No. 866). Thus, the new Treaty of Relations established a “lease in perpetuity” (Dominguez, Smith 1988).
Since the revolution in 1959, Cuba has wanted to terminate the lease, but it is has not been able to do so without American consent (Ratner, Ray 2004). In opposition to the lease, Fidel Castro has always refused to accept the rent of about $4,085 a year. On October 29, 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Castro declared that the only effective guarantee “that there will be no aggression against Cuba” would be five points , including the U.S. withdrawal from Guantánamo Naval Base (Blight, Brenner 2004). This request was supported by the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries in its First Summit Conference , held in Belgrade in 1961 (Ricardo Luis 1994), but the movement was not influent enough to change the U.S. foreign policy.
Table of Contents
- Issue background: Guantánamo and the United States since 1898
- Courses of action
- Arguments: why Guantánamo should return to Cuba
« lawyer for many prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay, means by laws, people in such places as Guantanamo, as long do with the free will god has granted us. ...» Document abstract
$2.95
3 word format
Language : english
humanities/philosophy
school essay
date published
02/10/2007
review : not yet assessed
level : General public
requested 2 times
SummaryAt a lecture given at our own Stony Brook University, Michael Ratner asserts that “Justice is losing its power” . What Michael Ratner, the defending lawyer for many prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay, means by this daring statement is that America is losing sight of its foundations. He can witness first hand the escalating debate about torture, so central in today’s media, and concludes that we are retreating back to the times before our very own constitution was drafted, back to the times before the Magna Carta. Even though we have established laws, people in such places as Guantanamo, as long as they are claimed as “prisoners of war” are neglected the right of due process and many other civil rights, standard for human beings. It is such accusations that fuel this very debate about the rights a government and its agencies have over their prisoners during wartime. For better answers to such an intricate question one could turn to philosophers, particularly the more contemporary ones that have ethical views on the matter. Two such philosophers are Immanuel Kant and Augustine, one from Germany the other from the Roman Empire.
Table of Contents
- At a lecture given at our own Stony Brook University, Michael Ratner asserts that 'Justice is losing its power? .
- Augustine, the fifth century philosopher, and a very important figure in modern Christian and western thought, gives many answers on what man should do with his god given free will. Augustine claims that evil is not derived from the moral judgments of man
- At first glance it seems that Augustine is contradicting himself when he says 'justice is giving each his due' putting forth a very retributive view of punishment, and then saying that an innocent person could be tortured for the benefit of society
- Thirteen centuries later, in an era of radical and daring philosophies, Immanuel Kant also concluded that torture is an unacceptable form of punishment.
- Going back to Kant's idea of categorical imperative, it would become clear that if a soldier decided to torture a terrorist, he would be implying that such behavior would be acceptable as a standard in society.
1
knowledge network
Sort by
Subject :
Type :
Extension :
Language :
Size :