Talk:Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

Spanish Colonial Era

The paragraph "Spanish Colonial Era" talks about the British. Where is Spain?? ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC))

It's in South-Eastern Europe. Why? 2A0A:EF40:122D:7801:2822:3B37:8963:DB4F (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

GTMO - NOT an acronym either

And back to the same old . . . Since 23 May this year the lead in this article has been saying, "(also called GTMO, pronounced Gitmo as an acronym, by the U.S. military)".

The abbreviation "GTMO" is incorrectly listed as an acronym at The Free Dictionary.

It is surely clear that "GTMO" is NOT an acronym. Wikipedia defines an acronym as "a word or name formed from the initial components of a longer name or phrase". Of all dictionaries and English language reference works usually regarded as authoritative, e.g. Collins, Webster's, Oxford and Cambridge I have not found one that does not state either explicitly or directly that an acronym is derived from a name or description consisting of more than one word. "GTMO" is clearly an abbreviation created by the selection of a few letters from just one word, "Guantanamo". It therefore does not qualify as an acronym.

abbreviations.com correctly lists it as a "term".

Neither is it, properly speaking, any kind of code. In fact, it is simply an abbreviation, conventionally written in military style block caps and conventionally (or lazily?) pronounced as a word "Gitmo", with the vowel added to make the pronunciation easier.

Any other representations, opinions or further information should be made here within 7 days. Given none, after that time, the article will be corrected thus: "also abbreviated GTMO, usually pronounced Gitmo by the U.S. military and others ..." Hedles (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base → Guantánamo Bay Naval BaseGuantánamo Bay Naval Base – It might be a good idea to align this article with the diacritic that is seen on Guantánamo Bay Dawnseeker2000 02:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per references cited in the article, the accent is not used. 162 etc. (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

enemy combatants

Under the header "Detention camp" the first sentence of the second paragraph says "the base was used to detain several hundred enemy combatants". This is false as is commonly known. It would be correct to say i.e. "the base was used to detain several hundred men that were accused of being enemy combatants". --Querstrebe (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Violation of the lease agreement

It appears to me that the United States is in violation of the lease in several ways, including the mode of payment and the permited uses. The lack of a term also suggests the lease was not an agreement between equals. Even the British returned Hong Kong after 99 years!

I think the article should address this issue. I expect the situation has been assessed in secondary sources. Can someone come up with a neutral reference, ideally from the international law viewpoint? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Normal US contract law should be enough to invalidate the lease. The lease (as any agreement) imposes obligations on both parties, and the US has abandoned any pretense of defending the Cuban government (see the opening agreement). A close reading of the lease betrays many material breaches by the us, giving Cuba the right to repudiate, which it does at the UN each year. Just done recently for 2022.

If you want to look at international law, pretty much for the purposes of allowing other nations to say that they feel that the lease is no longer in force, if it ever was, you could point to the simple "pacta sunt servanda" which asserts that promises must be kept. It is an international norm, and also self-evident. This is not rocket science.( Martin | talk • contribs 02:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC))

Improper summary of "Agreement"

The summary of the "agreement" introduction does not reflect any of the text of that section. Martin | talk • contribs 17:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you propose that would be better? Anastrophe (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

the current text is close enough. But note that no lease is "permanent" and is not called "Permanent" in the lease. Note that the USA can walk away from the lease, and Cuba cannot force them to stay. Also the usual reasons for termination apply: material breach, anticipatory breach, and mundane stuff like non-payment of rent.( Martin | talk • contribs 02:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC))