Cuba has sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #16 02-27-2007, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Your understanding of the terminology is getting you into an untenable position for argument. Let's get it safely out of the realm of current politics, shall we? That seems to get people's thinking all twisted-up and stuff.

Here's where we are:
Two countries enter into a long-term deal concerning a parcel of land owned by one country and leased by the other. One country wishes to change the deal.

Now, how do they resolve the dispute?

Whether or not we deserve to maintain the lease is beside the point I'm driving home here. If Castro and co. really wanted to change the deal against our wishes, they'd have to attack us and lay waste to us. They can't do that. Or, they'd have to offer us something that appealed to us more than Guantanamo, which I doubt they could or would do.

But to assert that Cuba has sovereignty over that piece of land is absurd. There is nothing, nothing they could do to influence our behavior there, or anything else there. Those 45 sq. miles are de facto US territory, well, and I mean, WELL guarded.

I notice you didn't answer my question but instead went for the artful dodge, the dance, if you will (Cheney speak:fork_off

, that question being:

How do you define sovereign?

Botnst · #17 02-27-2007, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Whether or not we deserve to maintain the lease is beside the point I'm driving home here. If Castro and co. really wanted to change the deal against our wishes, they'd have to attack us and lay waste to us. They can't do that. Or, they'd have to offer us something that appealed to us more than Guantanamo, which I doubt they could or would do.

But to assert that Cuba has sovereignty over that piece of land is absurd. There is nothing, nothing they could do to influence our behavior there, or anything else there. Those 45 sq. miles are de facto US territory, well, and I mean, WELL guarded.

I notice you didn't answer my question but instead went for the artful dodge, the dance, if you will (Cheney speak:fork_off

, that question being:

How do you define sovereign?

How do I define it? With a dictionary. How about you?

Cuba exercised it's sovereign authority over it's land and entered into a lease agreement with another sovereign state concerning rights to use a piece of land for a certain period of time.

When you rent or lease property, do you still own it or does the lessee or renter own it?

t walgamuth · #18 02-27-2007, 08:28 AM

you still own it but have traded the day to day use of it for money. or some other consideration. subject to the rules agreed to in the agreement.

if you wish to change that you can always do it by force but then you move out of the business arena and into the arena of might makes right.

tom w

John Doe · #19 02-27-2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A264172

This dose seem like the rule of law is being forfited by the court... or at least, the buck is being passed. It will be interesting to see how the supream court deals with this issue.

Might be the judges didn't feel up to the task of defining the of the limits of the exucitive branch, but that is clearly what needs to be addressed. ?

This is probably how it looks to a non-lawyer, but this type of thing is actually quite typical of almost any federal court ruling (and yes it is frustrating whether or not you get paid to brief such issues). AND the capability of issuing this type of ruling is a primary criteria for how the absolute best and brightest jurists (and lawprofessors as is the case is in a local situation here) attain lifetime appointments from the executive branch.

Given the current makeup of the SupCo, the real interest for me will be to see if they grant certiorari to hearthe case because it defies Rasul where they spanked Bush in '04. To me the ultimate ruling or refusal to hear this case will be a strong indicator of just how powerful bush is or isn't.

John Doe · #20 02-27-2007, 10:41 AM

By the way, before I get banned again, CMAC--try to find an online source for Black's Law Dictionary (I only have the hardcover). One way the SupCo could uphold this ruling (IMO) is found in Blacks definition of "Sovereign States", a portion of which states "No foreign power or law can have control except by convention [in a sovereign state]" So yeah, we could exercise power like Hitler in essentially a colony that we rent.

A264172 · #21 02-27-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

This is probably how it looks to a non-lawyer, but this type of thing is actually quite typical of almost any federal court ruling (and yes it is frustrating whether or not you get paid to brief such issues). AND the capability of issuing this type of ruling is a primary criteria for how the absolute best and brightest jurists (and lawprofessors as is the case is in a local situation here) attain lifetime appointments from the executive branch.

Given the current makeup of the SupCo, the real interest for me will be to see if they grant certiorari to hearthe case because it defies Rasul where they spanked Bush in '04. To me the ultimate ruling or refusal to hear this case will be a strong indicator of just how powerful bush is or isn't.

I can see where it would be beyond the realm of the court and current laws when you put it that way. Also I should have read the ruling before drawing conclusions.

There is an element of justice though, in which the court must peer into the technicalitys and determine there essential veracity. And the Gitmo circumstance is one which attempts to circumvent justice (in theory). I see the intent of the 'people' expressed in their laws, loseing on this one.

John Doe · #22 02-27-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A264172

I can see where it would be beyond the realm of the court and current laws when you put it that way. Also I should have read the ruling before drawing conclusions.

There is an element of justice though, in which the court must peer into the technicalitys and determine there essential veracity. And the Gitmo circumstance is one which attempts to circumvent justice (in theory). I see the intent of the 'people' expressed in their laws, loseing on this one.

Whoa--I certainly didn't mean to be condescending--I haven't read the ruling either. I may try to get it off Pacer and post it here for everyone. I just meant to convey that federal court rulings are almost always frustrating--no matter who you are!

I'm stickin to my definition of sovereign states until I see the ruling as to whether or not it will be heard on a WoC.

A264172 · #23 02-27-2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

Whoa--I certainly didn't mean to be condescending--I haven't read the ruling either. I may try to get it off Pacer and post it here for everyone. I just meant to convey that federal court rulings are almost always frustrating--no matter who you are!

I'm stickin to my definition of sovereign states until I see the ruling as to whether or not it will be heard on a WoC.

Whoa there, I know I can be vauge sometimes, but that's not what I meant... ttat you were condescending... which you weren't... well no more than any oyher lawyer anyway.

I ment to say that I realise that a judges job is to interpert the law and rule on it, as you pointed out. (If thats what you were saying) because it hasn't really been a central part of the discussion.

Thanks for adding that notion to the thread BTW as it could use a little middle ground.

John Doe · #24 02-27-2007, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A264172

Whoa there, I know I can be vauge sometimes, but that's not what I meant... ttat you were condescending... which you weren't... well no more than any oyher lawyer anyway.

I ment to say that I realise that a judges job is to interpert the law and rule on it, as you pointed out. (If thats what you were saying) because it hasn't really been a central part of the discussion.

Thanks for adding that notion to the thread BTW as it could use a little middle ground.

right on.

John Doe · #25 02-27-2007, 11:49 AM

Damn, I didn't know it was this serious, CMAC!!

http://www.funrestarea.com/pages/snl_robert_deniro.shtml

Mistress · #26 02-27-2007, 12:11 PM

If we have an embargo against Cuba, why are we renting space there? Excuse me but my knowledge of Cuba only extends to cooking, drinking Mohito's and dancing the Salsa....oh and a good Cohiba cigar now and then.

John Doe · #27 02-27-2007, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistress

If we have an embargo against Cuba, why are we renting space there?

Same reason your beloved Savannah was used as a debtor's colony by the more sophisticated City to the North before Moultrie took over........

I have a relative who has a lawsuit against Cuba (check your pm). I have been told that one avenue of collecting some of these judgments (there are many, many, many for seizure of property, ect....) may be that when Castro dies, the $ in the escrow acct. may be used for this purpose. I have also been told by the same sources that one of the steps certain groups will lobby for to normalize relations with Cuba after Castro's death is to settle a percentage of these judgments prior to extending Cuba trade credit.

BENZ-LGB · #28 02-27-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistress

If we have an embargo against Cuba, why are we renting space there? Excuse me but my knowledge of Cuba only extends to cooking, drinking Mohito's and dancing the Salsa....oh and a good Cohiba cigar now and then.

The (non-existent) embargo was put into place after we entered into the lease agreement with the Cuban government.

BTW, I have not read the court's opinion. So I have no opinion on this particular ruling.

But people (non-lawyers in this instance) need to understand that for the most part courts only decide the issue that is right in front of it and only decide the issue on the narrowest of ground.

So when you read a certain opinion, you may find that it leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Those questions are deliberately left for another court and another set of circumstances.

I know it is weird, but that is the way it usually goes.

John Doe · #29 02-27-2007, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

But people (non-lawyers in this instance) need to understand that for the most part courts only decide the issue that is right on front of it and only decide the issue on the narrowest of ground.

So when you read a certain opinion, you may find that it leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Those questions are deliberately left for another court and another set of circumstances.

I know it is weird, but that is the way it usually goes.

Ditto. The opinion hasn't circulated around to me via forwards yet, if it doesn't later today, I'll purchase it for everyone from Pacer