You are committing the most grevieous fallacy in debate - relying on Wikipedia as your primary source of information. Fact is, in the Treaty of Paris, sovereignty over Cuba was NOT assigned to the United States. Puerto Rico and the Philippines - yes, Cuba - no.
[quote=Treaty of Paris (1898)]Article I. Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba.And as the island is, upon its evacuation by Spain, to be occupied by the United States, the United States will, so long as such occupation shall last, assume and discharge the obligations that may under international law result from the fact of its occupation, for the protection of life and property.
Article II. Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.
Article III. Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line:[/quote]
Notice the difference in language between article 1 and articles 2-3? Puerto Rico and the Phillipines were CEDED to the US. Cuba was not.
No, I was just being lazy about my sources. Wikipedia poisons a lot of search results due to how often it is linked to, therefore it comes up first. I relied on Wikipedia as an aggregater of sources, of which you also used a link posted there. So it really is a moot point. There are far worse fallacies of debate than to use Wikipedia.
[quote=“ludahai”] Fact is, in the Treaty of Paris, sovereignty over Cuba was NOT assigned to the United States. Puerto Rico and the Philippines - yes, Cuba - no.
[quote=“Treaty of Paris (1898)”]Article I. Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba.And as the island is, upon its evacuation by Spain, to be occupied by the United States, the United States will, so long as such occupation shall last, assume and discharge the obligations that may under international law result from the fact of its occupation, for the protection of life and property.
Article II. Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.
Article III. Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the following line:[/quote]
Notice the difference in language between article 1 and articles 2-3? Puerto Rico and the Phillipines were CEDED to the US. Cuba was not. [/quote]
Yes, there was different language used. They transferred Porto Rico and the Philippines to the US, lock stock and barrel. No issue there. What we seem to disagree on is who Cuba was relinquished, or transferred to. I don’t think the issue you have is whether or not Spain had sovereign control over Cuba. The issue is with the word “relinquish”.
[quote=“Merriam Websters Dictionary”]
1: to withdraw or retreat from : leave behind
2: give up
3 a: to stop holding physically : release b: to give over possession or control of : yield [/quote]
The Republic of Cuba didn’t sit down at the Treaty of Paris and become a signatory because at that point in time they weren’t a sovereign entity. Under international law at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Paris, the two signatories were the US and Spain. That’s why there are other treaties between the US and Cuba, in 1903 and 1934, dealing with the relations issue. Sovereignty was relinquished to the US with regards to Cuba, because there was no Cuban entity to relinquish it to.
The relevant Cuban government came to existence in May 20th, 1902 when the US transferred control to the newly elected government. The Platt amendment, detailing Guantanamo, was passed in 1901. The Treaty of Relations (1934) stated that any treaties before 1902 were still valid. Therefore, the US had, and still has, sovereign control over Guantánamo bay. The US flag flew over Cuba from 1898 until 1902 while it was property of the US government.
I did very well, thank you very much. You, however, only focused on that one small aspect of my argument and failed to dislodge it. You also ignored, or missed, the part about the Judicial system considering Guantánamo bay part of US soil when it comes to the detainees. I would suggest that you should try harder next time.
If all else fails, consider that it belongs to the US as payment for the over 1 billion dollars (1960 dollars) of US property that was stolen when Castro nationalized businesses and property in Cuba.
Note to Mods: Maybe this thread should be split and moved to a more appropriate location for discussing Cuba, Guantánamo bay, anything else not having to do with A-bian pocketing cents.
Go and read Rasul v Bush. Cuba has ultimate sovereignty over Guantanamo. The Supreme Court decided that US courts have jurisdiction over Gitmo not that the US holds sovereignty. Scalia in his dissent noted that by extending juirisdiction the court was opening up a can of worms as it could allow for prisoners being held at any military base (federal territory) to appeal their imprisonment.
You guys are arguing at cross purposes. Guantanamo is federal territory but the US does not have sovereignty. Unless you would care to argue that the SC does not know what it is talking about.
I think the last 2 pages miss the point entirely. If the USA has the right to detain and torture individuals without charging them on “US territory,” doesn’t that set the precedent for other countries to do the same.
But as Gitmo is not sovereign US territory, it can’t be reasonably compared to Taiwan’s government holding someone without charge in Taiwan as it is the sovereign territory of this country.
[quote="lbksig]
Yes, there was different language used. They transferred Porto Rico and the Philippines to the US, lock stock and barrel. No issue there. What we seem to disagree on is who Cuba was relinquished, or transferred to. I don’t think the issue you have is whether or not Spain had sovereign control over Cuba. The issue is with the word “relinquish”.
[quote=“Merriam Websters Dictionary”]
1: to withdraw or retreat from : leave behind
2: give up
3 a: to stop holding physically : release b: to give over possession or control of : yield [/quote][/quote]
But sovereignty of Cuba was NOT transferred to the US, and the 1903 U.S.-Cuba Treaty confirmed US recognition of Cuban sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay. In order for territory to be transferred from one state to another, it must be specifically laid out in a properly concluded, ratified, and executed treaty. This is a fundamental rule of international law. The 1898 Treaty of Paris fails on that accord regarding Cuba. That is why the Philippines and Porto Rico came under US soveriegnty while Cuba never did. The 1903 treaty confirms that fact.
No, this is not the case. Sovereignty was NOT transferred to the United States. This is why the US never took sovereign control of the island.
The Montevideo COnvention was concluded more than 30 years after the conclusion of the Treaty of Paris.
But NOT the sovereign territory of the US
Agreed on the stolen nationalized businesses. That was also illegal. But there would also be no legal basis for annexing Guantanamo Bay. It is better suited for the ICJ to render a judgement rather than unilaterally annexing territory, which would definately be a violation of international law.
Agreed. This is a good discussion, but this is not the place for it.
One can argue ROC is not sovereign of Taiwan either. Because in both cases the territory in question is effectively controlled and administered by their respective States.
But that is not the point; the point is whether or not a government can detain suspects without pressing formal charges. Obviously USA can do it to non-USA citizens for an indefinite period of time (i.e. 8 years in Gitmo). The ROC only restricts detention for 4 months in the quasi suspension of civil liberties.
Sorry for reviving an old and seemingly out of topic thread, but the title fits what I am about to post.
Here are a list of things A-bian did regarding managing his own money and the cases against him.
When CSB took office, he cut his own salary in half, which wasn’t a part of his campaign platform, he just did it because he thought it was the right thing to do. By doing so, he gave up 40 million NTD for his 8 year term.
Under the Chiangs era, the presidents had a truck load of secret fundings that they could use without any supervision under the guise of national security. President LTH consolidated them into the Fengtian project (奉天專案) and the Dangyang project (當陽專案). The projects were each generating interests of 100 million NTD a year. Previous presidents used that interest for whatever purposes they wanted to, also without any supervision or regulation. CSB cancelled the projects, and had all the interests generated from the projects go back into the country. That was 800 mil NTD, for the 8 years he was in office.
When you run for president, every vote you get the CEC would give you 30 dollars if you get over 3.5% of the vote. That system is put in place so that candidates don’t have to worry about campaign funds and at the same time discourage people who don’t really stand a chance from running. CSB got a combination of more then 300 mil NTD for the two presidential elections he ran. He turned all that money over to the DPP.
During the 8 years he ran for office he donated about 1.4 billion NTD to other DPP candidates for their elections.
The charges of hiding classified information were dropped, 8/29, 2104.
The charges of oversea money laundering were dropped, 8/6, 2014.
The charges of instigating and collusion were reversed in Court, 8/18, 2012.
The charges of misuse of National Security funding were reversed in court, 8/26, 2012.
Secrete diplomacy charges dismissed, 4/28, 2011.
10.The charges of Nangang expo were dismissed, 11/11, 2010.
The charges of Longtan development, witness Koo Zhong-liang made repeated statements that his confessions were false, and were forced under the threat of the Special Investigation Unit of not letting him return to Taiwan. After losing that only piece of evidence, the judge gave CSB a guilty sentence anyway, because CSB has “alleged ability to influence”.
The second financial reform cases have been suspended. Key witness Tu Li-ping said the special investigation unit demanded her to falsify confessions, otherwise they would keep her locked up indefinitely. She was so terrified, she attempted suicide.
One has to wonder where CSB accumulated $22 million dollars to put into a Swiss bank account.[/quote]
Political donations. In the list I made, just the first 3 points alone indicates CSB gave up over $1 billion NTD, the fact that he has 800 mil in the bank means that he received a lot of donations.
You’re not supposed to donate into a personal account abroad… That’s not how it works.
It’s painfully clear that Chen is guilty, but the courts couldn’t get him on it. My stance is he should be free because the judges couldn’t adequately find the evidence to convict him… even though, again, I don’t for a second doubt his complicity.
Yep you can’t just prosecute (persecute) one politician and don’t touch the others. There’s justice and then there’s equality for all. You are not supposed to choose to use the wheels of justice selectively. The nationalists still have strong fascist tendencies. The population here grew up in that environment so are used to seeing the law being selectively applied, indeed it’s the hallmark of most immature developing societies.