• Telodzrum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    109
    ·
    8 hours ago

    The installation and its grounds are sovereign US soil. It doesn’t matter what Cuba says or wants.

    • tate@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      107
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      It is most certainly not sovereign US territority. We began leasing it from Cuba in 1903.

      ETA: If it were US, the prisoners there would have rights. That’s the whole point of putting a prison there.

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        117
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Leasing doesn’t mean that it’s not sovereign territory. It just means you pay the country for being there.

        I swear the opinion that Lemmy users have of their understanding of topics which are extremely obviously beyond their knowledge never ceases to amaze me.

        • tyler@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          4 hours ago

          lol so everyone else has shown how you clearly don’t understand sovereign territory, but it’s also pretty clear you have no clue what “leasing” means either. Do you think leasing somehow magically gives you ownership of something? Like if you lease a car from the dealership do you think you own that car?

        • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          90
          ·
          7 hours ago

          The base, which is considered legally to be leased by the Cuban government to the United States, is on territory that is recognized by both governments to be sovereign Cuban territory.

          Source

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          7 hours ago

          For some legal purposes we treat it like soverign soil. But it isn’t actually soverign soil or we wouldn’t be leasing it.

    • MrNesser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      You realise the US would have to care for all the deported people in what would now be a refugee camp.

      Technically as well they aren’t event getting deported just relocated to a camp in US territory.

      I suppose you could say they are concentrating the problem in one place.

      • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        It is not for deportees. That is the excuse to get it built, but as you pointed out, it makes no sense. It is for political opponents.

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Yeah, it’s awful, immoral, injustice, and downright dumb for a bunch of other reasons. I just don’t really care what Cuba has to say about it.