Posted on 02/05/2015 12:21:38 PM PST by Abakumov
Cuba wants Guantánamo Bay back. And if President Obama wanted to, he could just give it to them.
The White House has lately been pushing for normalizing relations with Cuba, which have been suspended since the 1959 communist revolution. President Raúl Castro said that one precondition for normalizing ties with the United States would be returning the 45 square mile U.S.-controlled territory at Guantánamo Bay. Though most noted for its terrorist detainee facility, the U.S. has maintained a naval station there for over 100 years. Last week, White House spokesman Josh Earnest rejected Castros demand, saying that while President Obama would like to see the prison shut down, the naval base is not something that we wish to be closed.
So they say. The White House also says Iran should not develop a nuclear weapon, and look how that effort is going. After a few rounds of tough negotiations with the Cubans the U.S. position on Guantánamo is certain to evolve.
So could Mr. Obama simply hand Gitmo back to the Cubans? It looks like he can.
(Excerpt) Read more at radixnews.com ...
Let's give Obama to Cuba
Better Question: What if America gave Obama back to Kenya?
Jimmy Carter did give the Panama canal to Panama who leased it to China.
The treaty was stated “In perpetuity”. So was the one for the Panama Canal. How’d that work out under the “Peanut Vendor”?
I believe the United States has a defined policy on how military bases are closed, as well as how surplus property is disposed of. Applications are available online, and available in Spanish. Cuba should fill them out, they might get lucky.
The Senate still had to ratify the Panama Canal thing for Jimmy Carter.
CAN he just give it back to them?
Article 1, Section 8
Congress shall have the power...
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Would purchase or sale of land, even a zero cost transaction, be considered commerce?
But I do not think he did it unilaterally.
Unfortunately the "Peanut Vendor" has never suffered for any the crap he while president or after it was always American citizens as well as the free people of the world who suffered for asinine decisions.
PS - Negotiation of what became know as the the Torrijos-Carter treaties, which ultimately turned the canal over to Panama, began in 1974 - 2 years before Carter was elected.
He most definitely signed the treaties, but the idea of giving up the canal did not originate with him.
I'm sure surrendering Gitmo had already been discussed in order to deliver the last terrorists to Castro, and finish with his many election promises. :-(
What you say about Carter is true, but giving away the canal was actually not his idea.
From:
http://history.state.gov/milestones/1977-1980/panama-canal
“Secretary of State Henry Kissinger set forth his reasoning [for turning the canal over the Pananma] in a meeting with President Ford in 1975: If these [Canal] negotiations fail, we will be beaten to death in every international forum and there will be riots all over Latin America. In 1973, the Nixon administration appointed Ellsworth Bunker, a seasoned U.S. diplomat, to lead the U.S. delegation. Bunker focused on ensuring perpetual U.S. use of the Panama Canal, rather than perpetual U.S. control of the Panama Canal Zone. Between the years of 1973 and 1976, Bunker and his team were able to conclude a series of draft agreements with the government of Panama that formed the foundation of the eventual Torrijos-Carter Treaties.”
The United States has immigration and border control laws too. Or it used to before Our Glorious Leader became the law.
I fully expect him to do this before he leave office. It hit me when he decided to normalize relations with Cuba out of the blue. I think its already a done deal with the Castro’s
I believe that is why he is so anxious to empty it of the islamic terrorists. Of course it would be a TREASONABLE OFFENSE, but I've yet to see anyone in DC, with the possible exception of Trey Gowdy, willing to uphold their oath to defend The Constitution.
Why wouldn’t he? It’s obvious the Repubs are all spineless and ‘nadless and would do nothing more than a little bluster.
I think because it takes a Senate vote to adopt a treaty, it probably takes a Senate vote to Abrogate a treaty.
But I’m not sure of if I’m correct, or if the GOP will do anything about it anyway.
What if he commands our military not to defend GITMO?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.