GTMO Bill (Failed)

[Јas]

i don't support this bill. You never know when you'll need a naval base in Cuba.

Can you outline any circumstances where you foresee maintaining the base as being particularly useful for naval purposes?

There's no reason to give up this strategic asset.

How strategically important do you consider it to be?

[Јas]

Well Venezuela is in the neighborhood, and one doesn't know the future of Cuba. There is no reason to give it up.

Atlasia isn't short of territories in the region - e.g. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are both closer to Venezuela. Plus Atlasia itself is hardly all that much further away.

I really don't know how to respond to the statement "one doesn't know the future of Cuba", as it doesn't really say anything at all.

[Јas]

Well Venezuela is in the neighborhood, and one doesn't know the future of Cuba. There is no reason to give it up.

Atlasia isn't short of territories in the region - e.g. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are both closer to Venezuela. Plus Atlasia itself is hardly all that much further away.

I really don't know how to respond to the statement "one doesn't know the future of Cuba", as it doesn't really say anything at all.

It says that the place is still run by a tyrant, who won't be around much longer, and we don't know where Cuba is headed, and if it goes nutter, it might be useful to have a pad from which to watch and wait, and if need be, to take action.

Well, I'm fairly sure we can watch and wait just as effectively from Key West as from Guantanamo Bay.
So, I presume the only pertinant point here is that it would be a useful pad "to take action" from if needs be.

What possible action do you foresee and would it come within the allowable uses of the the Base as determined by the Treaty?

[Јas]

Well, as long as needed for a naval station, per my reading it can be used for any purpose, and has been as we know, including as a prison. Having something on the land mass of Cuba might prove useful in ways we cannot foresee. Maybe we can rescue our spies into there from Cuba, or other "assets."  Maybe it is a good place from which to invade, if we have to. I don't know. When in doubt, and the costs are acceptable, keep your options open. That is simply good planning.

Well I disagree as to just what the Treaty entitles us to do, indeed it seems to be very limiting by my reading of Article II - a prison would almost certainly be out of the question, for example.

Guantanamo isn't readily accessible for any of our spies in Cuba seeking to make a quick escape, unless they come by sea, in which case they can more than likely reach Atlasian territory anyway.

I have no idea why we'd consider invasion, but if so, again Guantanamo is less than ideally placed. Any assault would surely have to focus on a quick taking of Havana on the opposite side of the island which is closer to Florida than Guantanamo.

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find anything substantial on the current expenditure related to Guantanamo; grateful if I could be pointed in the right direction on this.

[Јas]

The treaty says we keep the land as long as we find it convenient as a naval base or coaling. It does not say that its use is limited to that exclusively.

Preamble:
"AGREEMENT Between [Atlasia] and the Republic of Cuba for the lease... of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations."

Article I:
"The Republic of Cuba hereby leases to the United States, for the time required for the purposes of coaling and naval stations"

Article II:
"The grant of the foregoing Article shall include the right to use and occupy the waters adjacent to said areas of land and water, and to improve and deepen the entrances thereto and the anchorages therein, and generally to do any and all things necessary to fit the premises for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose."

The Treaty makes clear again and again that coaling and naval stations are the acceptable purposes for the use of the land. I think both Article I sets a temporal application on the Treaty for such time as these activities continue; and Article II explicitly states the allowed uses of the territory. And if in doubt the preamble states quite clearly that the lease is for coaling and naval stations.

[Јas]

Aye

[Јas]

Original Sponsor (Jas) has 72 hours to call for a veto override.

Procedural note: It might be advantageous to wait until t'other override vote has timed out before doing so - frees up a slot.

I want a veto override vote, but leave it to your discretion as to the whens and hows...

[Јas]

Aye

[Јas]

Close.

I tried to get Mssrs. Verily and Meeker to at least show up, oh well, hopefully their replacements can beat them for activity.