Geiteneukers opgelet

Willen ze ook weten waar ik het meest bang voor ben?

Ik peins er niet over om ooit nog naar dat land te gaan…

Nah, als je Cuba wilt zien, kun je beter naar Havana gaan.

Is het ´libre´ dan? Niet dat Cuba nou zo vrij is…

Bovendien, men praat zoveel over Gitmo, maar niemand stelt de juiste vraag: Als je goed naar de plattegrond kijkt what the fuck doen de Amerikanen op Guantanamo?

Reactie is geredigeerd

Through The Looking Glass In Guantanamo
by Jane Franklin; May 03, 2004

ALICE: "If the Bush Administration wants to keep control of the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo, Cuba, why is it arguing before the Supreme Court that Cuba has sovereignty?"

HUMPTY-DUMPTY: "What easy riddles you ask. Because if Cuba has sovereignty, U.S. law does not apply there and so the 600 men and boys called `enemy combatants’ by the Bush Administration have no legal rights whatsoever under U.S. law."

That is actually the argument presented by the lawyer for the Bush Administration before the Supreme Court on April 20. In reality, Cuba has not been sovereign in this particular territory since the Spanish Empire took over the island, already called Cuba, in the late 15th century.

Four centuries later, in 1898, the U.S. Congress declared war against Spain. While the United states calls this the Spanish- American War, Cuba calls it the U.S. Intervention in their Second War of Independence. Claiming that it was going to war to liberate Cuba from Spain, Washington actually went to war to seize Spanish colonies–Guam and the Philippines in the Pacific and Puerto Rico and Cuba in the Atlantic.

Snatching victory from the arms of the Cuban rebels who had almost defeated the Spanish colonialists, U.S. troops occupied the island, including the port at Guantanamo Bay, for four years. In exchange for removal of those troops, the Cuban government, installed by Washington, agreed to incorporate into Cuba’s new Constitution the Platt Amendment, which had already become law in the United States (compare the Helms-Burton law a century later, in 1996). The Platt Amendment yielded virtual control of Cuba to Washington, allowing the island to be converted from a colony of Spain into a neo-colony of the United States.

Among the plunder legalized by the Platt Amendment was permission to lease the 45-square-mile area on both sides of Guantanamo Bay. This became the Guantanamo Naval Base, located near the eastern tip of Cuba–a strategic position in the Caribbean and a deep-water port that would be of priceless value to Cuba if Cubans controlled it.

Signed by the 1903 Cuban government that owed its creation to Washington, the lease for Guantanamo stipulated that it would not expire until both countries agree to its termination. The current Cuban government demanded on March 5, 1959, that Washington end its occupation in Guantanamo province. But Washington has continued to "rent" the land, originally paying $2000 a year in gold and now sending $4,085 in the form of a yearly check that Havana has not cashed since 1959.

The lease specified that the area was "for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose." But Washington has always used Guantanamo for whatever purpose it chooses. When the Bush Administration went to war in Afghanistan, the Defense Department turned the naval base into a concentration camp for more than 600 captives from Afghanistan and at least 43 other countries. Classified as "enemy combatants," they have no right to challenge their detention in any court anywhere. No charges have been filed against them. They have no access to lawyers. They have no court dates for hearings or trials. In short, they have no right of habeas corpus.

The challenge to this indefinite limbo is now in the hands of the Supreme Court, which heard arguments from Attorney John Gibbons on behalf of the petitioners held at Guantanamo and from the U.S. Solicitor General, Theodore Olson, on behalf of President George Bush, et al. The Bush Administration maintains that Cuba has "ultimate sovereignty" at the Guantanamo Naval Base and, therefore, U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over what happens there. But as Attorney Gibbons stated in his argument before the Court, this "would create a lawless enclave insulating the executive branch from any judicial scrutiny now or in the future."

Since U.S. armed forces took over the island from Spain, they have never left the naval base at Guantanamo. It’s as if a foreign power were to seize an area on both sides of the Hudson River in New York and New Jersey or both sides of the San Francisco Bay.

Cuba has repeatedly protested against the illegal occupation of its territory by a foreign power. On April 15, Cuba proposed a resolution to the United Nations Human Rights Commission that would have condemned the violation of human rights at the concentration camp on Cuban territory. Although Cuba temporarily has withdrawn the resolution, which faced a motion of no action, Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque emphasizes that the resolution has only been postponed and will be raised in whatever forum Cuba considers appropriate.

Whatever the U.S. Supreme Court decides, if Cuba were indeed sovereign at Guantanamo Naval Base, the concentration camp would not exist. In the past, Cuba has offered to turn the whole area into a regional health center for the entire Caribbean.

Jane Franklin

Author of CUBA AND THE UNITED STATES: A CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY (Melbourne/New York: Ocean Press, 1997).

@Mihai: Geldt je waarschuwing ook voor mierenneukers?

@Erik

Ik heb geen flauw idee.
Het enige wat ik kan me voorstellen is dat men denkt dat de Amerikaanse homobeweging steun krijgt van buitenland, bijvoorbeeld uit Europa. Dat zou in de trend passen van de laatste tijd om alles wat politiek ongewenst is te treiteren, zoals in het onderstaande artikel wordt beweerd:

BUSH RESTRICTING TRAVEL RIGHTS OF OVER 100,000 U.S. CITIZENS

By Sherwood Ross

The freedom to travel of more than 100,000 Americans placed on “watch” and “no fly” lists is being restricted by the Bush-Cheney regime.

Citizens who have done no more than criticize the president are being banned from airline flights, harassed at airports’, strip searched, roughed up and even imprisoned, feminist author and political activist Naomi Wolf reports in her new book, “The End of America.”(Chelsea Green Publishing)

“Making it more difficult for people out of favor with the state to travel back and forth across borders is a classic part of the fascist playbook,” Wolf says. She noticed starting in 2002 that “almost every time I sought to board a domestic airline flight, I was called aside by the Transportation Security Administration(TSA) and given a more thorough search.”

During one preboarding search, a TSA agent told her “You’re on the list” and Wolf learned it is not a list of suspected terrorists but of journalists, academics, activists, and politicians “who have criticized the White House.”

Some of this hassling has made headlines, such as when Senator Edward Kennedy was detained five times in East Coast airports in March, 2004, suggesting no person, however prominent, is safe from Bush nastiness. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia has also been mistreated. And it can be nasty. Robert Johnson, an American citizen, described the “humiliation factor” he endured:

“I had to take off my pants. I had to take off my sneakers, then I had to take off my socks. I was treated like a criminal,” Wolf quotes him as saying. And it gets worse than that. Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela’s foreign minister, said he was detained at Kennedy airport by officers who “threatened and shoved” him. And that was mild. Maher Arar, a Canadian software consultant was detained at Kennedy and “rendered” to Syria where he was imprisoned for more than a year by goons that beat him with a heavy metal cable.

After the Canadian furor over Arar’s illegal kidnapping and torture, he was eventually released as he had zero ties to terrorists. Yet the Bush gang refused to concede error; refused to provide documents or witnesses to Canadian investigators; and claimed last January it had “secret information” that justified keeping Arar on the watch list, Wolf noted.

Again, Chaplain James Yee, an American citizen born in New Jersey who had converted to Islam and had the Christian compassion to call for better treatment of Guantanamo prisoners, was nabbed in Sept., 2003 on suspicion of “espionage and possibly treason” and flung into the Naval brig at Charleston, S.C., where he was manacled, put in solitary for 76 days, forbidden mail and family visits, demonized in the media and warned he could face execution. Wolf writes, “Within six months, the U.S. government had dropped all criminal charges against Yee,” claiming it did so to avoid making sensitive evidence public, not because the chaplain was innocent.

Over and again, the Bush gang claims it can prove terrible crimes about suspects but, like the men imprisoned at Guantanamo, it repeatedly turns out to have “conspiracy” zilch in its briefcase rather than hard proof of actual misdeeds. Yet it goes on punishing hundreds of suspects with solitary confinement and worse without ever bringing them to trial. Globally, the number of such detainees is in the tens of thousands. Stalin would have understood.
Apparently, favorite targets of the Bush tyranny are peace activists like Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordon, detained at the San Francisco airport; a political leader such as Nancy Oden, of the Green Party, prevented from flying from Maine to Chicago; King Downing and David Fathi, both of the American Civil Liberties Union and both detained (proves ACLU’s case about Bush, eh what?); and Constitutional scholar Walter F. Murphy, of Princeton University, who had attacked the illegalities of the Bush regime. He was put on notice his luggage would be ransacked.

“When you are physically detained by armed agents because of something you said or wrote, it has an impact,” Wolf writes. “…you get it right away that the state is tracking your journeys, can redirect you physically, and can have armed men and women, who may or may not answer your questions, search and release you.”

Wolf traces the “watch list” back to a 2003 directive from Bush to his intelligence agencies to identify people “thought to have terrorist intentions or contacts.” After the list was given to the airlines, CBS-TV’s 60 Minutes got a copy. The list was 540 pages long and there were 75,000 names on it of people to be taken aside for extra screening.

The more stringent “no fly” list has 45,000 names on it, Wolf reports. Prior to 9/11, the list had just 16 names, but 44,984 suspects were quickly manufactured to justify the creation of the vast airport security apparatus at God knows what cost to American taxpayers.

One ludicrous “no fly” story concerns John Graham, president of the nonprofit Giraffe Heroes Project, an organization that honors people who stick their necks out. A former government careerist who served in Viet Nam, Graham is an inspired speaker that receives standing ovations from groups such as West Point cadets, yet is kept from flying from his Langley, Wash., base by the National Security Agency. NSA won’t tell him why, either. Maybe they have “secret” information on him, too.

Author Wolf notes that dictatorships from Hitler’s Germany to Pinochet’s Chile have employed arbitrary arrests to harass critics. And Bush’s airport detention policies are more of the same. As Wolf writes, “being free means that you can’t be detained arbitrarily.” Somebody ring the fire bell!

@Mihai: heb daar jaren gewoond en daar het vak geleerd. heerlijk land, meesterlijke mieren. Als je uitgekeken bent op die geiten zou je dat ook eens moeten proberen.

@Mihai: Zeker weten, je moet wel een beetje een doordouwertje zijn.

Ik heb het volste vertrouwen in je.
Reactie is geredigeerd

Mihai: Even met een knipoog naar Ruud, wel uit de Latijns Amerikaanse buurten blijven. Die rooie mieren zijn kleine, grote krengen die vals bijten. In grote aantallen vreten ze je gewoon op. Die grote zwarte mieren zijn echter over het algemeen vriendelijk en welwillend.

En wat krijgen we nu. Gaan we ook hier een wedstrijd doen in de orde van:
“die van mij is kleiner dan die van jouw?”
Je leeft voor de strijd man.

Reactie is geredigeerd

@Mihai: Dan is dit je eerste nederlaag van vandaag.

Maar je hebt dan natuurlijk met je "catch 22" stelling toch gewonnen.
Fijn. Hebben we allebei gewonnen.

Ik geef op.
Reactie is geredigeerd

Gut, nog nooit een geit geneukt, misschien is het wel wat, alleen ik hou niet van geiten.
Ook niet van schapen trouwens.
Kippen, idem dito.
Eenden? dat weet ik nog zo net niet, misschien is dat wel leuk.
Vermits de eend netkousen aan heeft.

Maar ja ik zie me zelf nog niet de kroeg binnen komen met een eend.

Gus