Cyrano:

This question can be as difficult to answer as we're willing to make it.  But the most obvious answer is that the U.S. Government had maintained a naval base at Guantanamo Bay for six decades by the time of the Cuban revolution and flight of Batista (ca. 1958 - Jan. 1, 1959) -- and unlike the Batista regime in Havana, the revolutionaries didn't have a prayer of ousting Uncle Sam. 

Beyond the obvious, the status of this U.S. naval base is disputed internationally.  But since one party to this dispute is the United States of America, a state such as Cuba can't get anywhere.

As the U.S. Navy boasts about its base at Guantanamo Bay, it is the only one of its kind "in a country with which the U.S. does not maintain diplomatic relations" (emphasis added).

This suggests that even Washington regards the territory as occupied against the wishes of the sovereign state of Cuba.

But try to get Uncle Sam to act differently.
 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA
 

David, how comes the US has a base in Guatanamo Bay, isn't this a Cuban land? Is the US occupying a part of Cuba ?

There's that word seize (rapere in Latin) again, associated this time with events of another July 25. 

It would be another 105 years before locals got to see the last of a US military base and even then they weren't permitted to celebrate:

The President of the Teachers Federation of Puerto Rico and a leader of the cause were recorded by TV cameras engaging in violent and destructive behavior. The crowd destroyed a former Navy guard-house and military trucks with drop hammers.

The TV footage was used as evidence to criminally indict the vandals, as the property destroyed was now owned by the NRCS.

Those indicted said that their behavior was caused by the resentment and bitterness that had accumulated from the decades of suffering due to the Navy's bombing practices on the island. Norma Burgos, a Senator of Puerto Rico, who had formerly been imprisoned for trespassing on the bombing range several months earlier, justified the behavior by comparing it to the fall of Saddam Hussein's statue in the recent invasion of Iraq — in which U.S. soldiers used an Army tank (a property of the U.S. government) to tear it down. Their defense failed, and more than a dozen of those charged were imprisoned for “damages and destruction of public property”.

Friends:

Earlier today, July 25, the House of Representatives adopted the simple bill known as HR 2929, an Act "To limit the use of funds to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq or to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq."

Sponsored by California Representative Barbara Lee (though picking up as many as 77 co-sponsors along the way), the July 25 vote in the House went 399 Yeas to 24 Nays to 9 not voting.

Section 3 of HR 2929 states, quite unambiguously:

No funds made available by any Act of Congress shall be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:

(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.

(2) To exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.

Explaining the logic of HR 2929, Section 1 states that:

(10) The perception that the United States intends to permanently occupy Iraq aids insurgent groups in recruiting supporters and fuels violent activity.

(11) A clear statement that the United States does not seek a long-term or permanent presence in Iraq would send a strong signal to the people of Iraq and the international community that the United States fully supports the efforts of the Iraqi people to exercise full national sovereignty, including control over security and public safety.

Evidently, the text of the legislation is understood to be strictly nominal -- mere words. Otherwise, lining up this many Republicans along with the Democratic majority would have been unimaginable. 

However, another matter: Do you suppose that the 399 Congresspeople who voted in favor of HR 2929 might now count as threatening so-called "stabilization efforts" in Iraq, and thus be chargeable under the Commander-in-Chiefls' July 17 Executive Order?

If the Commander-in-Chief so determines, that is.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Hello david and james, The executive orders are definitely a grab on the control of Oil and a threat on any form of dissent against US Oil companies in Iraq, more specially like somone who would try to blow pipelines and oil fields in Iraq. I didn't know Bush made amendments to the 13303 orders; James, the decree you mention relates to any acts : Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in...(various laws)...any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, ( who ever they decide, they could hide under national secrecy by example) (i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of: ( without court convictions!) (A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or (B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people; (ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or ( this could be providing a bed, giving food to a resistant) (iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order. ( this is a property grab and a fraud) (b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person. ( a person could be wrongly accused to be al-quaida and have its land seized, any dissent to the decision could be seen as an attempt to undermine the US).. James also says: It's actual wording says: "an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of: (A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq;" Perhaps the lack of indentation on whitehouse.gov hurt, but there is actually a way to properly interpret numbered lists in legal documents. I will take this particular "counter-interpretation" rather than more fear-mongering about the potential consequences of doing anything opposed to this war. James any lack of indentation is a loop hole. You have a decree here along with some others decrees that make counter-revolutionary and counter-human rights about torture.. This executive branch and GWB are creating loophole to allow torturing of humans. Even Hitler never dreamed to openly try to legalizes torture! If you give me the legal right to put a 26% interest on a late payment and administration fees, I'll take this right whenever I choose. A 500$ bill can become a 5000S bill in 6 years; its my discretion to say what you will pay me..If I have a legal right to seize your home, i would do so , if I chose so. Bush is the new Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

Friends:

FYI: An outstanding commentary in a local Chicago-area newspaper:

"Water find threatens creeping peace," Marlene Lang, Daily Southtown, July 22, 2007

Letters to the Daily Southtown: letters@dailysouthtown.com .

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Postscript. For a bit of news coverage about the "water find" Lang uses for her commentary (shorn of the standard hysteria about "genocide" in Darfur, I hasten to add), as well as the climate-change background that, to date, appears to be exacting its heaviest toll on the continent of Africa, see Sudan Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment (Nairobi: United Nations Environment Program, 2007).

Also see "A Climate Culprit In Darfur," Ban Ki Moon, Washington Post, June 16, 2007; "Darfur conflict heralds era of wars triggered by climate change, UN report warns," Julian Borger, The Guardian, June 23, 2007; and, last but not least, "A Godsend for Darfur, or a Curse?" Lydia Polgreen, International Herald Tribune, July 21, 2007.

I should add that the second-half of Polgreen's question -- "a curse?" -- ought to be unimaginable. There is only one constituency for whom the news released last week -- to near silence, as far as I can tell -- of the possible existence of a "vast underground lake the size of Lake Erie…beneath the barren soil of northern Darfur" could count as a curse, and this is the "genocide" and "humanitarian" war industry among the Western governments and their lackey non-non-governmental sectors. (For a snapshot of some of the members of the industry -- in particular, its celebrity-witnessing cadre -- see "Not on our watch -- how Hollywood made America care about Darfur," Dan Glaister, The Guardian, May 19, 2007.)

Last, for perhaps the single best assessment overall: "The Politics of Naming," Mahmood Mamdani, London Review of Books, March 8, 2007.

Remember: In the States, and wherever Big $$$$$ spreads, the demand for charlatans is near insatiable. ("Saving Darfur or Salvation Delusion?" Steve Fake and Kevin Funk, Foreign Policy In Focus, June 20, 2007.)

So it is very good to find voices that counter those bought and amplified by $$$$$.

 

The July 17 order says in blackletter that it applies to those who commit or plan to commit acts of violence intended to impede the occupation of Iraqi, and/or those who "financially, technically, or materially" support those who do. The EO of July 20 has nothing to do with the July 17 EO, and is simply a red herring to the July 17 discussion. My point is essentially this: there is plenty to rant, rave, and fight against in nearly everything the Bush administration has done and continues to do without having to invent new battles. The July 20 EO is repulsive all on it's own (which is why it was released on a Friday afternoon, and has not entered the Federal Register yet), and I never criticized your discussion of it. The July 17 EO, however, is far less controversial and dangerous than you make it out to be. -- James Cape @ http://blog.ignore-your.tv

James Cape:Under the July 17 Executive Order, who makes the determination that the Order applies to Soandso?  Is it a court of law in the United States (as stacked-to-the-right as these are)?  Or is it the same party that issued the July 17 Executive Order, and followed-it-up three days later with the July 20 Executive Order dismissing the application of the Geneva Conventions to any case in which it determines they don't apply?  Which also happens to be the same party granted itself the power to determine that Soandso is an "unlarwul enemy combatant"?  As well as the same party that claims the power to "construe" the laws passed by Congress as "advisory, as any other construction would conflict with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief"?

The gist of every single one of these orders (whatever they're called) comes down to this: If push comes to shove in the United States, the Executive Branch won't be deterred.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

I understood what you are claiming the first time, and I am still unconvinced. I am fully cognizant that this Administration (like all others) will continue to interpret the law however they wish, and the courts must stand up to them, and if they do not, regular folks must stand up to them (how it is, not how it should be). What I am saying is that the order, as written, means exactly what I noted it means: they can seize your property for "financially, materially, or technically" supporting acts of violence intended to hasten the end of the occupation of Iraq. Now, if the Bush administration wants to claim that the congressperson making speeches or the hipsters marching in the streets are committing "acts of violence" they are certainly welcome to do so, and the courts will treat their ravings with similar incredulity to the AUMF justification for NSA spying. Ultimately this is the same fear that we all had to deal with after the PATRIOT Act was passed, and the response must be the same: Governments have always done whatever they wanted to and twisted the law to justify their sorry gangster asses. -- James Cape @ http://blog.ignore-your.tv

James Cape:

Simply to reiterate my previous response: You're reading your President's July 17 Executive Order way, way too narrowly. 

As a tool, potentially exploitable at the discretion of the Executive Branch, the President's lawyers and the Department of Justice won't make the same mistake. 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Section 1.

(a) Except to the extent provided in...(various laws)...any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or (B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or (iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

It's actual wording says: "an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of: (A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq;" Perhaps the lack of indentation on whitehouse.gov hurt, but there is actually a way to properly interpret numbered lists in legal documents. I will take this particular "counter-interpretation" rather than more fear-mongering about the potential consequences of doing anything opposed to this war. Taking them literally, it means what it says: "acts of violence", and supporting those who commit or plan to commit them. -- James Cape @ http://blog.ignore-your.tv

James Cape:

Two quick point. -- First, you're not only reading the July 17 Executive Order way, way too narrowly.  (Though this is how the news accounts read it too.)  But you've even quoted from it in an overly narrow manner.  Take a look at its actual wording: It targets anyone "threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq," as well as anyone "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."  

These words deserve to be taken literally -- which is how a dictatorship would take them, acting at its sole discretion, if it so chooses.

As such, these words can extend as far as protests, dissent, congressional votes to withdraw troops, and so on. 

Second, the regime already interprets everything as expansively as it wants to interpret it (i.e., its habit of issuing Signing Statements is a case in point -- see the archive for Charlie Savage that the Pulitzer committee maintains), because counter-interpreters either have their heads up their butts or have allowed themselves to be intimidated into silence and inactivism. 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

The EO is specifically referring to those people or organizations who commit "acts of violence" against the occupation or provide material support to those who do. Essentially it is expanding the previous law they used against Islamic charities which supported Hamas, Hizballah, or al-Qaeda (and later those which supported the families of suicide bombers) to include those who support the Iraqi versions of those. So, while the U.S. occupation is the biggest problem in Iraq today, this particular EO is not part of a "war on dissent," let alone an implicit threat to seize the bank accounts of Congresspersons who evolve backbones. -- James Cape @ http://blog.ignore-your.tv

Brilliant idea. Thanks for very interesting article. btw. I really enjoyed reading all of your articles. It's interesting to read ideas, and observations from someone else's point of view… makes you think more. Keep up the good work. Greetings

One should expect resistance from the aggrieved party anytime an entrenched method of "procuring" is unexpectedly challenged by those who by their desperate deeds would jeopardize a "way of life" with the former.

Here's the article by Gary Leupp from which above link comes. It also has an etymology of the Latin word rapere.