FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Obama heckled over closure of Guantanamo Bay

Obama heckled over closure of Guantanamo Bay

(1:50) President Obama goes off script when a woman heckles him over his failure to close Guantanamo Bay prison. The woman was Medea Benjamin, cofounder of Code Pink, a grassroots peace and social justice movement working to end US funded wars.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Your Nan (1641 days ago)
He said nothing worth listening to and avoided the real issue entirely.
ReplyVote up (119)down (111)
Original comment
He said nothing worth listening to and avoided the real issue entirely.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1641 days ago)
I agree he said nothing and this is a problem with most of our politicians. They have good diction but end up saying nothing in the end. However, in the beginning he said congress should close a facility that should never have been opened in the first place. On that comment, I have to disagree. The amount we pay the Cuban government to lease that land is so minor that it only makes sense to keep that facility open. If there are problems with how prisoners are treated, then fix that problem. No need to close a facility that costs us only $4,085 a month in rent for the Guantanamo naval base. Where else can you get rent like that and still be so close to the United States of America?
ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
I agree he said nothing and this is a problem with most of our politicians. They have good diction but end up saying nothing in the end. However, in the beginning he said congress should close a facility that should never have been opened in the first place. On that comment, I have to disagree. The amount we pay the Cuban government to lease that land is so minor that it only makes sense to keep that facility open. If there are problems with how prisoners are treated, then fix that problem. No need to close a facility that costs us only $4,085 a month in rent for the Guantanamo naval base. Where else can you get rent like that and still be so close to the United States of America?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WellHungarian WellHungarian (1641 days ago)
They should build some hotels there instead to cover the rent.
ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment
They should build some hotels there instead to cover the rent.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1641 days ago)
no no no! they can't build hotels, there! what if cuba decides not to extend the lease contract?? they'll have to leave in six months time, so all those hotels wold have been built for nothing. The best they could do would be to sublease it at a higher price, to a company specialized in slave labor. This way they would make money with almost zero risk... methinks. :)
ReplyVote up (94)down (106)
Original comment
no no no! they can't build hotels, there! what if cuba decides not to extend the lease contract?? they'll have to leave in six months time, so all those hotels wold have been built for nothing. The best they could do would be to sublease it at a higher price, to a company specialized in slave labor. This way they would make money with almost zero risk... methinks. :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1640 days ago)
I believe it to be a perpetual lease that does not expire. Castro stopped cashing our checks because he disagrees with us being there. He even shows off the huge stack of checks received.
ReplyVote up (106)down (148)
Original comment
I believe it to be a perpetual lease that does not expire. Castro stopped cashing our checks because he disagrees with us being there. He even shows off the huge stack of checks received.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1640 days ago)
i guess he would consider it an illegal occupation and not a lease, since he has no word to say in the matter. You know who else occupies the properties of other people illegally? Gypsies from Romania :)
ReplyVote up (88)down (116)
Original comment
i guess he would consider it an illegal occupation and not a lease, since he has no word to say in the matter. You know who else occupies the properties of other people illegally? Gypsies from Romania :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1640 days ago)
It's not illegal when we have a contract between two governments. You could consider a LEGAL occupation of the portion that we lease.
ReplyVote up (86)down (101)
Original comment
It's not illegal when we have a contract between two governments. You could consider a LEGAL occupation of the portion that we lease.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1640 days ago)
tell that to Fidel. I bet the whole Nation of Cuba disagrees wit you on this one :)
ReplyVote up (102)down (115)
Original comment
tell that to Fidel. I bet the whole Nation of Cuba disagrees wit you on this one :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
London1 London1 (1639 days ago)
Yeah, totally legal that contract. All contracts signed at gun point are!
ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment
Yeah, totally legal that contract. All contracts signed at gun point are!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1639 days ago)
The lease was signed in 1903 with the first president of Cuba. Castro doesn't agree with the lease but it's already too late because his predecessors did. Any international contracts signed by one of our presidents do not automatically get canceled when a new president gets into office so why should it work that way for other countries.
ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment
The lease was signed in 1903 with the first president of Cuba. Castro doesn't agree with the lease but it's already too late because his predecessors did. Any international contracts signed by one of our presidents do not automatically get canceled when a new president gets into office so why should it work that way for other countries.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (1619 days ago)
Latest comment: Something called sovereignty perhaps?
ReplyVote up (111)down (76)
Original comment
Latest comment: Something called sovereignty perhaps?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1639 days ago)
""To enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the Cuban Government will sell or lease to the United States the lands necessary for coaling or naval stations, at certain specified points, to be agreed upon with the President of the United States"" Also ""The Republic of Cuba hereby leases to the United States, for the time required for the purposes of coaling and naval stations, the following described areas of land and water situated in the Island of Cuba:"" LINK . A breach of contract exists because of the Prison facilities. Actually a breach of contract existed when an embargo was put in place on Cuba. The contract was made for "the purposes of coaling and naval stations" in order to "enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense" . The contract is illegitimate and odious, but Cuba has no word to say in the matter because ... 'Merica LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment
""To enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the Cuban Government will sell or lease to the United States the lands necessary for coaling or naval stations, at certain specified points, to be agreed upon with the President of the United States"" Also ""The Republic of Cuba hereby leases to the United States, for the time required for the purposes of coaling and naval stations, the following described areas of land and water situated in the Island of Cuba:"" LINK . A breach of contract exists because of the Prison facilities. Actually a breach of contract existed when an embargo was put in place on Cuba. The contract was made for "the purposes of coaling and naval stations" in order to "enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense" . The contract is illegitimate and odious, but Cuba has no word to say in the matter because ... 'Merica LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1639 days ago)
.... of course, you could argue that the Guantanamo Prison Facilities are "necessary for it's own defense" (meaning the USA) but that is to be debated. If , in the future, there will be a decision made by a internationally recognized authority that says that the Guantanamo Prison Facilities were not necessary for the defense of the USA, will that be considered a breach of contract? will the contract lose it's legitimacy, and if so, will the USA remove their war machines from the Cuban territory if Cuba should ask of that? i think not. Cuba seems to think that there was a breach of contract and that the occupation of it's territories is no longer legitimate.
ReplyVote up (112)down (89)
Original comment
.... of course, you could argue that the Guantanamo Prison Facilities are "necessary for it's own defense" (meaning the USA) but that is to be debated. If , in the future, there will be a decision made by a internationally recognized authority that says that the Guantanamo Prison Facilities were not necessary for the defense of the USA, will that be considered a breach of contract? will the contract lose it's legitimacy, and if so, will the USA remove their war machines from the Cuban territory if Cuba should ask of that? i think not. Cuba seems to think that there was a breach of contract and that the occupation of it's territories is no longer legitimate.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1638 days ago)
We do have a naval base on Cuba so no breach of contract exists. What we do on our naval bases is our own concern and not those of Cuba. And where in the contract did you see that it's a breach of contract once there is an embargo? You're making crap up again.
ReplyVote up (95)down (109)
Original comment
We do have a naval base on Cuba so no breach of contract exists. What we do on our naval bases is our own concern and not those of Cuba. And where in the contract did you see that it's a breach of contract once there is an embargo? You're making crap up again.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1638 days ago)
the naval base is for protecting Cuba and USA. you could argue that the Guantanamo Prison Facilities are necessary for the defense of Cuba and the US. An embargo is not meant to protect Cuba, it is an attack on the Cuban economy. To have a naval base meant to protect Cuba and then to economically attack it is hypocritical. There was no mention of a prison facility in the contract. Cubans will agree with me, but who will be the judge in this case? there's no authority to judge so we only speculate on whether there was a breach of contract or not. I can tell you for sure that all Cubans see it the way i do and i can also tell you for sure that most Americans don't see it the way you do. Call it crap but it's actually the reality... and we both know you're not keen on that.
ReplyVote up (83)down (108)
Original comment
the naval base is for protecting Cuba and USA. you could argue that the Guantanamo Prison Facilities are necessary for the defense of Cuba and the US. An embargo is not meant to protect Cuba, it is an attack on the Cuban economy. To have a naval base meant to protect Cuba and then to economically attack it is hypocritical. There was no mention of a prison facility in the contract. Cubans will agree with me, but who will be the judge in this case? there's no authority to judge so we only speculate on whether there was a breach of contract or not. I can tell you for sure that all Cubans see it the way i do and i can also tell you for sure that most Americans don't see it the way you do. Call it crap but it's actually the reality... and we both know you're not keen on that.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1638 days ago)
You may have looked at the original treaty and there was a reaffirmed treaty signed by both countries in 1934. That made the lease permanent and the lease mentioned in the 1934 Treaty grants the unilateral right to terminate the lease to the USA. There have been many lawyers and other governments that looked at the lease that are much smarter than you and have determined that it is controversial but not in violation. Some thought it violates article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties but the US is not a party to that treaty and it does not apply to treaties in force before 1980. Castro has cashed one of the checks (he says in error) and the US government says that the cashing of that check re-validated the treaty. There are no other known breaches in dispute that I could find.
ReplyVote up (135)down (96)
Original comment
You may have looked at the original treaty and there was a reaffirmed treaty signed by both countries in 1934. That made the lease permanent and the lease mentioned in the 1934 Treaty grants the unilateral right to terminate the lease to the USA. There have been many lawyers and other governments that looked at the lease that are much smarter than you and have determined that it is controversial but not in violation. Some thought it violates article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties but the US is not a party to that treaty and it does not apply to treaties in force before 1980. Castro has cashed one of the checks (he says in error) and the US government says that the cashing of that check re-validated the treaty. There are no other known breaches in dispute that I could find.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1638 days ago)
how convenient... ""we don't care about the treaties made before 1980, f*ck the Vienna Convention! and Castro cashed a check so that means he's OK with it... it doesn't matter if he says he's not ok with it , he cashed the check so we're staying! and whoever doesn't like it can go f*ck themselves"". Typical USA behavior and you wonder why people don't like americans...
ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
how convenient... ""we don't care about the treaties made before 1980, f*ck the Vienna Convention! and Castro cashed a check so that means he's OK with it... it doesn't matter if he says he's not ok with it , he cashed the check so we're staying! and whoever doesn't like it can go f*ck themselves"". Typical USA behavior and you wonder why people don't like americans...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1638 days ago)
You only picked out one part of the message and picked on the cashing of the check issue. Take that away and we still have the right to be there. Take away the 1969 Vienna Convention and we still have the right to be there. Take away the new 1934 treaty and we sill have the right to be there. So it's very obvious that we have the right to be there and we all know that Castro doesn't like it but that's too bad. He took over the country by force with a revolution starting in 1953. I consider him to be a murderer by having people killed to take over the government of Cuba so I have no pity for him.
ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment
You only picked out one part of the message and picked on the cashing of the check issue. Take that away and we still have the right to be there. Take away the 1969 Vienna Convention and we still have the right to be there. Take away the new 1934 treaty and we sill have the right to be there. So it's very obvious that we have the right to be there and we all know that Castro doesn't like it but that's too bad. He took over the country by force with a revolution starting in 1953. I consider him to be a murderer by having people killed to take over the government of Cuba so I have no pity for him.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1637 days ago)
i wouldn't expect any less of you.
ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment
i wouldn't expect any less of you.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1641 days ago)
i nominate the comment above, made by cengland0, to the best Troll Comment of the month Award!
ReplyVote up (106)down (208)
Original comment
i nominate the comment above, made by cengland0, to the best Troll Comment of the month Award!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
TYT - Obama vs Trump on Twitter
TYT - Obama vs Trump on Twitter
Dave Daubenmire: Obama was an emissary from hell
Dave Daubenmire: Obama was an emissary from hell
Bill Maher - What if Obama said ...?
Bill Maher - What if Obama said ...?
Faking Obama with artificial intelligence
Faking Obama with artificial intelligence
The Putin Interviews - Putin on his relationship with Obama
The Putin Interviews - Putin on his relationship with Obama