Talk:List of commanders of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

perpetual lease
why do people use these words? "31 May 1934 : Treaty affirms perpetual U.S. sovereignty (only mutual agreement or U.S. abandonment of the area can terminate the lease), treaty is reaffirmed again in 1963."

Not so. It does not "affirm", since the termination was not part of the 1903 lease. It can stipulate possibly. However 1934 does not stipulate "perpetual". Look at the lease wording. The 1934 treaty gives the right to unilaterally terminate the lease by abandoning it. This does not make the lease perpetual. The "mutual agreement" applies to pretty much anything. Any agreement can be changed by mutual agreement. However there may be a legal reason for saying it explicitly. The "mutual agreement" applies to the boundaries of the lease, not the term. Possibly this is because the boundaries *were8 cahnged by mutual agreement in some treaty of 1912 I cant seem to locate the text of. ( Martin | talk • contribs 22:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)) Of course the treaty can also be terminated by non-payment of rent, or other material breach, so ... ( Martin | talk • contribs 22:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC))

Then "treaty is reaffirmed again in 1963" Be serious. By Castro? ( Martin | talk • contribs 00:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC))

1912 - text said that Bahia Honda was abandoned in exchange for more property at Guantanamo
Sorry, no evidence for that. Plus it means that the fencing around the base, required by the lease document, needed to be altered. There is no record of this. In addition, one can easily verify for oneself that the present boundaries, easily viewed on Google Maps, are the exact same boundaries as described as the original boundaries in the lease. Please do check. Don't forget, however, that the lease gives units in nautical miles, whereas Google gives distances in statue miles. If you don't feel like doing this for yourselves, I will post the results below. ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC))

31 May 1934 revision to treaty of relations
The relevance to this paragraph, (that is abridged timeline at Guantanamo), is small. Not really sure this is worth including in an "abridged" timeline. If you must list this in an "abridged timeline", should we not focus on what changes there are, rather than on what changes there aren't? Vis-a-vis Guantanamo, that is. The article might say something about the requirement for mosquito control, even though that is not a change to the lease, but an additional obligation now required by this replacement treaty. But how important is that?? Not very.( Martin | talk • contribs 04:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC))