Welcome to The Bay – Part II
Welcome Back!
Part I covered the history of The Bay, Obama’s plan to close it, Trump’s plan to keep it open, an overview of the Camps, and the substantial amount of money awarded for contracts to renovate an area that we’ve been told has a decreasing population.
The papers that I write usually start with a gut feeling that pushes me to research it until I can confirm or deny my ideas. After finishing a paper, I check the Q drops to find any that may validate my thoughts. It’s exciting when I find that validation. If you are still resistant to the Q Op based on false Q-Anon stories generated by the Mockingbird Media, I urge you to reconsider. These drops were published gradually over many years and they are now falling into place. The phrase, “future proves past” appears in 51 Q drops, confirming that we were being shown information that is now materializing.
Below is the Q confirmation of the theory laid out in The Bay.
Drop 740 is dated February 11, 2018. From Part I: “In February 2018 the Pentagon requested $69 million to replace the Top Secret (Camp 7) prison, with a proposed completion date of July 2022.”
Is this confirmation that Camp 7 was replaced?
Drop 2623 is dated December 12, 2018. This drop mentions that 3 detention centers were being prepared for something and recommends we monitor funding. Below is a portion of the table I created that contains a summary of contracts awarded by the Department of Defense. In September 2018 there was a combined total of $410 Million for construction and repair services.
Is this confirmation that these contracts were used for the 3 detention centers?
Drop 3538 dated July 29, 2019, is a photo of three men in front of The Bay’s welcome sign with the quote, “We now have plenty of space.”
Welcome to The Bay - Part II
Some major changes started taking place at The Bay right at the time the pandemic was picking up speed. The first case of COVID-19 was confirmed at the Navy base on March 24, 2020 in a sailor who was not involved with the prisoners. Remember the Navy base and the prison are not in the same area. The prison is actually about three and a half miles from the Navy base, as the crow flies, and the terrain looks very rugged. (Below is a Google Earth image of the area. The Navy base is circled in green, the prison is circled in red.)
After the confirmed COVID case, the Navy base shut down most activities, closing the gym, church and cinemas and converted the restaurants and dining rooms to takeout service. Anyone arriving at the base was required to quarantine for two weeks. Social distancing and mask wearing was taking place at the Navy base, just as it was back in the States.
Prisoners were not being tested at that time because they didn’t meet the criteria set by the CDC. The number of military members allowed near the prisoners was reduced. Due to travel restrictions and restrictions on direct contact, lawyers planned to video-chat with the five defendants on trial. Access to the prison at The Bay was restricted even further.
The COVID restrictions taking place at The Bay began just a month prior to the Navy ships departing New York and California as mentioned in The War of 2020. Were the COVID restrictions used as cover to allow for the preparation of Top Secret arrivals?
The Bay’s Changes to Media Access
The media began reporting on changes to access at the base even before the pandemic. In fact, less than 100 hours after President Trump issued the Executive Order revoking Obama’s Executive Order to close the prison, a group of journalists set out on a tour of The Bay. Before they arrived, they were given a document containing new conditions surrounding their visit that replaced the old rules.
In the past, journalists were shown artwork created by the prisoners, but in late 2017 the Pentagon declared the artwork to be government property so it was removed from the journalists’ tour. This makes sense when you consider the changes that were taking place at the prison. I imagine the risk of a prisoner illustrating those changes in their artwork and a journalist noticing it would be too great. The journalists were no longer offered a taste of food from the kitchen, only the opportunity to take photos of it. The formerly relaxed, casual press briefings were replaced with stiff military personnel limiting the amount of information they provided. The tone of the article paints a picture of an atmosphere much less friendly and forthcoming than the journalists were used to.
During his oversight of SOUTHCOM, John Kelly allowed the media access to only a few members of the military at The Bay. Over time, that access continued to shrink. “Censorship has hardened, as have the talking points.” When journalists from three news organizations attended their first media tour, they said they felt they were cut off or scolded for asking questions. This was in February of 2018. By that time, the media had been branded as the enemy of the people by President Trump.
In Making Guantánamo Great Again: The prison’s media makeover, this journalist also discusses changes to the tour. The prison’s mission statement was changed from “safe, humane, legal and transparent care…” to “safe, humane, care and custody…” The words “legal” and “transparent” had been removed. In addition, the banner over the prison was changed from “safe humane, legal and transparent” to “Honor Bound to Defend Freedom.”
In the 2018 NPR article, On a Tense Press Tour of Guantanamo’s Prison Complex, Signs of Expansion, the journalist says she was given a new media agreement to sign. In the past, her access was covered by a 2010 agreement from the Pentagon that had received input from First Amendment lawyers and executives from news organizations. This new agreement had no known input and was a “sign-it-or-no-tour,” document with press restrictions unlike anything she’d seen before at The Bay. In addition, a new rule concerning photos and videos was something she, “might sooner have expected to find in communist-controlled Cuba.” The new rule was that imagery was considered property of the U.S. government until it was screened and approved for release. The military was censoring journalists’ photos and prohibiting them from taking pictures with their smartphones.
The censorship continued, and the media was not pleased by it.
In August 2023, The Intercept printed, Censorship Has Never Been Worse at Guantánamo Bay. The censorship began as soon as they boarded the flight to Cuba, when the journalists were instructed not to take photographs from the tarmac or the plane while heading to The Bay. During the visit, anything of photojournalistic value was off limits. The media was to focus only on the military commission proceedings for the terrorist detainees at Camp Justice which was described as “a very large, very cold, and very classified courtroom” constructed to deal with the few remaining detainees.
As recently as 2018, the media had been allowed into the prison. Now in 2023, they weren’t allowed anywhere close to it. Journalists were no longer allowed to photograph the old outdoor prison, Camp X-Ray, and all locations related to the detention site was off limits. “Denying any new visual documentation of the defunct former facility seemed egregious and irrational.” Just like the complaints in 2018, this journalist also complained that the constant monitoring and prescreening of her images had been invasive. She never did get to see the prison.
Can Americans Be Held at The Bay?
The rules surrounding the US government’s right to hold American citizens at The Bay was a murky subject for me that took a lot of digging. I can now confidently say that the answer is yes – if they are considered an enemy combatant.
An enemy combatant is defined as someone who engages in hostilities for the other side during armed conflict. The Bush administration created the legal status for enemy combatants that allowed the military to detain them indefinitely and without charge.
Congress adopted the Authorization for Use of Military Force on September 18, 2001, authorizing the use of the military against those responsible for the September 11 attacks. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all necessary force against those who he determined were involved in the 9/11 attacks. Since then, Presidents have interpreted their authority to extend beyond the 9/11 terrorists to apply it to other groups since the law doesn’t state a specific area of operation. The full list of groups that the US military is fighting or believes it is authorized to fight is classified.
However, President Trump made us aware of one such group when he Tweeted that ANTIFA would be designated as a Terrorist Organization.
According to a Congressional Research Service report to Congress, existing law provides the authority to detain American citizens who are suspected of being members of terrorist organizations as “enemy combatants.”
If you were like me and watched every day of the circus that was the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, there were certain conversations that were particularly memorable. Near the end of the dialogue between Senator Lindsey Graham and Brett Kavanaugh, Senator Graham begins the following line of questioning:
I had to replay this clip several times to understand exactly what Senator Graham was saying. My interpretation is, if you are an American who attacks the embassy in Kabul, you are still considered an American citizen and are awarded certain protections. On the contrary, if you are an American citizen and work with other terrorists to attack our Capitol, you lose those protections and are now considered an enemy combatant. Senator Graham wanted to make sure Brett Kavanaugh understood this interpretation, and he clearly did. (It’s notable that Senator Graham used “attacking the Capitol” as an example when this hearing was held in September 2018, two years before the J6 insurrection that wasn’t.)
American citizens acting as enemy combatants can be held under the Authorization for Use of Military Force just as any other terrorist can. The question is…are the enemy combatants from our government, Hollywood and media currently detained at The Bay?
Leaving The Bay
President Trump’s 2018 Executive Order 13823, Protecting America Through Lawful Detention of Terrorists states that additional detainees can be added to The Bay when necessary to protect the nation. It also states that any detainee transferred after January 30, 2018, is subject to the periodic review established in Executive Order 13567 to determine whether continued detention is necessary to protect the security of the United States.
American citizens, when acting as enemy combatants, can be transferred to The Bay and detained there, and will be offered a review to determine their continued threat to America. Is this why some people were missing or out of the public eye for a while but have now reappeared with a new attitude? Were they detained and questioned as to whether they were actually enemies of the country or just arrogant, power-hungry, ignorant pawns who weren’t a significant part of the plan to overthrow the government? (Chris Cuomo comes to mind…)
It’s looking more likely that those who we long suspected of treason are no longer a threat and are probably residing at The Bay. What’s next? The research for this paper led me down another path that shook me to my core. It’s led me to develop another theory of what will be a profound moment in our country’s future, that will prove to be historic. My next paper will tie all of this together, but I’d like to provide a preview. On September 18th, I posted the following comment into the abyss on X:
Think BIGGER.
Links to my others papers on Guantanamo Bay:
I am searching for your next article. Seeing the corruption in our government, I am hopeful that, at some point it must end. Keep up the good work.
This is interesting. Thank you for the research. I am interested also in Camp Blaz Guam which opened in 2023. From what I can tell it may also be a holding area for military style prosecutions.