Today’s Topic: Why Does This Administration Believe Gitmo To Be Foreign Soil?
I quote from the "official" history of Guantanamo Bay as presented on the official U.S Naval Station, Buantanamo Bay, Cuba. This quote is from "The History of Guantanamo Bay 1494-1964" by M. E. Murphy, Rear Admiral, U. S. Navy (http://www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/htmpgs/gtmohistory.htm) and is as follows:
" In all provisions regarding the Guantanamo area, the original agreement (February 1903) and the supplementary agreement were later confirmed by the Treaty of 1934 between the United States and Cuba, signed at Washington on 29 May 1934…
"…This treaty has the effect of giving the United States a perpetual lease on this reservation, capable of being voided only by our abandoning the area or by mutual agreement between the two countries. The so-called "Platt Amendment," which gave the United States the right to intervene in Cuba, died with this treaty. Bahia Honda was not mentioned, having long since been abandoned.
"Thus it is clear that at Guantanamo Bay we have a Naval reservation which, for all practical purposes, is American territory. Under the foregoing agreements, the United States has for approximately fifty years exercised the essential elements of sovereignty over this territory, without actually owning it. Unless we abandon the area or agree to a modification of the terms of our occupancy, we can continue in the present status as long as we like."
So my question is why does this administration believe Guantanamo Bay to be foreign soil and thus not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Court system of the United States of America?
Now if you look at the official list of American territories you won’t find Guantanamo Bay, but you will find Guam. With the exception of Guantanamo being physically located on the Cuban island you will find no difference in either how or when both of these territories were ceded to the United States of America under treaty after the Spanish-American war in 1898. The only difference is that America occupied all of Cuba until 1 March 1901 when a Guantanamo Bay lease was negotiated.
For all practical purposes, from 1901 to 1934 Guantanamo was a leased property with Cuban ability to re-assert sovereignty, but after the 29 March 1934 treaty between Cuba and the United States, Guantanamo, as the quote above says, "for all practial purposes, is American territory."
Now someone far smarter than I is going to have to find either a direct correlation between Guantanamo Bay and the definition of an American territory, but since both territories were ceded to the United States as a condition of the treaty that ended the Spanish-American war, one only has to suppose that the definition is miniscule in difference.
Again from the above quoted federally approved website we have "Under the foregoing agreements, the United States has for approximately fifty years exercised the essential elements of sovereignty over this territory, without actually owning it. Unless we abandon the area or agree to a modification of the terms of our occupancy, we can continue in the present status as long as we like."
This statement is from the official history circa 1964 and thus establishes over 100 years of Guantanamo being an American territory by a cessation of war treaty. However, even only using the 1934 treaty date with then Cuban authorities, we have a historical precedence set for Guantanamo being an American territory that encompasses the past 73 years.
American territories are American soil. Embassies are American soil. Leased military bases throughout the world are considered American soil. All laws of the United States of America apply to all territories, Embassies and military bases and give all those residing or held on the same access to legal process and jurisprudence. The one situation where the above is not true is when a civilian has broken a law within the confines of the host country and, by virtue of choice, any such civilian personnel may be remanded to the host country’s legal system. Any military or government employeed civilian personnel will be handled by the United States, whether that may be under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice for military or civilian jurisprudence in accordance with Federal law..
So we can see that those "enemy combatants" designated by the President should have full access to the legal system of the United States. There is no such thing as Gitmo being on foreign soil. It is American soil, ceded to the United States by Spain after the Spanish-American war, and there are no ambiguities about the legal status of people on American territories.
Now some may question the logic of my declarations, but no one can say that the importation of "enemy combatants" from countries where America is the occupier escape the legal system. For if America is an occupier of a foreign state, then those captured on that soil are still on American soil. Logic dictates that one is not possible without the other, so by Americans standing in both Afghanistan and Iraq, those countries become, at the least, protectorates and thus are subject to American laws. If you have American soldiers pointing weapons at your head, you are subject to American intentions and thus under to umbrella of American law. But you don’t have to say "American law" because all law has historically been decided by the victor, or in this case, the occupier.
In Iraq all are under the military law of the occupation, thus under American law. The American occupiers, if laws are broken, are under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. No one gets a pass. Well, except for the mercenaries.
The same applies to the duration of America's occupation of Afghanistan prior to the multi-national and NATO imported troops.
Why, then, does this administration feel that they can negate the rule of law? I can only surmise that the reason lies with the inability to provide proof that "enemy combatants" are what the government claims.
Without truely free and open trials of these people there is no hope for America to maintain the last little bit of respect it holds in the world.
Americans need to recognize that Guantanamo Bay is not a foreign soil but an American soil. There are no compelling reasons to hold people without legal recourse.
I should mention that any of the cases which have gone to the Supreme Court of the United States have not addressed the concept that Guantanamo Bay is U. S. territory and thus automatically has the protections of the court extended to detainees held. I've read the briefs and they all miss this point, so the Supreme Court doesn't rule on that basis. You have to ask the Supreme Court the right questions to get the right answers.
2:00:33 PM 
|
