http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/21/MNG2GO87NL1.DTL&hw=guantanamo+bay+sovereignty&sn=001&sc=1000
In a 2-1 decision, the judges said the Constitution does not extend the right of habeas corpus to noncitizens who are held outside the sovereign territory of this country. "Cuba -- not the United States -- has sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay," wrote Judge Raymond Randolph.
So, lessee, Cuba has sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay, so they could just come in any time they want and either free all the prisoners or kick out US forces, or maybe both? Do I have that right?
From m-w.com:
Sovereignty: 1 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : AUTONOMY c : controlling influence
2 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state
This stretches credultiy and abuses the language at the same time. And when you add to this the fact that only about 5% of the detainess at Gitmo were actually captured by US forces in the heat of battle, with 86% of them being handed over by Pakistani or Northern Alliance forces in exchange for large bounties, around $4,000 -- a king's ransom over there -- the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
For anyone here with real curiousity, you can read the Seton Hall report, culled from DOD records, where this info was found. At the bottom of the report are copies and translations of the bounty posters put up in the region by US forces, telling people they could become rich by handing over Al Qaeda people.
"Hey, Ahmed! We can give them that wanker who wants to marry your sister and get $4,000!! Oh man, I LOVE the Americans!!"
Very little independent investigation was done on these people.
Seton Hall Report