Cuba has sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay
 

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

This dose seem like the rule of law is being forfited by the court... or at least, the buck is being passed. It will be interesting to see how the supream court deals with this issue.

Might be the judges didn't feel up to the task of defining the of the limits of the exucitive branch, but that is clearly what needs to be addressed. ?

Find the opnion and read it (I have not). Many times what hte paper reports and what the justices wrote is not quite the same.

I bet there is more to this court's opinion than the paper is reporting.

Just my 0.02 centavos.

Good idea.

Do you suspect they would hand this the the military court system as the first proper apeal avenue?

edit: because I'm pretty sure they don't mean to say Cuba has jurisdiction :silly:

Will the last man out grab the Cohibas please?

P.S. Fidel is alive and well vacationing at Club Med.

Nah...it is weekend at Fidel's

It is indeed, Cuban sovereign territory.

We signed a rental agreement with a previous regime that Castro does not recognize that extends until something like 2050 (hazy on the date). The rental is paid into an escrow account.

You're turning the definition of sovereign on its head. The Cubans have no say over what happens there. The previous regime we inked the deal with was a virtual US colony, best I can tell. Deal first struck in '03 and renewed in '34. I believe a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then, but why would we vacate a lease on 45 sq. miles of prime seaport territory that rents for $4,000 a year, especially since Castro, et. al. haven't cashed the checks in what, 30 - 40 years?

The deal cannot be broken unless both parties agree to it or the US vacates, which it/we are unlikely to do.

This is passing the buck par excellance. The entire scene at Gitmo, the residents and their treatment, has been created by us -- we control it -- and nobody else.

I can scarcely believe the dishonesty in the notion that Cuba has sovereignty over Gitmo. Gitmo is de facto American territory.

Try to stay on track.

Let's say you rent me some property for some amount of time. later you decide you want to change the arrangement. What do you do?

B

Thank you so much.

I stew in my juices.

Cuba does not have sovereignty over Gitmo. Are you kidding me??

How many agreements, treaties, leases, etc. involving Native Americans have the US gubmint thoroughly ignored? But, leases on the soil of another nation that benefit us, that's another matter. :rolleyes:

Nice dance.

Dude, spare - air - air me. Who is dancing here?

How do you define sovereign?

Are you angling for a job with the Bush admin.?

It's a Snow job... but someone's got to do it.

Your understanding of the terminology is getting you into an untenable position for argument. Let's get it safely out of the realm of current politics, shall we? That seems to get people's thinking all twisted-up and stuff.

Here's where we are:
Two countries enter into a long-term deal concerning a parcel of land owned by one country and leased by the other. One country wishes to change the deal.

Now, how do they resolve the dispute?

B

You guys are making me have a flashback to the 70's (well I think it started in '79) when Uncle Sam sent me to Gitmo for three months, on several hours notice, to face down a bunch of Soviets...supposedly 10,000 of 'em.

Good thing we sent an entire Battallion Landing Team of Marines, or they might have started something :2guns:

The first and last time I have slept on the ground for three straight months.


Tim