On Wednesday, New York Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse reported a flaky story on an apparent controversy over whether John McCain's birthplace (the Panama Canal Zone, where his Navy officer father was stationed in 1936) makes the Arizona senator ineligible for the presidency. Article II of the Constitution declares that only a "natural-born citizen" can serve as president.
In "McCain's Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out," Hulse reported the McCain campaign is researching the question due to "mounting interest" and "Internet buzz." (Interestingly, most of that "buzz" seems to have originated not among liberals, but on right-wing websites the Times would not normally acknowledge the existence of.)
James Taranto at Opinion Journal pointed out that this is an old story -- the Washington Post dealt with it back in 1998 (making it even older than the trumped-up McCain story the Times ran last week) and saw no obstacle to McCain taking office.
Mr. McCain's likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a "natural-born citizen" can hold the nation's highest office.
Almost since those words were written in 1787 with scant explanation, their precise meaning has been the stuff of confusion, law school review articles, whisper campaigns and civics class debates over whether only those delivered on American soil can be truly natural born. To date, no American to take the presidential oath has had an official birthplace outside the 50 states.
"There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent," said Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively. "It is not a slam-dunk situation."
Bottom line, Hulse found -- his birthplace most probably doesn't rule McCain out. The question has theoretical interest, but the Times's timing must be questioned in the wake of last Thursday's misfired hit piece on McCain and the lobbyist: Yet another blurry, negative story about McCain since he more or less clinched the Republican nomination.
It's no wonder the Times is losing the confidence of the public. The pollsters at Rasmussen Reports clocked the paper's approval rating at 24% (with 44% disapproval), numbers that make George W. Bush a conquering hero in comparison.
The story was picked up by the CBS "Early Show," and the MRC's Kyle Drennen captured host Harry Smith's opening tease:
"Born in the USA. John McCain wasn't. Can he still be president?"
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Comments Policy
Yeah, guys. Let's
February 28, 2008 - 17:27 ET by Troika37Yeah, guys. Let's disqualify the sons and daughters of those of us who have chosen to serve. What ignorance. US soil is US soil. Embassies, warships, military installations et al.
The Bush Administration has
February 28, 2008 - 17:43 ET by j. frank wilsonThe Bush Administration has been telling us for several years that Gitmo (in Cuba, of course) is not part of the US and that US laws don't apply there. Are you claiming that is incorrect? [I would agree with you on that one, by the way.] Or is it that US laws apply to some people there but not others? Or...?
This is what happens when folks just haul off and make it up as they go along...
You are simply wrong. I
February 28, 2008 - 17:48 ET by Troika37You are simply wrong. I challenge you to find a single quote stating that our military base is not ours. The Administration is not claiming Gitmo is not US soil. They are claiming that illegal combatants are not awarded the protections of a POW - regardless of where they are held.
Way to try to move the goalposts though.
It doesn't even matter if
February 28, 2008 - 17:54 ET by motherbeltIt doesn't even matter if the military base isn't ours. If he's born of 2 US citizens, he is a natural citizen.
I'll repeat this from the other thread:
My twin sons were born in Spain, on a Spanish military installation. Their births are recorded in the town of Torrejon de Ardoz. Their birth certificates are written in Spanish.
They are US citizens. Their certificates from the US Government say "Certificate of the birth abroad, of a US citizen." Birth of a citizen abroad.
That is specific. It means that they were BORN citizens. They weren't made citizens after they were born. They are US citizens who were born abroad.
Mother, Thanks for making
February 28, 2008 - 18:13 ET by Troika37Mother,
Thanks for making that about as crystal clear as it can be made.
Please see Shafiq Rasul,
February 28, 2008 - 18:18 ET by j. frank wilsonPlease see Shafiq Rasul, et. al., Petitioners, v. George W. Bush...Brief for the Respondents [first signature: Theodore B. Olson, who is now researching the other side for Sen. McCain] Nos. 03-334 and 03-343:
"3. The government moved to dismiss all three actions for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction. As the government explained in its
motions to dismiss, under the principles recognized by this Court
in Johnson v. Eisentrager, supra, U.S. courts lack jurisdiction
over claims filed on behalf of the Guantanamo detainees because
they are aliens with no connection to the United States, and they
are being detained outside of the sovereign territory of the United
States. The district court agreed that “Eisentrager, and its
progeny, are controlling” (Pet. App. 48a (citation omitted)), and
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 32a-64a." [emphasis added].
This is a wrong-headed arguement the Bushies have been making for years...and it was only a matter of time before it came around to bite 'em on the rear end.
You should read Geneva.
February 28, 2008 - 18:30 ET by Troika37You should read Geneva. Article 4 of the Geneva Convention specifies the conditions under which combatants who aren't members of a country's armed forces may be deemed POWs. All others are specified as illegal combatants.
1. That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.
2. That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.
3. That of carrying arms openly.
4. That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Article 4 also authorizes the summary execution of those who are captured while engaged in illegal combat. This was last invoked in 1976 when one American and three British soldiers were executed by Angolan forces for engaging in illegal combat. It is clear (even to those of us not well-versed in law) that the terrorists in Iraq do not meet any of these requirements, much less all of them
Perhaps it is a bad idea
February 28, 2008 - 18:43 ET by j. frank wilsonPerhaps it is a bad idea for you to tie your shoelaces together before you try to run around the block.
I did not say the Gitmo detainees were POW's. I said they were entitled to the protections due them under the Geneva Convention ("... relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War").
You are the one talking about POW's. Not me.
PS: The made-up Bush Admin term is "enemy combatants." "Illegal/unlawful" comes from the Convention.
Actually, the protections
February 28, 2008 - 19:06 ET by BDActually, the protections awarded to illegal combatants by the accords are few. In fact, most countries who follow the accords convene courts martial, essentially convict before a panal of officers, and quickly dispatch the illegal combatant, generally in the same manner as non-uniformed spies detained on the battlefield..
In this manner, we (The US military) are providing significantly MORE protection to the Illegal combatants by providing the care appropriate to a POW than is normally the case we expect to witness all other nations to apply.
It is my belief that that is the reason the Bush administration uses the term Enemy combatants due to this distinction.
@Troika37: You challenged
February 28, 2008 - 19:07 ET by j. frank wilson@Troika37: You challenged me to show you where the Bush Administration had ever claimed Gitmo was not part of the US. I did. Your response? Silence so far...
So?
February 28, 2008 - 20:55 ET by ArcherBSo what's your point? If you are right, and I doubt you are, are you saying that John McCain should be disqualified from running for Prez? Is that how you want a Democrat to win the presidency? After all that bitching and moaning about how GWB was "selected" and not "elected" against the will of the people (which is also false, btw), you want to see a Democrat win on a technicality? So does the will of the people only matter if they vote for a Democrat?
I really hope the Democrats persue this. It will show the kind of chicken-shit tactics they will employ just to gain power over the will of the people.
Congratulations. You are one of them. How does it feel to realize that you want your guy to win so badly, that you will gladly see the will of the people denied in order to get it.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Please see my reply,
February 28, 2008 - 18:30 ET by j. frank wilsonPlease see my reply, below...Happy to report the goal posts remain firmly in place...
Posts moved
February 28, 2008 - 20:57 ET by ArcherBSee my reply above for an example of how the original location of the goal are irrelevant to your kind.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara
@Troika37: Now we all know
February 29, 2008 - 12:34 ET by j. frank wilson@Troika37: Now we all know you are not only poorly informed but gutless as well. Still awaiting your response. Isn't it kind of hard to type when you're sitting there with your tail between your legs?
J Frank: I await your
February 29, 2008 - 13:17 ET by BDJ Frank:
I await your reply as well, above.
I used "cab drivers" as an
February 29, 2008 - 14:08 ET by j. frank wilsonI used "cab drivers" as an example. Clearly one the major issues with Gitmo is we don't know who is down there. Is it any better than we've held journalist gem dealers (gee - wonder why the Pakistani Security Service would grab them, along with their gems and money?), a random bus passenger, Casio watch owners (look out for those guys!):
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj4.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4505403.stm
Why do you assume we do
February 29, 2008 - 15:35 ET by BDWhy do you assume we do not know who is down at Gitmo?
Are you saying the US military does not know who they are currently interrogating?
Or do you make the natural liberal assumption that the US military is not to be trusted with the knowledge of who is currently detained?
And why do you assume that the press, who makes the assertion regarding your GEM dealer, or random Bus Passenger is more believeable than the US Military?
By the way, did the US ever release to the press a by name list of a POWs detained during WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam? (Answer, no. That is a violation of the Accords.)
@BD: There you go again,
February 29, 2008 - 15:48 ET by j. frank wilson@BD: There you go again, reading into posts things that just aren't there. But I remember you as the guy who can turn a note to the milkman into War and Peace. You are excellent at adding whatever you want to what you read, rather than letting the post speak for itself.
I don't believe the US military knows who many of the Gitmo detainees were and are because of the way they were acquired. By the time we got them many had been handed off several times. This, of course, is why we released quite a few - belatedly, of course, but on some level that is better than still keeping them.
As to who (whom?) they were and are:
http://law.shu.edu/aaafinal.pdf
J Frank: You make brief,
February 29, 2008 - 16:08 ET by BDJ Frank:
You make brief, broad-sweeping statements and I am attacked for attempting to gain clarification from you ?????? Life is so unfair (please remind the liberals of that for me)
Your statement that we released detainees is accurate, but the statement that they were never determined to be a threat is inaccurate. the accurate statement would be that many who were released were released to their own home countries who had pledged to hold them, while others were determined to NO LONGER BE A THREAT. Many of the countries immediately released these detainees, often coming to regret it later.
Your source (SHU), being a legal education group rather than an intelligence or defense related agency is not qualified to make those distinctions.
You seem to assume that the current fight is a legal event much akin to the TV Series Law and Order (which I detest) rather than a long and very dirty WAR.
@BD: No attack. You seem
February 29, 2008 - 16:58 ET by j. frank wilson@BD: No attack. You seem a bit defensive...Meanwhile, where are your sources? You are great on pontificating. Short on references. This is, after all, News Busters - not News Blusters...
I agree with the view that we would be much better off addressing this very serious problem as a criminal activity rather than as a war. I believe The Art of War - war is messy, uncontrolled, expensive, and difficult to sustain over a long period of time. Police work, on the other hand, will - like the poor - always be with us.
Which item would you like
February 29, 2008 - 17:21 ET by BDWhich item would you like sourced?
I disagree with the statement that we would be better off addressing this srious problem as a crime rather than a war.
1.) Please cite for me the current law prohibiting an external "Agency" from acquiring intelligence information regarding a future strike on the US from outside the US. There is not one.
2.) Please cite for me the law which makes it illegal for a group of terrorists to squat in a village in Sonora awaiting the right opportunity to cause an incursion into the US to wreak havoc. No such US law exists.
3.) Please cite for me the current law on the books that makes it illegal for a member of AQ to seek a weapon of mass destruction from a country that currently possesses them or will soon possess one. No such US law exists and unless performed from US soil.
4.) Would you prefer US snipers who have a bead on AQ Targets of opportunity in the mountains of the Afghan/Pakistan border area to turn on rotating police lights and sounding sirens prior to demanding immediate surrender of said AQ to surrender prior to engaging?
The Current GWOT is obviously a war rather than a criminal infraction and any amount of effort by the legal class to modify this to gain social power is misguided.
The desire by liberals to make it not so or address it differently harkens back to their misguided belief that passing of laws will somehow change this.
Guilty of wearing olive
February 29, 2008 - 14:13 ET by j. frank wilsonGuilty of wearing olive drab clothing? Talk about getting a ticket from the fashion police! Maybe they used to shop at the old Banana Republic ("In Surplus We Trust")?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/terror/20060207-1645-guantanamo-detainees.html
If the US encountered a
February 29, 2008 - 15:39 ET by BDIf the US encountered a person in the Northern sahara region of 1943 wearing short pants made of Africa Yellow, should they have not detained him as well?
You simply assume that the news you hear from you r source is the accurate story. I can nearly guarantee you it is not.
@BD: That would depend on
February 29, 2008 - 17:22 ET by j. frank wilson@BD: That would depend on whether the color of his shorts clashed with his shirt and sandals.
Nice attempt at a dodge, but
February 29, 2008 - 17:26 ET by BDNice attempt at a dodge, but obviously persons encountered wearing Africa Yellow shorts in North Africa during WWII were immediately suspected of being Afrika Korps members and treated in the approriate manner.
@BD: Not a "dodge." A
February 29, 2008 - 17:32 ET by j. frank wilson@BD: Not a "dodge." A joke. Your post was obvious and not really relevant to the topic. So I treated it as it should have been treated. Did you really think you were making some sort of clever, subtle point?
But let's return to the original post: I find it amusing that the Bush Administration made the claim that the Guantanamo Bay military base is not part of the United States. And now Mr. Olson is working for Sen. McCain to make a case that Sen. McCain can serve as President of the United States despite the fact he was born on an overseas military base.
Amusing. Certainly more so than your most recent post...
You made the statement that
February 29, 2008 - 17:41 ET by BDYou made the statement that a person was detained "Guilty of wearing olive drab clothing?" as cut against the logic. Guilt by fashion.
I made the logical historical reference to a similar concept. Did you not get that?
Your logical historical
February 29, 2008 - 18:02 ET by j. frank wilsonYour logical historical reference just wasn't very logical. The two situations are not the same.
I do find your North Africa fixation rather interesting. Did you just read "Alamein to Zem Zem?"
The North Africa references
February 29, 2008 - 18:11 ET by BDThe North Africa references are intentional since there are many common reference points and themes from our current conflict in Middle East and the conflict of 1943-44. If you wish I can detail them more with a bit of effort.
I have NOT just recently read anything in regard to that conflict, having spent the past couple of weeks reading Rick Atkinsons book on the Invasion of Sicily and the Italian Campaign.
however, I would recommend Atkinsons book "An Army At Dawn" to give you a higher appreciation of the North African Campaign.
Poorly informed?
February 29, 2008 - 18:48 ET by Troika37Poorly informed? Gutless?
Let's see... Degree from Penn State in Int'l Politics, combat experience in multiple theatres of the current war. I guess that takes care of the first two. I do suppose I should apologize for taking too long for your liking. That whole 'managing a bank branch' thing takes up a lot of my time. The rest of it goes to my family. It's not often I can hover around my pc and wait to see if j. frank wilson has left a snide message for me.
Let's go over the facts: Geneva does not protect illegal combatants. If Bush made up the term, why is it that Brits and Americans were EXECUTED by Angola in 1976 for being ILLEGAL COMBATANTS? I'm pretty sure Bush wasn't the President then, nor is he an author of Geneva.
Those held in Gitmo are not US citizens, and thus not protected by the US Constitution.
I'm not sure what it is that's hard for you to understand.
@Troika37: I made the
March 1, 2008 - 11:37 ET by j. frank wilson@Troika37: I made the statement the Bush Administration has claimed for several years that Gitmo is not subject to US laws. You challenged me to find one time that had been done. I quickly did (wasn't hard at all). You went on to post on other matters (so much for being busy) but failed to acknowledge the fact that I was correct and you were wrong. You still haven't...
J Frank: You err. The
March 3, 2008 - 10:45 ET by BDJ Frank:
You err. The Bush adminstration has not said that Gitmo is exempt from US law. In fact it is covered by the UCMJ.
The detainees are also so covered and will be tried by a military tribunal when approriate.
How about this...
March 1, 2008 - 00:08 ET by BritcomFrom the State Dept. Foreign Affairs Manual:
7 FAM 1116.1-4
Not Included in the Meaning of "In the United States"
(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)
...
c. Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations
abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the
United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on
the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
---
Huckabee/Hunter '08
Is John McCain Married to the Mob?<
Dead horse, dude.
March 1, 2008 - 00:09 ET by BlondeDavid Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
J. Frank, Show us where
February 28, 2008 - 18:12 ET by mattmJ. Frank, Show us where Bush said U.S. Laws don't apply there.
I know what you're referring to, but you are missing two important facts. First, the Constitution - mainly the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments - does not apply to prisoners of war (regardless of where they are located); and secondly the camp at Gitmo is operating under U.S. Law, not in violation of it.
But, of course, as you say: This is what happens when folks just haul off and make it up as they go along...
From the Supreme Court case
February 28, 2008 - 18:28 ET by j. frank wilsonPlease see my reply, above...
The Geneva Convention covers the "enemy combatants" (although that name is also something just made up by the Bushies) held at Guantanamo.
As if Al-Qaeda abides by
February 28, 2008 - 18:39 ET by mattmAs if Al-Qaeda abides by the out-dated and irrelevant Geneva Convention... what a joke.
So just because Al -Q
February 28, 2008 - 18:43 ET by balboaSo just because Al -Q doesn't abide by the Geneva Convention then we don't?
Actually, one of the charms
February 28, 2008 - 19:12 ET by BDActually, one of the charms of the Geneva accords is that they allow each nation to conduct "Justifiable Repriasals" in response to previous misconduct.
In other words, if the enemy violates the convention by making a practice of immediately executing all personnel from your side that they capture on the battlefield, then the accords allow your side to conduct an identical action as a repraisal in order to bring your enemy back into accordance with the convention.
From what I learned years ago at the Command and General Staff Course, the right to conduct such a repriasal for the US is held at the National Command Authority.
I see you are ducking my
February 28, 2008 - 18:50 ET by j. frank wilson@mattm: I see you are ducking my reply regarding the Bush Administration's wild claim that Gitmo isn't part of the US...no surprise there...
In the meantime, do you suggest the standard the United States should hold for itself is the lowest standard of our enemy's? If that is the case, what is the difference between them and us? There wouldn't be any, would there?
Currently we are NOT holding
February 28, 2008 - 19:15 ET by BDCurrently we are NOT holding the lowest standard of our enemy. See note above for detail.
@BD: I most certainly did
February 28, 2008 - 19:49 ET by j. frank wilson@BD: I most certainly did not suggest the US Military has lowered its standards to those of the enemy. I have no basis for such a statement. I did say I thought to do so would be a very poor idea. And I'll stand by that.
The implication of your
February 29, 2008 - 10:59 ET by BDThe implication of your statement was that indeed the US had.
@BD: I respectfully disagree
February 29, 2008 - 12:14 ET by j. frank wilson@BD: I respectfully disagree with you. You read something into my post that simply is not there. There is no "implication." I wrote: "...do you suggest the standard the United States should hold for itself is the lowest standard of our enemy's? If that is the case, what is the difference between them and us? There wouldn't be any, would there?" [emphasis added] Those two words make it very clear - I was asking the other poster about his statements. There is no logical reason to suggest I said anything about how the US Military is currently conducting itself.
So you agree that the US
February 29, 2008 - 13:19 ET by BDSo you agree that the US military is, and has been acting in accordance?
J Frank?
February 29, 2008 - 16:09 ET by BDJ Frank?
BD,
February 29, 2008 - 16:56 ET by MassConservPerhaps you could borrow his taunt from below. He seems to like it as he's used it at least twice in this thread.
@MassConserv: And what's
February 29, 2008 - 17:05 ET by j. frank wilson@MassConserv: And what's wrong with that? Two posters asked me to prove it. I did. They've been silent (on this subject) for the subsequent 24 hours. They tucked their tails between their legs and hid. Do you dispute the facts? Or just not like the fact I've called them out on it?
J Frank.
February 29, 2008 - 17:07 ET by MassConservJust seemed lame, that's all.
@BD: I would not.
February 29, 2008 - 17:25 ET by j. frank wilson@BD: I would not.
Therefore the inference
February 29, 2008 - 17:28 ET by BDTherefore the inference was correct despite your attempts to wiggle off the hook.
@BD: Nope. You are
February 29, 2008 - 17:35 ET by j. frank wilson@BD: Nope. You are attempting to join together two completely separate statements.
I asked "So you agree that
February 29, 2008 - 17:53 ET by BDI asked "So you agree that the US military is, and has been acting in accordance?"
And you stated you would not agree with that statement.
What else is there to say? You will not trust the US military, but seem willing to trust published reports by various legal organizations. I am not surprised, as most liberals will always trust a shyster over an honest soldier.
@BD: The Seaton Hall study
March 1, 2008 - 11:47 ET by j. frank wilson@BD: The Seaton Hall study was 100% based on Department of Defense documents. Did you read it? Do you dispute the findings? Or do you simply dismiss it because the military are always right and the civilians are always wrong? When did all lawyers become "shysters?" To suit your poor arguement?
Should you - God forbid - have the horrible misfortune to fact a Court Martial - will you count on a lawyer to represent you?
There is a great passage in A Man For All Seasons - when Thomas Moore's son-in-law takes about the futility of the rule of law. Sir Thomas says [I paraphrase here - from memory] "The land is planted thick with laws from coast to coast. If you were to cut them down do you think you could withstand the wind that would blow?"
J frank: I have NOT read
March 3, 2008 - 10:57 ET by BDJ frank:
I have NOT read the Seton Hall study. however, I have had contact with the area in question and know the players in question there. While occasional issues have arrisen (Failure to place a Koran in the approved "HAMMOCK" etc) they are significantly fewer than any other detention facility in US history.
If I shall face a court martial, then I shall defend myself as any honorable officer would. I have served on a court martial, and have also served on the panel. Honor dictates you not have someone else do your fighting, nor seek "loop holes" and failures of law solely to gain freedom. Why, are you a mamber of that mercenary profession that is "The law?".
@mattm: Now we all know you
February 29, 2008 - 12:36 ET by j. frank wilson@mattm: Now we all know you are not only poorly informed but gutless as well. Still awaiting your response. Isn't it kind of hard to type when you're sitting there with your tail between your legs?
So now we cut and paste
March 1, 2008 - 10:23 ET by Troika37So now we cut and paste comments?
Clever boy.
@Troika37: mattm made the
March 1, 2008 - 11:41 ET by j. frank wilson@Troika37: mattm made the same challenge you did. Why bother to come up with something new for people who won't just admit they were wrong? Stick around - you both might learn something (although I do rather doubt it).
Gitmo is not US territory
February 28, 2008 - 18:49 ET by 10ksnookerIt is leased by treaty from Cuba. Much different than US soil.
Not US soil
February 28, 2008 - 22:01 ET by evilcontractorFinally, someone gets it right. Military bases are not considered US soil. Only American Embassies and Consulates are considered to be "US soil". This is exactly why Gitmo is housing the bad guys so liberals cannot make idiotic claims that US Constitutional protections apply. By the way, the Constitution only applies to US citizens and persons, not terrorist killing Americans (or anyone else) in a foreign country.
US Military Bases and Law
February 29, 2008 - 00:25 ET by CobraManHere’s how I understand the complex subject of sovereignty and legal jurisdiction after the briefings I received as a member of the military who was stationed at bases both overseas and here in the U.S.:
Criminal (legal) jurisdiction of any federal military base is relegated to the Judge Advocate General and all personnel within the base, both military and civilian, are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
In the case of a federal military base in a foreign country or territory, jurisdiction may be shared with the host country if such an agreement is stated within the treaty that established the base. In other words, UCMJ law is the supreme law at a federal military base no matter where that base is located. The Judge Advocate General may, at his or her discretion, turn over jurisdiction of anyone within the base to the legal system of the host country, but only if there is a prior agreement to share such jurisdiction.
In regards to federal military bases within the sovereign territories of the U.S., UCMJ is still the supreme law. As with the case of overseas bases with shared jurisdiction, the Judge Advocate General may, at his or her discretion, turn over jurisdiction to the applicable state or federal authorities. This does not mean that the state has absolute jurisdiction as you may still face trial by military tribunal. For example, if you commit a murder at a federal military base in Minnesota you can be tried by a military tribunal and, if found guilty, be subject to the death penalty even though the Minnesota State Constitution bans the death penalty as a means of criminal punishment.
In the case of Gitmo, only the Judge Advocate General has criminal jurisdiction as that is what stated in the treaty that established the base. This means that federal laws not covered by the UCMJ do not apply. Nor do the laws of Cuba.
In regards to federal military bases and sovereignty, that is also dependent upon the treaty that established the base. If such sovereignty is stated with a treaty, then the base in question is considered by law as the sovereign territory of the United States.
It should be noted that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is U.S. Law but it is normally separate from, and not subject to, other existing federal statutes and codes.
I hope that answers your questions.
Huh?
February 28, 2008 - 17:42 ET by kwakuI thought the the drive buys love immigrants? :)
Oh! PLEASE?!?!?
February 28, 2008 - 17:44 ET by drillanwrKeep this load of crap up!!!
Cindy McCain will be picking out drapes this time next year ...
When you men get home and face an anti-war protestor, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend because she knows she’s dating a pussy… ~ Attributed to General Tommy Franks
With the impeding death of
February 28, 2008 - 18:03 ET by pocomocoWith the impeding death of the NYT, updating resumes and job searching must be at a fever pitch in the newsrooms.
Where exactly they would go is somewhat questionable since other publications are in no better shape.
Since many of them, as this article suggets, are so good at wishful thinking and writing fiction, perhaps they could start writing The Great American Novel,
However, they'll never find their novel on the NYT Best Sellers List, will they?
" The Administration is
February 28, 2008 - 18:28 ET by chessplayer" The Administration is not claiming Gitmo is not US soil. They are claiming that illegal combatants are not awarded the protections of a POW - regardless of where they are held. "
Then why are the prisoners being held at Gitmo instead of a military base within the continental US?
Way to hit it out of the
February 28, 2008 - 18:33 ET by j. frank wilsonWay to hit it out of the park!
So illegal combatants from
February 28, 2008 - 20:35 ET by Troika37So illegal combatants from Iraq or Iran or Syrai or Saudi Arabia should be afforded US Constitutional protections and should have the potential to escape into the general population of the United States?
Liars, Lawyers, and Judges
February 28, 2008 - 22:53 ET by CGatton"...why are the prisoners being held at Gitmo..."
To prevent the ACLU lawyers (pronounced 'lie-ers' in Idaho) from judge shopping and trying to make the issue about citizen's rights. Pretty straight forward and documented over the last four years, but unlikely to ring a bell with the people arguing this idiocy.
See, the military takes its orders from the President, and no pissant circuit court judge in San Francisco can make that go away. If they were held in some pokey here in CONUS, there would be a little cracker-jack box judge who would order them released, and a jail official who would knee-jerk first and release, and think afterwards. Better to not let that happen.
Quite simple when you stop and really think about it.
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
They are not POW's. These
February 28, 2008 - 23:06 ET by NL207They are not POW's. These persons do not meet the tests of Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions to attain that status. Nor do they meet the tests of Article 3 to be considered non-combatants.
These are unlawful combatants. They are lumped together with spies, saboteurs, fifth columnists, traitors, etc. In general, such persons my be tried and executed by Military Tribunal at the discretion of their captors.
If they had not wanted to get thenmselves into such a predicament, then perhaps they should not have taken up arms.
NL207... Short and sweet
February 28, 2008 - 23:28 ET by Clear thinkerNL207...
Short and sweet beats long twisted logic every time. Thank you!
For me the case is closed.
"Abstain from McCain"
@NL207: You gloss over the
February 29, 2008 - 12:21 ET by j. frank wilson@NL207: You gloss over the fact that many Gitmo detainees were obtained from bounty hunters or turned over to us by the Pakistan security service or others with dubious motives. In many cases the US has no direct evidence these cab drivers and others ever took up arms. Your "logic" (and I'm being generous here) is circular. We have them because they are guilty; and we know they are guilty because we have them.
Please provide proof other
February 29, 2008 - 13:22 ET by BDPlease provide proof other than statements from former detainees or lawyers of the currently detained that we currently hold "innocent cab drivers from Pakistan."
By your own admission these
March 1, 2008 - 01:29 ET by NL207By your own admission these persons were (1) on the field of battle
The "cab driver" you refer to, is he not the man purported to have been Osama bin Laden's chauffeur?
If you are dressed as a cab driver, you are (2) out of uniform.
And, if you happen to be bin Laden's chauffeur, you are (a) a member of Al Qaeda and (b) in possession of a weapon.
Those who are found on the field of battle, out of uniform, and in possession of a weapon are going to be treated as spies and saboteurs.
Wilson, that you believe these asinine tales these zealots relate about how they aren't enemy combatants just shows your gullability. The truth is that most of these "detainees" are terrorists. The proof lies in the activities of those we have been so unwise as to release before they were dead: to wit. They are almost all later identified with new terror attacks like these after their release.
The only thing glossy here are your segues over the true nature and intentions of the vast majority of these "detainees" . My opinion? These men should all be executed by firing squad immediately as fifth columnists, i.e. illegal combatants. This is the standard disposition for such persons under wartime conditons. Hans Herbert Haupt comes to mind. FDR had him and his co-conspirators executed by electric chair for just this offense.
It doesn't matter.
February 29, 2008 - 00:54 ET by CobraMan<i>"Then why are the prisoners being held at Gitmo instead of a military base within the continental US?"
It doesn't matter where the prisoners are held, their legal status and the conditions in which they're detained would remain the same. Even if they were being held in a federal military base within the continental US, they would still be subject to military rule, not civilian, as all federal military bases are subject to, and governed by, military authority as per the laws of the United States.
It doesn't matter.
February 29, 2008 - 00:59 ET by CobraMan"Then why are the prisoners being held at Gitmo instead of a military base within the continental US?"
It doesn't matter where the prisoners are held, their legal status and the conditions in which they're detained would remain the same. Even if they were being held in a federal military base within the continental US, they would still be subject to military rule, not civilian, as all federal military bases are subject to, and governed by, military authority as per the laws of the United States.
Sorry for the double post
February 29, 2008 - 01:02 ET by CobraManSorry for the double post. I'm not sure why that happened.
What hit? What ballpark?
February 28, 2008 - 18:54 ET by woolIs your premise that the combatants are entitled to a jury trial? They do not wear uniforms
They do not bear arms openly
They utilize civilians as shields
They do not fight for any recognized government
They kill indiscriminately- this includes both civilians and prisoners
Is your feeling that these people should be given a trial in an American court?
@woo!: "What hit? What
February 28, 2008 - 19:01 ET by j. frank wilson@woo!: "What hit? What ballpark?" - Close your eyes and you'll miss the pitch every time...
Unlike you, I have faith the American justice system. The best example we can give the world is to use the system we have. Bring criminals to the bar of justice, give them a fair trial, and show the world our system works. What are you afraid of? Why does the Bush Administration have to haul off and try to invent on the fly a whole new procedure that doesn't work and keeps getting shot down?
BTW: There are some very interesting historical parallels between the situation in Afganistan and Iraq and parts of Kansas, Missouri, and Kentucky during the American Civil War.
Witnesses?
February 28, 2008 - 19:14 ET by