“The Panamanians never signed away the sovereignty to their land. Period.”
You are totally misinformed (ignorant/probably stupid).
You have never lived here, and you know more than anybody else?
John J. Tierney responds:
The question reflects the view held by many Americans during the 1978 treaty debates. Senator Strom Thurmond expressed it as follows: “We on it, title in fee simple.”
The issue of American sovereignty, however, was always a myth. Philippe Bunau-Varilla, who wrote the 1903 treaty in favor of the U.S. testified that “The United States, without becoming sovereign, received the exclusive use of the rights of sovereignty…” The words of the original treaty allowed the U.S. to use the Canal “as if it were sovereign,” later expressed in President William Howard Taft’s famous phrase “titular sovereignty.”
Usage over the century reflected the distinctions between Federal rule of the several states and ownership over foreign property, namely the Canal Zone:
The United States paid Panama annual indemnities; something a sovereign would not possibly do;
Panamanians born in the Canal Zone were citizens of Panama, not the United States;
The U.S. surrendered its rights to tax incoming goods from Panama to the Canal Zone;
United States General Laws (such as the criminal code) could not be applied in the Canal Zone;
The United States Constitution never automatically applied in the Canal Zone;
A 1930 U.S. Supreme Court decision defined the Zone’s ports as “foreign”;
The 1936 Hull-Alfaro Treaty termed the Canal Zone as the “territory of the Republic of Panama under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.” The U.S. Senate ratified this pact;
A 1948 Supreme Court decision declared that while Congress “controlled” the Canal Zone, the U.S. did not possess “sovereignty”;
After World War II, Washington officials repeatedly recognized Panama’s sovereignty in the Canal Zone, as did all presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Carter.
Whether or not the Canal “should have been retained by the U.S.” is a judgement call and the jury is still out on that. In a perfect world, I would agree with the writer, but the political pressures for a transfer were severe in 1977 and had been developing for decades. The judgement of U.S. authorities — with Senate concurrence — was that retention was not worth the political and military price which the situation demanded.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/december99/panama_canal1.html