[XJarhead]

To propose that the government of the United States restore and protect its sovereign right and exclusive jurisdiction of the Canal Zone in perpetuity

"Sovereign right" and "exclusive jurisdiction"? From where did we obtain that? Presumably, they're talking about U.S. rights as described in the original Panama Canal treaty. But if Panama had the right to surrender its sovereignity over part of its territory via a treaty, then we obviously had the same right to return that sovereignity to them via another treaty. Which is exactly what happened. Right or wrong, that's a done deal, and whatever legal right we had to stay there ended when we signed a new treaty.

So given the CP's emphasis on the rule of law and sovereignity, what is our legal basis for seizing that land again?

[SJackson]

"Sovereign right" and "exclusive jurisdiction"? From where did we obtain that? Presumably, they're talking about U.S. rights as described in the original Panama Canal treaty. But if Panama had the right to surrender its sovereignity over part of its territory via a treaty, then we obviously had the same right to return that sovereignity to them via another treaty. Which is exactly what happened. Right or wrong, that's a done deal, and whatever legal right we had to stay there ended when we signed a new treaty.

I can only assume they made it up. There is no legal basis. We would simply abrogate the treaty and go to war with Panama. But it's red meat for some. Which is why it's in the platform.