Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tlaloc
Chew on this but it won't taste very good:

" The Court gives only two reasons why the presumption against extraterritorial effect does not apply to Guantanamo Bay. First, the Court says (without any further elaboration) that “the United States exercises ‘complete jurisdiction and control’ over the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base [under the terms of a 1903 lease agreement], and may continue to exercise such control permanently if it so chooses [under the terms of a 1934 Treaty].” Ante, at 12; see ante, at 2—3. But that lease agreement explicitly recognized “the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the [leased areas],” Lease of Lands for Coaling and Naval Stations, Feb. 23, 1903, U.S.-Cuba, Art. III, T. S. No. 418, and the Executive Branch–whose head is “exclusively responsible” for the “conduct of diplomatic and foreign affairs,” Eisentrager, supra, at 789–affirms that the lease and treaty do not render Guantanamo Bay the sovereign territory of the United States, see Brief for Respondents 21." Scalia in Rasul.

122 posted on 01/13/2008 5:16:26 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]


To: jwalsh07

Scalia here admits that the court has ruled that Gitmo is under “complete jurisdiction and control” of the US regardless of who holds sovereignty! Sovereignty is irrelevant!


128 posted on 01/13/2008 5:22:58 PM PST by Tlaloc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson