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

To: Tlaloc
So because Gitmo is on Cuban soil, then local law applies and all the detainees should have Cuban lawyers? Nonsense.

Not at all, what it means is that no US court has jurisdiction, period. Is there any place that you think US courts can't reach?

83 posted on 01/13/2008 4:32:16 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]


To: jwalsh07
You think no US court has jurisdiction over our US base at Gitmo!? Not even the Supreme Court!? What dream world do you live in?

RASUL V. BUSH
Whatever traction the presumption against extraterritoriality might have in other contexts, it certainly has no application to the operation of the habeas statute with respect to persons detained within “the territorial jurisdiction” of the United States. Foley Bros., Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285 (1949). By the express terms of its agreements with Cuba, the United States exercises “complete jurisdiction and control” over the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, and may continue to exercise such control permanently if it so chooses. 1903 Lease Agreement, Art. III; 1934 Treaty, Art. III. Respondents themselves concede that the habeas statute would create federal-court jurisdiction over the claims of an American citizen held at the base. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27. Considering that the statute draws no distinction between Americans and aliens held in federal custody, there is little reason to think that Congress intended the geographical coverage of the statute to vary depending on the detainee’s citizenship.10 Aliens held at the base, no less than American citizens, are entitled to invoke the federal courts’ authority under §2241.

92 posted on 01/13/2008 4:40:20 PM PST by Tlaloc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | 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