Why Guantanamo?

Question

I have a homework assignment that asks some questions about Guantanamo. I know where it is and what it is. I am not real sure why we are holding "illegal combatants" there instead of a military prison in the US?

Are we not subject to US laws if they are held outside of the U.S.? I thought a military base was considered US soil?!?!! Is it because we want them off of the mainland so they are less of a threat if something happens? Could it be that we assume the terrorists will be less likely to attack the base and free the combatants? And if they do, there is less chance for civilian damage?

Not part of my assingnment, but I have also wondered why we even have a base on an island that we are forbidden to trade with. I assume this goes back to the Cuban Missile Crisis, but I am not well versed on that.

THANKS FOR HELPING ME UNDERSTAND!

Answer 1

off us soil so 1 they don't have rights and aren't applicable to laws per se and 2 out of sight out of mind, can't very well have secret prisons downtown or something.

Answer 2

I think military bases are considered US soil, and subject to US laws. I don't think that the majority of the detainees are threats, I think the administration just doesn't really know what to do with these so-called terrorists. Notice I said most, not all. I don't think that most of these people are very important or involved in terrorist activities so I think the threat of them being "sprung" from the prison so to speak is pretty much nil.

I think that the admin wanted a place not in the US to keep the base out of the public eye as much as possible. I think the question of why they are there has less to do with the legal status and location of the physical base and more to do with the legal status of the prisoners. These people have a very interesting status under the Bush administration's interpretation of the law. They are not civilians so habeas corpus does not apply, they are also not POWs so the Geneva Conventions don't apply. Personally I think that this is a dangerous outlook, one that leaves to much power in the hands of the executive. John Woo at Cal Berkeley was one of the law professors who aided the administration with this interpretation.


I think we have had the base for a really long time, not sure how long though. Possibly since the Spanish American war?

Here this should help:
http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?submit.x=0&submit.y=0&id=3944&qt=guantanamo

Answer 3

They are on US soil, they are subject to US laws, They are less of a threat if they try to break out, an isolated island without any civs on it would be better, but it is close enough to the mainland that we can easily send support if we have to.

And we own gitmo as a war trophy (i guess that is what it would be called.) that we got it after the spanish american war for helping the cubans and the deal can be terminated through mutual agreement or US desertion.

Answer 4

Actually there is a very good article on this topic in the current issue of Soldier of Fortune magazine. It will help you understand the back round. Actually the base dates back to 1898 and ther Spanish American war. It 's leased from Cuba for $2000 in gold a year. However Castro stoped taking the money in 1960. Unlike other bases, we are not guests. Yes, it's safer to keep them there than here & saves some legal headaches. You really need to hit the books to or the SOF article to understand.

Answer 5

The reasons given by the Bush Administration have varied. But the core of the arguement is that, although bases like Guantanemo are "US territory" in a sense, they are not sovereign US territory. The legal distinction is important here.

Since Gitmo is not sovereign territory of the US, the bush administration is not bound legally to respect the hunan rights--due process, right to counsel, prohhibitons on cruel and unsual punishment (torture), etc.

So far the Courts have not made a clear ruling on this--the legal issues really are complicated. But they (even conservative judges) are not being very receptive to the administration's arguements.

That's the facts.

My opinion, fo rwhat its worth is that this entire mess is more than sufficient grounds for impeaching and convicting both Bush and Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Answer 6

We have the base there because of the deal we struck with Cuba after the Spanish American war. The deal says it takes both parties to break the lease,and we are not giving it up. It's a great place to hold them, and we have other operations going on down there that have nothing to do with the few terrorists. They are isolated there. Its a good thing.

Answer 7

I wont waste time addressing the first questions because quite honestly the rule are clear on non uniformed combatants caught on the battlefield- they can be shot.

We have a base on Cuba dating to back when we controlled the Island- from Spanish American war to (for all intents and purposes) when Castro overthrew the government and took over.

Answer 8

You're only missing one small piece of info. Terrorists are being held based on military law, not civil law.

Guantanamo is American soil. Nobody is trying to get around US laws. Its just another misconception supported by liberals.

Answer 9

What better place to house these people than on an Island in the middle of no where away from anyone that our country cares about.

Answer 10

It is not US soil so the prisoners are not subject to US law. This is not liberal lies, this is what our own government has said.