It’s not inconceivable. Defunct military ships used to routinely be used for holding prisoners of war. For jurisdictional reasons, the United States might try to revive the practice. Put the remaining detainees on a ship and anchor it off some unpopulated atoll in the Pacific. Claim that they’re being detained in international waters outside the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore aren’t entitled to constitutional protections.
Sure. But those areas of uncertainty would need to be determined in federal court, no? With ancillary injunctive relief barring their removal from the US until those legal and constitutional questions had been determined.
All I was responding to was the suggestion that a new President could unilaterally and summarily remove them from the US in response to Obama hypothetically letting them in.
I think that once they’re on US soil, it would be much harder to remove them than is the case when they’re in Gitmo. Isn’t that why they’re in Gitmo in the first place?.
Yeah, harder is probably a fair summary.
As to why Gitmo, I think it was only partially to help legal arguments. They also wanted prisoners to believe they would not be treated like normal American prisoners or POWs. The psychology of being on a remote island base was part of the overall torture and interrogation scheme.
Hmm, yes. Those prisoners at Abu Ghraib don’t know how lucky they were.
More likely it was to insulate the interrogators from prosecution.
They cashed them before Castro took over - and they cashed one after that (which Castro apparently claims was due to “confusion”).
If we send the agreed-on check each year, does that not qualify as paying the rent?
Could a landlord evict me from his apartment for non-payment, based on the fact that he hadn’t cashed the past 6 rent checks I gave him?
Can your landlord pass laws? Was your previous landlord violently overthrown? Have you tried slipping your landlord a poison cigar?
Wouldn’t even consider it, don’t have any idea where to get one! Amazon? E-bay? Just askin’…
I think there is some kind of enviromental wrinkle with this one, something I remember reading about one of the other overseas base closures, that it had to be returned to pristine condition or something of that nature.
Funds for that , if it is a concideration have to be provided by Congress.
Declan
The abu ghraib folks were more insulated, actually.
And the reason I gave is documented in both the testimony of detainees like Mahamedou Slahi and the governments own reports.
It would be a moot issue. If the United States announced it was withdrawing from Guantanamo Bay and leaving all its trash behind, Cuba couldn’t assert any theoretical treaty violation by this - the Cuban government has already stated it doesn’t consider the treaty to be in effect.
It’s still a little silly. I seriously doubt whether the darkened cell is on an Island or not makes much difference when the CIA is waterboarding you or electrocuting your balls.
Sure. But you should read Guantanamo Diary. It makes the point pretty forcefully that some of the worst parts of torture were psychological.
In any event, they might have calculated incorrectly (as they did on so many other things), but they clearly chose Gitmo in part because they thought it would be more terrifying than Bagram, and certainly more than Leavenworth.
I’m unclear how these questions bear on the issue of whether the US has made rent payments.
It bears on it in the fact that it doesn’t matter. Cuba doesn’t want the money and they want the U.S. out.
Well, it just isn’t going to happen. Guantanamo is a pretty highly valued military base for reasons other than the prison, so the US doesn’t appear to have any intention of giving it up any time soon. The Cuban government can continue to assert that the current state is unfair, but continued protests won’t matter any more than it has for the past half century.
And for those who have suggested putting the prisoners on a ship, it isn’t going to happen, either. The Geneva Conventions prohibit putting POWs in prison ship. Yes, the detainees aren’t POWs, but there’s no way that the Obama Administration would suggest a move of the prisoners that is such a blatant violation of the laws of war. Lets keep in mind that its intent is to mollify the criticism of the US human rights record, not add to it.
Finally, I think the OP has an interesting question. I’m baffled as to how this issue would play out in the courts, which I hadn’t really thought about before. I do agree that impeachment would move forward pretty fast, though.
Just to recap the history: When Bush 43 began sending prisoners there, the state of the law was that the relevant court of appeals had ruled that Gitmo was beyond the reach of the US Constitution. This came about back when Bush 41 and Clinton were storing foreign prisoners there. It thus made an appealing prison because the inmates could not sue over their treatment in federal court. It was only during the later Bush 43 years that the Supreme Court overturned the decisions below and did permit some level of due process.
Guantanamo Bay was not used for “storing foreign prisoners” by any President prior to George W. Bush. The people who were there before 2001 were Haitian and Cuban refugees who were seeking asylum in the United States. Granted, they weren’t happy about being held in a refugee camp rather than allowed to go on to America. But they weren’t prisoners. They had all left their home country voluntarily seeking residency in America and were allowed to change their mind and go back if they wished.
I am aware that it’s actually a useful military base but come on “assert it’s unfair”? It’s objectively full of shit to maintain a military base in a country you’re not at war with that doesn’t want you there. There’s already other bases in the region and probably other places the U.S. could relocate to - that is, if they don’t continue to show they don’t give a shit when they are asked to leave.
It really isn’t all that useful as a military base. We don’t need coaling stations anymore. There are plenty of better military bases along the southern coast of the United States for whatever military projection we need in the Caribbean or the Gulf of Mexico. And a base in Cuba is too vulnerable to really want to plan too much around its availability.
The only real value Guantanamo Bay has as a base is as a staging area for an attack against Cuba. Having forces and supplies on the ground would be a major advantage in such an attack.
But that raises the issue of whether such an attack would ever occur. Back when the Soviets had troops stationed in Cuba, we might have attacked Cuba as part of a general war against the Soviet Union. But now? Cuba might be diplomatically hostile to the United States but they’re no threat to us.