• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Why is the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba?

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
17
81
It seems to me as though what is going on, or at least what was going on, in Guantanamo Bay, is in violation of the US constitution. Does the constitution somehow go out the window when stuff happens on foreign soil?

Was the US constitution altered after 9/11?

Does it not strike you as bizarre that Cuba is boycotted by the US federal government, yet they have a prison/base there? :Q
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: SickBeast
It seems to me as though what is going on, or at least what was going on, in Guantanamo Bay, is in violation of the US constitution. Does the constitution somehow go out the window when stuff happens on foreign soil?

Was the US constitution altered after 9/11?

Does it not strike you as bizarre that Cuba is boycotted by the US federal government, yet they have a prison/base there? :Q
Guantanamo Bay is de facto U.S. territory. It makes sense that the U.S. would want to keep a base there as a thorn in the side of Castro regime.

And IRC the U.S. Supreme Court has held detainees are entitled to the protection of the U.S. Constitution.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
4
0
We have had a base there for 100 years, before the commies took over. One reason we kept the base was to spit in the eyes of the Cubans.

I believe one reason Gitmo was used we because it was not on US soil and therefore some US laws might not apply to the detainees. But I believe the courts pretty much killed that idea.

I think the basic idea was the keep some terrorist's lawyer from going to a Federal judge and demanding his client be released.


Please explain how it violates the constitution. Never heard that line of argument.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
17
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Please explain how it violates the constitution. Never heard that line of argument.
I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the US constitution and I'm not even American. That said, your nation is founded on principles of freedom and liberty, yes?

Perhaps the US constitution does allow for torture. Look at slavery as an example. Does the constitution allow for torture on behalf of your own government though? It just defies logic to me.
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We have had a base there for 100 years, before the commies took over. One reason we kept the base was to spit in the eyes of the Cubans.

I believe one reason Gitmo was used we because it was not on US soil and therefore some US laws might not apply to the detainees. But I believe the courts pretty much killed that idea.

I think the basic idea was the keep some terrorist's lawyer from going to a Federal judge and demanding his client be released.


Please explain how it violates the constitution. Never heard that line of argument.
Err ever heard of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment?


 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We have had a base there for 100 years, before the commies took over. One reason we kept the base was to spit in the eyes of the Cubans.

I believe one reason Gitmo was used we because it was not on US soil and therefore some US laws might not apply to the detainees. But I believe the courts pretty much killed that idea.

I think the basic idea was the keep some terrorist's lawyer from going to a Federal judge and demanding his client be released.


Please explain how it violates the constitution. Never heard that line of argument.
Err ever heard of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment?
And 7th, 8th too.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,499
23,420
136
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Please explain how it violates the constitution. Never heard that line of argument.
I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the US constitution and I'm not even American. That said, your nation is founded on principles of freedom and liberty, yes?

Perhaps the US constitution does allow for torture. Look at slavery as an example. Does the constitution allow for torture on behalf of your own government though? It just defies logic to me.
Pretty much the answer is no. The 8th amendment prohibits 'cruel and unusual punishment'... which most if not all torture would fall under. The thing is that our courts move slowly on issues such as these, so it hasn't exactly been resolved. The prisoners were put in Guantanamo exactly for the reason that the administration hoped they would be beyond the reach of US law and the US constitution. It didn't end up working so well though to our court system's credit.
 

DanceMan

Senior member
Jan 26, 2001
474
0
0
Originally posted by: SickBeast
It seems to me as though what is going on, or at least what was going on, in Guantanamo Bay, is in violation of the US constitution. Does the constitution somehow go out the window when stuff happens on foreign soil?
Well, one of the reasons why they did it was to put it's legal status in murky waters, so they would have time to do whatever they wanted while it dragged out in courts.

Was the US constitution altered after 9/11?
Unfortunately yes, now it's just a piece of goddamed paper.

Does it not strike you as bizarre that Cuba is boycotted by the US federal government, yet they have a prison/base there? :Q
No, not really. As explained before, we had it before Castro took over. The US Government actually pays for the base every year, but Castro never cashed the checks and reportedly has saved all of them. And really, Castro just uses the base to re-inforce his message to the Cuban people about the US government.
[/quote]

 

ranmaniac

Golden Member
May 14, 2001
1,939
0
76
There are more prisons than just Gitmo, although that is the most visible one. The US has also relied on prisons in other countries like Syria, Egypt and other countries that use much harsher interrogation techniques than even those at Gitmo.

 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,420
5,485
126
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Please explain how it violates the constitution. Never heard that line of argument.
I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the US constitution and I'm not even American. That said, your nation is founded on principles of freedom and liberty, yes?

Perhaps the US constitution does allow for torture. Look at slavery as an example. Does the constitution allow for torture on behalf of your own government though? It just defies logic to me.
no cruel and unusual punishment. whatever that may mean. tar and feathering were common back then. if a majority of states recently outlawed it is it unusual and therefore banned in the rest of them? if it's allowed in a majority of states but disallowed in the majority of foreign jurisdictions is unusual and therefore banned in the US? it if were allowed all over the place, but was only implemented in one of every 600 possible cases (granted, not ever murder is 'solved,' and a lot of accused plea out, but it's still uncomon) would that be grounds for outlaw?

all i know is that the death penalty was on a very definite decline and looked like it'd fade away into US history when the supreme court butted it's nose in and (essentially) outlawed it (there'd been no executions in about 5 years prior in the whole US) in 1972. since the states rewrote their laws in 1976 and later, there have been over 1000 executions.


and, of course, if you're not doing something for punitive reasons, is it punishment?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,499
23,420
136
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Please explain how it violates the constitution. Never heard that line of argument.
I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the US constitution and I'm not even American. That said, your nation is founded on principles of freedom and liberty, yes?

Perhaps the US constitution does allow for torture. Look at slavery as an example. Does the constitution allow for torture on behalf of your own government though? It just defies logic to me.
no cruel and unusual punishment. whatever that may mean. tar and feathering were common back then. if a majority of states recently outlawed it is it unusual and therefore banned in the rest of them? if it's allowed in a majority of states but disallowed in the majority of foreign jurisdictions is unusual and therefore banned in the US? it if were allowed all over the place, but was only implemented in one of every 600 possible cases (granted, not ever murder is 'solved,' and a lot of accused plea out, but it's still uncomon) would that be grounds for outlaw?

all i know is that the death penalty was on a very definite decline and looked like it'd fade away into US history when the supreme court butted it's nose in and (essentially) outlawed it (there'd been no executions in about 5 years prior in the whole US) in 1972. since the states rewrote their laws in 1976 and later, there have been over 1000 executions.


and, of course, if you're not doing something for punitive reasons, is it punishment?
I had heard that one before, and it was one of the more insane legal theories that had come out of this whole mess. Basically that argument means that the US government is more restricted in what it can do to you after you are found guilty of a crime than it is if it just snatches you off the street and deprives you of any sort of due process whatsoever. That's a pretty ridiculous notion.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
17
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Please explain how it violates the constitution. Never heard that line of argument.
I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the US constitution and I'm not even American. That said, your nation is founded on principles of freedom and liberty, yes?

Perhaps the US constitution does allow for torture. Look at slavery as an example. Does the constitution allow for torture on behalf of your own government though? It just defies logic to me.
no cruel and unusual punishment. whatever that may mean. tar and feathering were common back then. if a majority of states recently outlawed it is it unusual and therefore banned in the rest of them? if it's allowed in a majority of states but disallowed in the majority of foreign jurisdictions is unusual and therefore banned in the US? it if were allowed all over the place, but was only implemented in one of every 600 possible cases (granted, not ever murder is 'solved,' and a lot of accused plea out, but it's still uncomon) would that be grounds for outlaw?

all i know is that the death penalty was on a very definite decline and looked like it'd fade away into US history when the supreme court butted it's nose in and (essentially) outlawed it (there'd been no executions in about 5 years prior in the whole US) in 1972. since the states rewrote their laws in 1976 and later, there have been over 1000 executions.


and, of course, if you're not doing something for punitive reasons, is it punishment?
I had heard that one before, and it was one of the more insane legal theories that had come out of this whole mess. Basically that argument means that the US government is more restricted in what it can do to you after you are found guilty of a crime than it is if it just snatches you off the street and deprives you of any sort of due process whatsoever. That's a pretty ridiculous notion.
IMO it's a perfectly fair interpretation of the words as they are written, however there are other parts of the constitution which guarantee due process and such.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
For what it's worth, the US is in violation of the treaty, which allows only coaling and naval activities, and prohibits 'other enterprises'. link

I'm also aganst 'perpetual' agreements of the type in that treaty. Even Hong Kong had a 99 year lease - which expired.
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
It wasn't until later that I found out about the government getting cute about the legal angles of using Gitmo.

My first thoughts were that it was a great palce for a prison because:

escape would likely be impossible

near zero chance of infiltrators

no demonstrators to contend with

and if these were the really bad guys like we had been told, it was quite alright that they live in what we called "the armpit of the earth" when I was there in '69

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,499
23,420
136
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Please explain how it violates the constitution. Never heard that line of argument.
I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the US constitution and I'm not even American. That said, your nation is founded on principles of freedom and liberty, yes?

Perhaps the US constitution does allow for torture. Look at slavery as an example. Does the constitution allow for torture on behalf of your own government though? It just defies logic to me.
no cruel and unusual punishment. whatever that may mean. tar and feathering were common back then. if a majority of states recently outlawed it is it unusual and therefore banned in the rest of them? if it's allowed in a majority of states but disallowed in the majority of foreign jurisdictions is unusual and therefore banned in the US? it if were allowed all over the place, but was only implemented in one of every 600 possible cases (granted, not ever murder is 'solved,' and a lot of accused plea out, but it's still uncomon) would that be grounds for outlaw?

all i know is that the death penalty was on a very definite decline and looked like it'd fade away into US history when the supreme court butted it's nose in and (essentially) outlawed it (there'd been no executions in about 5 years prior in the whole US) in 1972. since the states rewrote their laws in 1976 and later, there have been over 1000 executions.


and, of course, if you're not doing something for punitive reasons, is it punishment?
I had heard that one before, and it was one of the more insane legal theories that had come out of this whole mess. Basically that argument means that the US government is more restricted in what it can do to you after you are found guilty of a crime than it is if it just snatches you off the street and deprives you of any sort of due process whatsoever. That's a pretty ridiculous notion.
IMO it's a perfectly fair interpretation of the words as they are written, however there are other parts of the constitution which guarantee due process and such.
You think the government can only punish you through court proceedings?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY