Is an American Base on foreign soil considered under American jurisdiction or not. (McCain, Iraq)

[Lindsey_Mcfarren]

It is my understanding that if a child is born on an American base, on foreign soil they are considered American citizens. Its American soil just like embassies. This was the reasoning given when it was pointed out that McCain was born in Panama on an American base.

HOWEVER when foreign soldiers are taken into custody and kept on an American base on foreign soil, they don't have the same rights as if they were here in the US.

[padcrasher]

HOWEVER when foreign soldiers are taken into custody and kept on an American base on foreign soil, they don't have the same rights as if they were here in the US.

The may not have the "same" rights but they do have important rights. One being "habeas corpus" rights and the other being the right not to be tortured. Both of these rights have nothing to do with where you are what your "status" is but rather who's control you are under. Prisoners at Gitmo are under the control of the USA.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...etition-of.php


http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies...1.Rev.4_en.pdf

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Lindsey_Mcfarren

It is my understanding that if a child is born on an American base, on foreign soil they are considered American citizens. Its American soil just like embassies. This was the reasoning given when it was pointed out that McCain was born in Panama on an American base.

HOWEVER when foreign soldiers are taken into custody and kept on an American base on foreign soil, they don't have the same rights as if they were here in the US.

Foreign soldiers taken into custody are entitled to certain rights as POW's under international laws, many of which are also U.S. laws because of the ratification of various treaties.

[Lancet71]

LAWS BASED ON THE "GENEVA CONVENTION" which deals with fair treatment of POW's.If you are military member assigned to a military installation it's considered the same as U.S soil if your wife has a child there. For POW's they are NOT assigned to the base and are not seeking asylum so they are not officially on U.S soil.

[texdav]

They must first be recognised as soldiers and be in uniform.If they are leagal combatants their in no no land really.

[mwruckman]

Originally Posted by Lindsey_Mcfarren

It is my understanding that if a child is born on an American base, on foreign soil they are considered American citizens. Its American soil just like embassies. This was the reasoning given when it was pointed out that McCain was born in Panama on an American base.

HOWEVER when foreign soldiers are taken into custody and kept on an American base on foreign soil, they don't have the same rights as if they were here in the US.

Considering US bases US territory is a rarity because most countries which host our bases consider this objectionable. To keep those bases open we have to negoiate status of forces agreements with the host country. These agreements cover things like operational issues like can US forces initiate combat from that base. For example, Turkey would not let US forces stage air attacks from Incilik AFB during the Iraq War in 2003. A question that comes up is who's flag flies over the base. Legal matters like whose courts can prosecute crimes commited by US servicemen against host country nationals. Japan reseves the right to try US servicemen in a Japanese court and if they are convicted serving time in a Japanese jail. This is in addition to whatever punishment the US military and civilian courts might impose. GITMO is an intresting case. It was obtained by the US after the Spanish-American war from the Cuban government we established. This new government gave the US a lease of the base in perpetuity. The base is techincally Cuban territory and we pay a nominal rent to the Cuban government. However, the current Cuban government considers the agreement illegitament. These rent checks have gone uncashed since 1959. The current Cuban government wants to assert control and have US forces removed from Cuban territory but respects the terms of the lease and doesn't want to fight a war to force US forces out of this fine harbor in southern Cuba. This unique situation was why the Bush administration sellected GITMO because you can argue that US law doen't apply but Cuban law might. But the Cubans are unable to exercise their laws in this place at this time.

[Lancet71]

It's very tricky.It falls under the STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENT (SOFA) of the UCMJ. If it's a crime that is done to a civilian in that country,the host country can prosecute,they have that choice.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Lindsey_Mcfarren

It is my understanding that if a child is born on an American base, on foreign soil they are considered American citizens. Its American soil just like embassies. This was the reasoning given when it was pointed out that McCain was born in Panama on an American base.

HOWEVER when foreign soldiers are taken into custody and kept on an American base on foreign soil, they don't have the same rights as if they were here in the US.

When foreign soldiers are taken into custody and kept on american bases then the Geneva Convention laws come into play and foreign soldiers are afforded such rights as given under the 4th Geneva Convention.

If your speaking of the 'Gitmo', the Geneva Convention does not apply because they are not "foreign soldiers", they are legally classified as "enemy combatants"..

[Frankie117]

Originally Posted by Lindsey_Mcfarren

It is my understanding that if a child is born on an American base, on foreign soil they are considered American citizens. Its American soil just like embassies. This was the reasoning given when it was pointed out that McCain was born in Panama on an American base.

That is correct, however, in most situations the US does not necessarily own the land the bases are on. Most every country can evict the US from its soil, if it so desires. It is not usually in the best interests of the host country to expel the US military, but it has happened before.

Originally Posted by Lindsey_Mcfarren

HOWEVER when foreign soldiers are taken into custody and kept on an American base on foreign soil, they don't have the same rights as if they were here in the US.

Uniformed military personnel fall under a different set of POW regulations laid out at the Geneva Convention. GITMO has used a loophole in the fact that detainees are largely insurgents, not uniformed military personnel. As such, the argument is that rules laid out by the Geneva Convention do not apply. But normally a POW does not automatically gain the rights that an ordinary American citizen would.