It appears the US, under one of our few great presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, leased the base in Cuba. Here's a link - http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/cuba/cuba003.htm

John

>Most US bases are covered by ‘status of forces agreements’ that are negotiated between the US and host government. Those agreements usually exempt US military personnel from tax requirements and from local criminal jurisdiction and Visa requirements. Those agreements also grant US forces limited abilities to act outside the laws of the host country.
>
>I think in this case if an SOFA exists with Cuba, then it should have been reviewed before an opinion was renderred. Time to research how the U.S. manages to maintain Guatanamo and if an SOFA exists and what the agreement (if there is on) covers. If no agreement exists, then it could be argued that the U.S is indeed operating as though it were on U.S. soil, but then that is the case of ALL our foreign bases except in those cases where the SOFA states otherwise.
>
>
>
>>>Interesting that a year later the Supreme Court reversed their 'position' on it entirely. That was their reason for not even hearing it previously:
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6518979.stm
>>>
>>>The court's majority opinion was that "the will of Congress" should prevail and that habeas corpus did not apply to foreign nationals being held at Guantanamo Bay because it is not US soil.
>>>
>>>and now:
>>>
>>>By voting 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled that the Guantanamo Bay foreign prisoners "have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus" to challenge their detention before U.S. federal judges.
>>>
>>> "We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court majority in the 70-page opinion. "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
>>>
>>> The liberal-dominated justices found that the Navy base, in fact, was operating as if it were on U.S. soil, so its detainees deserved the same constitutional rights as all other Americans
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yep, this is another example of bad law being written from the bench. I don't understand the distinction between "operating as if it were" and being US soil. This is how the supremes work though. If they don't like something, they just make up an excuse to change it. As I understand it, we lease these lands and build our own bases. I wonder if the supremes are now going to start imputing ownership rights to renters, who are "operating as if they were the owners" of rental property? God help us all, except Dragan!<g>