3 ms·
No it doesn't. It has jurisdiction over the rights of American civilians on American soil. Anything else is significantly more murky (e.g. Guantanamo Bay which
by richardwhiuk 12y ago
No it doesn't. It has jurisdiction over the rights of American civilians on American soil. Anything else is significantly more murky (e.g. Guantanamo Bay which is American soil but not under US civil jurisdiction).
- rayiner 12y agoNo, it is well-established that U.S. courts have jurisdiction over the rights of everyone on American soil. Guantanamo was contested because it's not clearly American soil (an American military base leased from Cuba).
- mikeash 12y agoIf I understand the Wikipedia article correctly (and of course, if the article itself is correct) then the situation is actually the opposite: it's Cuban soil but under American jurisdiction. As far as I can tell (and the whole situation is bizarre and confusing, so it's hard to be sure of anything), the prisoners there are under US civil jurisdiction, and the ongoing troubles they have with basic rights are due to the fact that they're "enemy combatants" than the fact that they're in Cuba. Being in another country seems to be more about making it in practice harder for US civil courts to exercise their jurisdiction, but not shut them out altogether. There have been quite a few relevant rulings by civil courts.