A shame-faced retraction follows: > Jeroen wrote: > > I must disagree with that. As I said in my original post (that started this > > thread), Guantanamo was apparently chosen because it is not on US soil and > > therefore the prisoners can not appeal against their treatment. > > > > It may be a suitable location to discourage escape attempts, but (seen > > through non-US eyes) it does look like the US is playing a bit dirty here.
I replied: > I'm currently searching for linkable evidence, but just upon a cursory > examination, US Military bases are considered US soil, in a very real and > legal sense. Many childhood friends of my wife were born on US military > bases to noncitizens, and they are US citizens simply by being born on US > soil. > > Therefore, I'm ringing in early to say that you're wrong, wrong, wrong. > Links to follow. Further searches indicated this was not, in fact the case - for purposes of determining US citizenship, military bases are *not* considered US soil. I therefore retract the proof given above and admit error. See what happens when you post in a hurry? I have not, however, discovered anything indicating that it would not be possible for detainees or their legal representatives to protest the specific conditions of their confinement. Additionally, a Pentagon spokeperson stated today that prisoners are being given, each day, 3 "culturally appropriate meals", health care, exercise, and I've also read that each prisoner will be given a copy of the Koran and a prayer mat. While they're certainly not in the lap of luxury, they are also not subject to what I would describe as human rights violations. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft." - Teddy Roosevelt
