"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
news

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dave Holford" wrote:


All US military bases are US soil, just as are all US embassies. As
such,
the US Supreme Court and lower Federal courts have jurisdiction over
anyone being detained on any US military base.

There is no presiding US court judge at any US military base in a
foreign
country, but all JAG court decisions are appealable and addressable to
US
Federal courts, including the Supreme Court.


I always wondered why the US airbases in the UK were called RAF
Stations,
not USAF Bases - now I know why.

Thanks for the info.

That's right. Foreign US military bases are not US soil. Usually they
are some kind of lease agreement where they US has use of the land for
some period of time but the country they are in is not giving up all
rights to the land during the lease. US law does not recognize these
agreements as "US soil" to my knowledge.


SOFA agreements (like the one Bush is trying to force on the Iraqi
government ATM), cover this. Anyone that the US holds, the US has
jurisdiction over. If, on the other hand, someone under the SOFA is busted
doing something outside the base (which IS sovereign US territory, just as
an embassy is, regardless of any contractural agreement that cedes the
land to the US during whatever period is negotiated), then they may or may
not be under jurisdiction of the host country.


Not that I want to prolong this discussion, which has nothing whatsoever to
do with shortwave radio and obviously belongs elsewhere; but the only
jurisdictional statements relating to individuals I can find in SOFA
agreements is that the US has jurisdiction over offences by Americans
against Americans, and offences by Americans in the performance of official
duties. All other situations are subject to the jurisdiction of the host
state. It appears to be the activity, not the location which determines who
has jurisdiction. - bearing in mind that these are generalities since all
SOFAs are unique.

On Jun 17, 5:22*am, "Dave Holford" wrote:
"Brenda Ann" wrote in message

news




"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dave Holford" wrote:

All US military bases are US soil, just as are all US embassies. As
such,
the US Supreme Court and lower Federal courts have jurisdiction over
anyone being detained on any US military base.

There is no presiding US court judge at any US military base in a
foreign
country, but all JAG court decisions are appealable and addressable to
US
Federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

I always wondered why the US airbases in the UK were called RAF
Stations,
not USAF Bases - now I know why.

Thanks for the info.

That's right. Foreign US military bases are not US soil. Usually they
are some kind of lease agreement where they US has use of the land for
some period of time but the country they are in is not giving up all
rights to the land during the lease. US law does not recognize these
agreements as "US soil" to my knowledge.

SOFA agreements (like the one Bush is trying to force on the Iraqi
government ATM), cover this. *Anyone that the US holds, the US has
jurisdiction over. If, on the other hand, someone under the SOFA is busted
doing something outside the base (which IS sovereign US territory, just as
an embassy is, regardless of any contractural agreement that cedes the
land to the US during whatever period is negotiated), then they may or may
not be under jurisdiction of the host country.

Not that I want to prolong this discussion, which has nothing whatsoever to
do with shortwave radio and obviously belongs elsewhere; but the only
jurisdictional statements relating to individuals I can find in SOFA
agreements is that the US has jurisdiction over offences by Americans
against Americans, and offences by Americans in the performance of official
duties. All other situations are subject to the jurisdiction of the host
state. It appears to be the activity, not the location which determines who
has jurisdiction. - bearing in mind that these are generalities since all
SOFAs are unique.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ergo Third Party Nationals are in Limbo - Oops Gitmo.

In article ,
"Dave Holford" wrote:

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
news

"Telamon" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"Dave Holford" wrote:


All US military bases are US soil, just as are all US
embassies. As such, the US Supreme Court and lower Federal
courts have jurisdiction over anyone being detained on any US
military base.

There is no presiding US court judge at any US military base in
a foreign country, but all JAG court decisions are appealable
and addressable to US Federal courts, including the Supreme
Court.


I always wondered why the US airbases in the UK were called RAF
Stations, not USAF Bases - now I know why.

Thanks for the info.

That's right. Foreign US military bases are not US soil. Usually they
are some kind of lease agreement where they US has use of the land for
some period of time but the country they are in is not giving up all
rights to the land during the lease. US law does not recognize these
agreements as "US soil" to my knowledge.


SOFA agreements (like the one Bush is trying to force on the Iraqi
government ATM), cover this. Anyone that the US holds, the US has
jurisdiction over. If, on the other hand, someone under the SOFA is busted
doing something outside the base (which IS sovereign US territory, just as
an embassy is, regardless of any contractural agreement that cedes the
land to the US during whatever period is negotiated), then they may or may
not be under jurisdiction of the host country.


Not that I want to prolong this discussion, which has nothing whatsoever to
do with shortwave radio and obviously belongs elsewhere; but the only
jurisdictional statements relating to individuals I can find in SOFA
agreements is that the US has jurisdiction over offences by Americans
against Americans, and offences by Americans in the performance of official
duties. All other situations are subject to the jurisdiction of the host
state. It appears to be the activity, not the location which determines who
has jurisdiction. - bearing in mind that these are generalities since all
SOFAs are unique.

That sounds reasonable and yes the agreements between the USA and other
countries are negotiated instruments.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California