Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:28:39.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Guantánamo as Subordination: Detainees as Resisting Empire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Ernesto Hernández-López
Ernesto Hernández-López*
Affiliation:
Chapman University School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Bottom-Up Strategies for Survival and Resistance: Examples from Latin America and Elsewhere
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 104 , 2010 , pp. 472 - 476
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Steyn, Johan, Guantánamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole (Nov. 25, 2003)Google Scholar, available at http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/nov/guantanamo.pdf; see also Smith, Clive Stafford, America’s Legal Black Hole, L.A. Times, Oct. 5, 2007 Google Scholar. I refer to the U.S. Naval Station at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as “Guantánamo.”

2 The U.S. avoidance of de jure sovereignty and the denial of Cuban sovereignty derive from Article III of the Agreement Between the United States and Cuba for the Lease of Lands for Coaling for Naval Stations, U.S.-Cuba, Feb. 16-23, 1903, T.S. No. 418, [hereinafter U.S.-Cuba Feb. 1903 Lease]. For sophisticated analysis of the base as an “anomalous legal zone,” see Neuman, Gerald, Anomalous Zones, 48 STAN. L. Rev. 1197, 1201 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (describing anomalous legal zones as ones with “legal rules” fundamental to larger policies “locally suspended” in a geographic area); Neuman, Gerald, Closing the Guantánamo Loophole, 50 Loyola L. Rev. 1, 3-5, 42-44 (2004)Google Scholar.

3 The Washington Post reports that 778 persons have been detained since 2002. Names of the Detained: Results (database), Wash. Post, at http://projects.washingtonpost.com/guantanamo/search/. The New York Times reports that 183 detainees remain. The Guantánamo Docket: Detainees Held, N.Y. Times, at http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/held (last checked Apr. 12, 2010).

4 See generally Hernández-López, Ernesto, Boumediene v. Bush and Guantánamo, Cuba: Does the Empire Strike Back?, 61 Smu L. Rev. 117, 153-67 (2009)Google Scholar (describing the base’s history in U.S.-Latin America relations and its influence in War on Terror jurisprudence).

5 See Hernández-López, Ernesto, Guantánamo as a “Legal Black Hole”: A Base for Expanding Space, Markets, and Culture, 45 USF L. Rev. 141 (2010)Google Scholar; Hernández-López, Ernesto, Guantánamo as Outside and Inside the U.S.: Why it a Base a Legal Anomaly?, 18 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Poly & L. 471 (2010)Google Scholar.

6 See, e.g., Boumediene v. Bush, 476 F.3d, 981, 990-93 (D.C. Cir. 2007); Memorandum from Patrick F. Philbin & John С Yoo, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to William J. Haynes II, U.S. Dep’t of Defense, in the Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib 29-37 (Karen J. Greenberg & Joshua L. Dratel eds., 2005); John Yoo, War by Other Means: an Insider’s Account of the War on Terror 142-43 (2006) (explaining how asylum jurisprudence suggested habeas jurisdiction would not extend to Guantánamo).

7 Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229, 2293, 2279 (2008) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting).

8 Colas, Alejandro, Empire: Key Concepts 5 (2007)Google Scholar.

9 Id.

10 See U.S.-Cuba Feb. 1903 Lease, supra note 2; see also Agreement Between the United States of America and Cuba for the Lease of Coaling or Naval Stations, U.S.-Cuba, July 2, 1903, available at avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/dip_cuba003.asp. Cuba does contest the legality of these agreements. See Rhem, Kathleen T., Guantá namo Bay Base Has Storied Past, Armed Forces Press Services, Aug. 24, 2004 Google Scholar, available at www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=25469.

11 See U.S.-Cuba Feb. 1903 Lease, supra note 2, at Art. Ш; see also Treaty Between the United States of America and Cuba Defining Their Relations, U.S.-Cuba, May 29, 1934, 48 Stat. 1682 (confirming base occupation until the United States unilaterally leaves, or Cuba and the United States both agree to end occupation); Woolsey, Lester H., The New Cuban Treaty, 28 AJTL 531 (1934)Google Scholar.

12 An Act Making Appropriations for the Support of the Army for the Fiscal Year Ending June 13, 1902, ch. 803, para. VII, 31 Stat. 895, 898 (1902) [hereinafter Platt Amendment].

13 See generally Colas, supra note 8, at 31.

14 Steyn, supra note 1; Smith, supra note 1.

15 Neuman, supra note 2, at 1201.

16 Boumediene, 128 S. Ct. at 2257-59.

17 Id at. 2229, 2255-56 (2008) (citing Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 74-75 (Harlan, J., concurring in the result), and United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 277-78 (1990) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

18 Gerald Neuman presents the Boumediene holding as rejecting “formalistic reliance” on factors such as nationality or location and presenting functionalism as the “standard methodology.” See Neuman, Gerald L., The Extraterritorial Constitution After Boumediene v. Bush, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 259, 271 (2009)Google Scholar.

19 Boumediene, 128 S. Ct. at 2262 (citing U.S. Const, art. I, §9. cl. 2)

20 See id. at 2277 (stating it “does not address the content of law that governs” detention).

21 See generally Neuman, supra note 18; Christina Burnett, Duffy, A Convenient Constitution? Extraterritoriality After Boumediene, 109 Colum. L. Rev. 973 (2009)Google Scholar.

22 See Kiyemba v. Obama, No. 08-1234, (U.S., Mar. 1, 2010), vacating judgment and remanding, available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1234.pdf (remanding to the Court of Appeals for determination if proceedings are needed for five Uighur detainees who have not accepted resettlement offers); Kiyemba v. Obama, 555 F.3d 1022 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (reversing an order to release detainees in the United States because courts have no immigration authority for this order); Kiyemba v. Obama, 561 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (overturning an order requiring the government provide notice before detainees are transferred.); In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litig., 581 F.Supp.2d 33, 37 (D.D.C. 2008) (ordering Uighur detainees released into the United States); Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834, 837 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (finding Uighur detainees are not enemy combatants). See also Roberts, Caprice L., Rights, Remedies, & Habeas Corpus—The Uighurs, Legally Free While Actually Imprisoned, Geo. Immior. L.J. Google Scholar (forthcoming), at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1457364; Barnes, Robert, Supreme Court Dismisses Case Involving Resettlement of Guantanamo Detainees, Wash. Post., Mar. 2, 2010, at A5Google Scholar; Denniston, Lyle, Kiyemba, Back to Lower Court: Circuit Court Opinion Vacated, Scotusblog (Mar. 1, 2010)Google Scholar, http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/03/kiyemba-back-to-lower-court/ (predicting potential procedural paths).

23 See generally Wittes, Benjamin, Chesney, Robert & Benhalim, Rabea, The Emerging Law of Detention: the Guantánamo Habeas Cases as Lawmaking (Jan. 22, 2010)Google Scholar, available at http://www.brookings.edu/--/media/Files/rc/papers/2010/0122_guantanamo_wittes_chesney/0122_guantanamo_wittes_chesney.pdf (examining legal is sues developing in detainee habeas proceedings since Boumediene).

24 See Maqaleh v. Gates, 604 F.Supp.2d 205 (D.D.C. 2009); see also Raustiala, Kal, Is Bagram the New Guantanamo? Habeas Corpus and Maqaleh v. Gates, 13 ASIL Insight, June 17, 2009 Google Scholar; Wilber, Del Quentin, U.S. Appeals Court Wary of Habeas Corpus Challenge by Detainees in Afghanistan, Wash. Post, Jan. 8, 2010 Google Scholar, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/07/AR2010010703205.html.

25 See Sparrow, Bartholomew H., The Insular Cases and the Emergence of American Empire 68 (2006)Google Scholar.

26 See Billion, Phfflippe Le & Khatib, Fouad El, From Free Oil to ‘Freedom Oil’: Terrorism, War, and Us Geopolitics in the Persian Gulf, 9 GEOPOL. 110, 127 (2004)Google Scholar; Klare, Michael T., The Deadly Nexus: Oil, Terrorism, and America’s National Security, Current Hist. 416 (Dec. 2006)Google Scholar. I use geographic indicators to describe where the War on Terror is being fought, its regional influence, and where terrorists attack civilians, threaten energy security, or maintain operations. “Persian Gulf’ refers to the region comprised of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Iran, Oman, Yemen, Qatar, and Kuwait, which all influence regional relations and thus access to energy resources. “Central Asia” refers mostly to Afghanistan and Pakistan, but includes states surrounding the Caspian Sea such as Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan and proximate states Georgia, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. “Persian Gulf’ and “Central Asia” are used for the sake of brevity and consistency.

27 See Executive Order 13491, Fed. Reg. 4893 (Jan. 27, 2009), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/; Rhem, Kathleen T., Guantanamo Detainees Still Yielding Valuable Intelligence, Mar. 4, 2005 Google Scholar, available at http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=31279; U.S. Dept. of Defense, News Release No. 592-05, Guantanamo Provides Valuable Intelligence Information (June 12, 2005), at www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx7releaseids8583; Lewis, Neil A., U.S. Military Describes Findings at Guantanamo, N.Y. Times, Mar. 21, 2004 Google Scholar, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/world/us-military-describes-findings-at-guantanamo.html?pagewanted=1.

28 See generally Panitch, Leo & Gindin, Sam, The Unique American Empire, in The War on Terror and American “Empire” After the Cold War 25 (Colas, Alejandro & Saull, Richard eds., 2005)Google Scholar.

29 See U.S.-Cuba Feb. 1903 Lease, supra note 2; Platt Amendment, supra note 12, Arts. I, II, III, IV, and VII (checking Cuba’s foreign relations and economic powers and requiring that Cuba provide base lands within its territory). These are sovereign powers. See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States §201 (1987); see also Hernández-López, supra note 4, at 153-67 (describing how the Platt Amendment began as a letter from Secretary of War Elihu Root, was included in congressional appropriations, an international treaty, and Cuban law, and checked Cuban sovereignty as a U.S. protectorate).

30 See generally Antony Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (2005).

31 See Hernández-López, supra note 4.

32 See id.

33 See, e.g., supra note 6.

34 See Benjamin Wittes & Zaahira Wyne, the Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: an Empirical Study 6-7 (Dec. 16, 2008), available at http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1216_detainees_wittes.aspx?rssid=wittesb.

35 Id.

36 Id. at 6-7.

37 See id. at 7.