Actually, this raises another question

Post #310,941 by jake123 7/14/09 11:30:23 AM Reply	Actually, this raises another question If being born on a US base in another country makes McCain eligible for president, why is it that the US seems to think that people held on a US base in another country aren't entitled to constitutional protections?
Post #310,943 by drook 7/14/09 11:40:40 AM Reply	Ooh, I hadn't heard that before. Is that a new idea? -- Drew
Post #310,944 by jake123 7/14/09 12:05:51 PM Reply	I actually brought that up here during the election last year, but nobody bit. I didn't read it somewhere, just occurred to me that if McCain was eligible despite being born out of the US due to his being born on a military base, why was it that the same didn't hold for people in Guantanamo Bay?
Post #310,948 by beepster 7/14/09 12:47:11 PM Reply	none of them were running for President. hth;-) I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #310,945 by boxley 7/14/09 12:14:33 PM Reply	I answered that for you I think A US Base anywhere in the world is US Soil but is under the jurisdiction of the Military Code of Justice not the full constitution. Reference the wilderness forts in territories claimed by the US in the 1800's but not governed by a civilian appointment. thanx, bill
Post #310,967 by jake123 7/14/09 4:07:17 PM Reply	Is there not anything in the Military Code of Justice about indefinite detention without charge?
Post #310,969 by boxley 7/14/09 4:18:19 PM Reply	read it http://www.au.af.mil.../awcgate/ucmj.htm vague enough to fit

Welcome to IWETHEY!