You are simply wrong. I challenge you to find a single quote stating that our military base is not ours. The Administration is not claiming Gitmo is not US soil. They are claiming that illegal combatants are not awarded the protections of a POW - regardless of where they are held.

Way to try to move the goalposts though.

J. Frank, Show us where Bush said U.S. Laws don't apply there.

I know what you're referring to, but you are missing two important facts.  First, the Constitution  - mainly the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments - does not apply to prisoners of war (regardless of where they are located); and secondly the camp at Gitmo is operating under U.S. Law, not in violation of it.

But, of course, as you say: This is what happens when folks just haul off and make it up as they go along...

It is leased by treaty from Cuba. Much different than US soil.

Here’s how I understand the complex subject of sovereignty and legal jurisdiction after the briefings I received as a member of the military who was stationed at bases both overseas and here in the U.S.:

Criminal (legal) jurisdiction of any federal military base is relegated to the Judge Advocate General and all personnel within the base, both military and civilian, are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

In the case of a federal military base in a foreign country or territory, jurisdiction may be shared with the host country if such an agreement is stated within the treaty that established the base. In other words, UCMJ law is the supreme law at a federal military base no matter where that base is located. The Judge Advocate General may, at his or her discretion, turn over jurisdiction of anyone within the base to the legal system of the host country, but only if there is a prior agreement to share such jurisdiction.

In regards to federal military bases within the sovereign territories of the U.S., UCMJ is still the supreme law. As with the case of overseas bases with shared jurisdiction, the Judge Advocate General may, at his or her discretion, turn over jurisdiction to the applicable state or federal authorities. This does not mean that the state has absolute jurisdiction as you may still face trial by military tribunal. For example, if you commit a murder at a federal military base in Minnesota you can be tried by a military tribunal and, if found guilty, be subject to the death penalty even though the Minnesota State Constitution bans the death penalty as a means of criminal punishment.

In the case of Gitmo, only the Judge Advocate General has criminal jurisdiction as that is what stated in the treaty that established the base. This means that federal laws not covered by the UCMJ do not apply. Nor do the laws of Cuba.

In regards to federal military bases and sovereignty, that is also dependent upon the treaty that established the base. If such sovereignty is stated with a treaty, then the base in question is considered by law as the sovereign territory of the United States.

It should be noted that the Uniform Code of Military Justice is U.S. Law but it is normally separate from, and not subject to, other existing federal statutes and codes.

I hope that answers your questions.

So illegal combatants from Iraq or Iran or Syrai or Saudi Arabia should be afforded US Constitutional protections and should have the potential to escape into the general population of the United States?

They are not POW's.  These persons do not meet the tests of Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions to attain that status.  Nor do they meet the tests of Article 3 to be considered non-combatants. 

These are unlawful combatants.  They are lumped together with spies, saboteurs, fifth columnists, traitors, etc.  In general, such persons my be tried and executed by Military Tribunal at the discretion of their captors.

If they had not wanted to get thenmselves into such a predicament, then perhaps they should not have taken up arms.

"Then why are the prisoners being held at Gitmo instead of a military base within the continental US?"

It doesn't matter where the prisoners are held, their legal status and the conditions in which they're detained would remain the same. Even if they were being held in a federal military base within the continental US, they would still be subject to military rule, not civilian, as all federal military bases are subject to, and governed by, military authority as per the laws of the United States.

The judicial system relies heavily on witnesses. As the war is abroad, shall we scoop up all of the villagers and bring them here?

Traditionally, the military handles these issues. We do not bring matters of war into the court system. In fact, there is a strong case to be made for summarily executing those fighting without uniforms.

However, I would propose a compromise:

Knowing the consequences of touching or being touched by pork, Muslims would likely lose the taste for battle if we make it known that all ammo will be coated in lard. I say that we start offering jury trails to appease our leftist element, but we get to start coating the ammo with pig fat.