El totalitarismo invertido estadounidense y la doctrina territorial. Inverted totalitarianism and the United States territorial doctrine
| Autor | Charles R. Venator-Santiago |
| Páginas | 295-310 |
C
U
L
T
U
R
A
Y
D
E
R
E
C
H
O
295
Charles R. Venator-Santiago*
El totalitarismo invertido
estadounidense y la doctrina territorial
Inverted totalitarianism and the
United States territorial doctrine
Fecha de recepción: 24 de septiembre de 2010
Fecha de aceptación: 20 de octubre de 2010
RES UM EN
del Presidente Bush selecciono los campos
del alcance de la ley. Este articulo demuestra que
constitucional de los campamentos en la bahía de
Palabras clave
: Guantánamo, territorios
ABS TR A CT
its unincorporated territorial status, a status that
Key words
:
Totalitarianism.
* I am thankful to the staff of the Library of the Department of the Interior and the Law Library of
the U.S. Congress for their generous and rigorous support. A Large Grant from the University
of Connecticut’s Research Foundation provided me with the necessary resources to conduct
C
HA RLE S
R. V
EN A T O R
-S
AN TIA GO
P
EN SAM IE NT O
J
URÍD ICO
,
296
P
E
N
S
A
M
I
E
N
T
O
J
U
R
Í
D
I
C
O
Nº
30
INV E RT ED T OT A LIT ARI A NI S M, C A M P S , A N D THE UN I TE D STAT ES
TE R R IT O RIA L DOC T R IN E
That is the current and constitutional meaning
of the nice formula “colonies are foreign in public law,
but domestic in international law”.
Carl Schmitt, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy1
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the administration of
President George W. Bush sought to create torture and interrogation
camps where suspected terrorists could be held outside of the reach
of the rule of law. By early 2002, the Bush administration had agreed to use
the United States Naval base located in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba as a staging
point for the creation of detention facilities such as th e infamous Camp
X-Ray2. Journalists like Jane Mayer suggested that the “notion” of “secretly
holding terror suspects itself outside of the reach of any law was a new one,
forged in the frantic weeks immediately after September 11”3. Critics like
Giorgio Agamben argued that the Bush Administration had sought to create
camps that could be placed in a “state of exception” located outside of the
reach of the law and ruled by pure violence4. By 2004, the Supreme Court
had begun ruling on various dimensions of the legality of the Guantánamo
Bay camps in cases like Rasul v. Bush (2004)5 and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
this research. I am thankful for the support and encouragement of Peter Fitzpatrick, Farid
Samir-Benavides, Alex Betancourt Mark Boyer, and Guillermo Irizarry. Department of Political
Science. Institute for Puerto Rican & Latino Studies. University of Connecticut. E-mail:charles.
venator@uconn.edu
1 Schmitt, Carl. The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy, Trans. Ellen Kennedy, Cambridge, The
MIT Press, 1988, p. 10.
2 Cole, David. Enemy Aliens, Double Standards and Constitutional Freedoms in the War on
Terrorism, New York, The New Press, 2003; and Margulies, Joseph. Guantánamo and the
Abuse of Presidential Power, New York, Simon and Schuster, 2006.
3 Mayer, Jane. The Dark Side, The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War
on American Ideals, New York, Doubleday, 2008, p. 146.
4 Agamben, Giorgio. State of Exception, Trans. Kevin Attell, Chicago, The University of Chicago
Press, 2005.
5 Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004).
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba