Below is a fundamental opinion of the Supreme Court that is resounding, in its implication. The quote comes from the concurring majority opinion delivered in the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center Case heard by the Supreme Court during their Spring ‘08 session.

The necessary implication of the
argument is that by surrendering formal sovereignty over
any unincorporated territory to a third party, while at the
same time entering into a lease that grants total control
over the territory back to the United States, it would be
possible for the political branches to govern without legal
constraint.

Our basic charter cannot be contracted away like this.
The Constitution grants Congress and the President the
power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the
power to decide when and where its terms apply. Even
when the United States acts outside its borders, its powers
are not “absolute and unlimited” but are subject “to such
restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution.”

The opinion of this editor is that several “agreements” we have with other nations would violate this declaration of the Sp. Ct. For example extra-ordinary rendition would violate this, as the techniques used in areas where the United States “acts” are most assuredly violating the “restrictions as expressed in the Constitution.” Agents acting in the name of the Country (and Constitution) are violating the basic natural rights granted to all human beings but on a legal precedence they are violating the 8th Amendment (of course if they disavowed their loyalty to the homeland and repeated the acts they could be prosecuted within the homeland but no restrictions could be placed upon them without a warrant).

Interesting indeed, it would be, to see what cases might arise in the future that would use this prcedence in their favor.