first of all, i'm not a moron, just because i have you working so hard on this. i don't think # 14 applies to unlawful combatants. the supreme court does, but that could change. it's not cut and dry, it doesn't feel like "settled law" ... yet.
if it we're would gitmo be closed and all of it's residents processed?
Unfortunately, you are technically incorrect. It is under US military control, but it is being officially leased to the US.
this may be another technicality/problem
You are no moron. You know more about this than 95% of Americans. I certainly does not feel like a "settled law", but it is the state of things. All I wanted to do is point out that the reason that they can use Guantanamo Bay as a way of detaining "enemy combatants" is through a minor loophole. Therefore, it is constitutional in the strict sense, but in is not in line with the spirit of the constitution. And in that respect, I agree with you.
But the loophole is there. The US does not own the land and is therefore not technically "sovereign". But to anyone who looks at the situation, the US is sovereign in pretty much every way they can be except on paper.
My hope is that Obama will finally close the place, and he has made a massive effort to do so. It will take him longer than he originally promised, but as with all politicians, the reality of situation requires a lot of time and subtlety.