Prior to September 11, 2001, as protests mounted against United States military exercises on Vieques, big names in U.S. politics were bringing the Puerto Rican island-municipality to the forefront of national debate. Entering the mainstream consciousness was the health and environmental devastation with which the U.S. Navy has plagued Vieques since 1941. Also, scrutiny of the Navy’s claim that its presence provides jobs and stimulates the island’s economy revealed that Vieques is solely a “stand-alone” bombing range, does not experience the economic benefits of a true military base, and faces economic stagnation.

Relatively unpublicized, however, is the lack of sovereignty that makes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico nothing more than a U.S. Colony. U.S. military domination of Vieques proves this. Puerto Ricans, including Viequenses, are citizens of the United States of America who can neither vote for members of Congress, nor the President, though they directly govern Puerto Rico. U.S. autonomy is not a freedom that Puerto Ricans enjoy. The overwhelming majority of Viequenses have democratically expressed their desire that the Navy leave Vieques immediately, yet the most recent referendum in July 2001 went unrecognized by the Federal government and the U.S. Navy.

The U.S. Navy has gone unpunished for violating civil and human rights of arrested protestors. During the summer of 2001, detainees were abused, strip-searched, humiliated and dehumanized while being kept in detention centers that were, in fact, dog pounds. Additionally, they were required to post bail, denied a trial by jury, not allowed to assert the defense of “necessity,” and given far lengthier prison sentences than had ever been given to individuals arrested for civil disobedience.

On June 15, 2001, Gordon England, the U.S. Secretary of the Navy, publicly announced his decision to end Navy training on Vieques by May 2003. Twelve days later, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz testified before the House Armed Services Committee that both he and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld supported England’s decision. In July 2001, President Bush promised the same. The decisions of these high-ranking administrative officials were disregarded by a bill that the House Armed Services Committee introduced requiring that the Navy stay in Vieques until an equal or better location is found. The bill passed in the House in late September and in the Senate seven days later. It was signed by the President and became law on December 28th, 2001.

The Navy has long argued that Vieques is irreplaceable and critical to U.S. Military preparedness. However, distinguished military experts have debunked this argument. Retired Navy Rear Admiral Eugene J. Carroll, Jr., former Assistant Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Plans, Policy and Operations and former Vice-President of the Center for Defense Information, maintains that the military maneuvers performed on Vieques have been obsolete for decades and have no strategic importance to the United States. Likewise, retired Rear Admiral John J. Shanahan told the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. that Vieques is no longer necessary for training Naval forces. Another retired Navy Captain, John L. Byron, describes the Navy’s presence in Vieques as “a festering sore” and insists that it is the “right thing” for the Navy to leave Vieques.

Some say that September 11th has made Vieques essential in the name of national security, no matter the cost. However, Admiral Kevin Green, commander of U.S. Navy South, acknowledged that military training in Vieques could not have prevented the terrorist attacks only days after September 11th in an interview with El Nuevo Día. No anti-terrorism defense training takes place on Vieques. In addition, storming beaches and shelling targets from 15 miles off shore, tactics last used in WWII, are suicidal in modern-day warfare. Moreover, the U.S. Navy recently invalidated its own claim that Vieques is irreplaceable by choosing to train at bases in North Carolina and Florida instead of Vieques in preparation for combat in Afghanistan.

Back to top