On 22 Mar, Celejar wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:59:35 -0400 (EDT)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> > ...
>>
>> I was referring to the interpretation of the this part of the
>> third convention, itself, which is of course binding on the US:
>>
>> "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
>> belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy,"
>> belong to any of the categories for POWs, "such persons shall enjoy
>> the protection of the present Convention until such time as their
>> status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
>
> I understand, but the question is whether the 'international law
> interpretation' of 'competent tribunal' as 'a body of the judicial
> branch' is something to which the US is bound. Incidentally, my
> 'violently' was a poor choice of words; I meant 'vehemently'.
>
> Celejar
>
>
The convention itself merely states "competent tribunal", without
any further expansion. I have heard some lawyers state, in radio
interviews, that there are other instruments of international law
(presumably that the US is a party to) which address this issue and
state that it cannot be a part of the executive branch. I am certainly
not an expert on this issue, but took them at their word.
At any rate, we'll probably see some US court rulings addressing
this in the near future.
-Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Christopher Judd, Ph. D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
