On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:33:15 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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.
I think we're pretty much on the same page here. I agree that the crux of the matter is the definition of 'competent tribunal'; I'm just more skeptical than you are of the view of the lawyers that *binding* international law requires that the tribunal not be a part of the executive. Liberal thinkers in general have a much more expansive view of the binding nature of international law (even when we haven't signed the relevant accord) than I do. Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
