On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:37:26 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 23 Mar, Celejar wrote: > > > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:33:15 -0400 (EDT) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > ... > > >> 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 > > > > > > I agree with you that we are only bound under Article 6 of the > constitution to agreements that we are a signatory to. Congress can > also enact laws to bring US law into accord with other treaties. For > example the US War Crimes act refers to violations of the Geneva > conventions and other agreements. I'm not sure if this is the case with > respect to the tribunal issue, but as I said, we'll probably see it > tested soon.
So we'll mark this 'To be continued' ... Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
