[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

On 21 Mar, Celejar wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:58:56 -0400 (EDT)
> judd@wadsworth.org wrote:
>> ...

>>      Acutually, it is the 3rd Geneva convention that only applies to
>> lawful combatants.  The 4th convention, which the US is also a
>> signatory of, applies to unlawful combatants, and non-combatants. 
>> And it provides
> It is not at all obvious that the fourth convention applies to
> 'unlawful combatants'. The (current US) administration has claimed
> that it does not. Can you prove that it does [0]?

     The current US administration is about the only organization 
making this claim.  For example, the ICRC makes a strong argument that
it does, http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5LPHBV, as did
the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.  I'll concede that
it has not yet been tested in a US court.  The Supreme court has held,
however, that Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions, which gives
some of the same protections, does apply to "unlawful combatants".

>> protections against, among other things, being tortured and being
>> held indefinitely without trial.
>>     And 3rd convention protections are to be given to all captives
>> until their combatant status is determined by a "competent tribunal",
>> which, IIRC, is interpreted in international law to be a body of the
>> judicial branch, not the executive.
> International law to which the US is a signatory? I violently reject
> the notion that we're bound by international law to which we aren't.
> ...

     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."


|   Christopher Judd, Ph. D.                      judd@wadsworth.org   |

Reply to: