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

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

On 22 Mar, Celejar wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:59:35 -0400 (EDT)
> judd@wadsworth.org 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.


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

Reply to: