Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:37:26 -0400 (EDT)
> On 23 Mar, Celejar wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:33:15 -0400 (EDT)
> > email@example.com 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' ...