Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:40:59 -0400, Celejar wrote in
[🔎] 20070322154059.6c683995.celejar@gmail.com:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:59:35 -0400 (EDT) judd@wadsworth.org wrote:
>
>> 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".
>
> Interesting. I'm not sufficiently well versed in the matter to comment
> further.
..if you risk getting your own butt into this shit war, read up on the
Conventions to do things right to at least cover your own butt.
>> >> 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."
>
> 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.
..it _became_ so on W invoking Article 5 in the NATO treaty on 9/11, due
to the language in Article 2 and 3 in all 4 Conventions, and fully so to
the full 4 Geneva Conventions and their 2 (now 3) Protocols Additional.
> Incidentally, my 'violently' was a poor choice of words; I meant
> 'vehemently'.
..so noted. ;o)
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Reply to: