On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:59:35 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 21 Mar, Celejar wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:58:56 -0400 (EDT) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. > >> 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. Incidentally, my 'violently' was a poor choice of words; I meant 'vehemently'. Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
