On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:40:59 -0400, Celejar wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > 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.
..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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
