Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Celejar <celejar@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:37:26 -0400 (EDT)
judd@wadsworth.org wrote:

> On 23 Mar, Celejar wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:33:15 -0400 (EDT)
> > judd@wadsworth.org 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' ...

Celejar