unlawful combatants

Justin Schwartz jkschw at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 30 10:24:53 PST 2002



>On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
> > There was a question posted about where the term `unlawful combatants'
> > came from. I certainly wondered, and decided it was bullshit. Well,
> > that was wrong. It is cited in [several cites given]:
>
>But Chuck, isn't this all domestic US law? The contention is that the
>term isn't in the Geneva convention nor in any other international treaty.
>And so that to use it, instead of POW, is to openly defy the Geneva
>convention. Surely if China said their domestic law took precedent over
>the Geneva convention and human rights conventions -- especially in the
>matter of treatment of prisoners and standards of a fair trial -- we'd say
>that was an illegitimate legal position, no?
>
>
No. International treaties do not trump federal caselaw or statute. They are not aupremw, unlike constitutional. They are just laws. US courts may and do interpret such teeaties, and must reconcile conflicts between them. Whether this reconciliationj works, I wouldn't venture to say.

jks, esq.

_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list