Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kmar40
That's a D- or F answer even for an undergrad conlaw course. Again, cite a case or at least an accepted constitutional theory.
|
The US did ratify all the Conventions, with the exception of the protocols of 1977, and they are binding on US conduct on foreign battlefields.
As to my point about the supremacy clause giving treaties equal standing with the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, I stand by what I wrote, and I'm in fairly good company: Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., for one, took the same position (cf. his opinion in Missouri v. Holland, 1920), and I think he probably did OK in "con law."
So, yes, I'd say that the provisions of the Geneva Convention have the same status ("supreme law of the land") as those of the Constitution. I'm perfectly aware that the supremacy clause is anathema to "black-helicopter" xenophobes, but they need to get over it: Article 6 is what it is.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hkmp5sd
The US has ratified several of the Geneva conventions, but has not ratified the two protocols added in 1977 because the US did not agree with them.
Care to guess who and/or what the un-ratified 1977 protocols cover?
Something defined as "unlawful combatants" and "terrorists".
|
Mmm. Defined, just lately, by Mr. Bush and his cohorts.
You're correct, of course, that the US signed but did not ratify the 1977 protocols. The other countries to have failed to ratify them are Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Turkey (which I think ratified 2 but not 1), so the US is in some
really good company on this one...
