Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mvpel
Unless the drafters of the Convention defined what they meant by "international", trying to decipher their intent without evidence is not the proper way to interpret a legal document.
Both definitions can be read in pari materia as there is no conflict between the two. International meaning "transcending national boundaries" is a common legal definition of the word and is in international common usage.
14 posted on 07/10/2006 1:06:59 PM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: Prokopton

It seems to me, based on the history of what was taking placein 1949 and the post WW2 world, Art 3 clearly refers to civil wars and national liberation movements, like say what was happening in Greece, Italy, Yugoslavia etc...

Our current conflict is clearly of an international character. Further, the standard rule of construction is taht the President is entitled to complete deference in his interpretation of the treaty and the SC can't really question that.

Also, it's not entirely clear that the conflict even took place in the territory of one of the parties. Yes, Hamdan was in Afghanistan, but that territory belonged to the Taliban at the time, who weren't a high contracting party. The Taliban were not recognized as the legal govt of Afghanistan by the US so that is a point as well.


17 posted on 07/10/2006 5:16:55 PM PDT by jeltz25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson