Why the Geneva Convention distinction between military tribunal or competent tribunal
At Geneva, in 1949, it was proposed that to help be more precise in language, the term "responsible authority" should be replaced by "military tribunal". This proposed change was based upon the the view that decisions which might have the gravest consequences should not be left to a single person to decide. The matter should be taken to a court.
However this suggestion was not unanimously accepted, as it was felt that to bring a person before a military tribunal might have more serious consequences than a decision to deprive him of the benefits afforded by the Convention. A further amendment was therefore made to the Stockholm text stipulating that a decision regarding persons whose status was in doubt would be taken to a "competent tribunal", and not specifically a military tribunal.
Article 5 reads:
"The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
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 enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
One issue before our country, is whether the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and by their directives to Rumsfeld, President Bush, VP Cheney and Attorney General Roberto Gonzales, have violated the Geneva Convention by their directives, as to how these prisoner's status was determined. A case could be made, and probably will someday, that they have violated the spirit and letter of the law, signed by the United States, as a major party to this treaty in Geneva.
Much has been written on the topic and for those interested in pursuing the topic further go to
this web page.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home