Talk:Competent tribunal

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gulf War competent Tribunals and Hamdi

I brought up Hamdi when I started this subsection merely because I found the information about the 1300+ competent tribunals convened during the Gulf War in a brief filed on Hamdi's behalf.

I don't understand what the following passage about the SCOTUS's 2004 ruling, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, has to do with competent tribunals convened in 1991.

The Geneva Conventions were not relevant to this matter of the Hamdi decision, as the Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants. It ruled, however, that detainees who are U.S. citizens such as Hamdi must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.

Does the point the passage is trying to make belong in this article, or a different article? I dunno. But I don't think it belongs in this subsection of this article. Geo Swan 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a bit confusing as stated, but was trying to prevent any confusion that the Hamdi case might itself have been from 1991. It would be better to take out all mention of Hamdi from the section on 1991, but include where it came from in the reference section.

-- Randy2063 22:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the AR-190-8 Tribunals specifically designed to fulfill the USA's obligations under the Geneva Conventions?

I have wondered whether some of the wikipedia's articles go too far when relating the AR-190-8 Tribunals with the competent tribunals of the Geneva Conventions. But, I am not worried about that any more. See wikisource:Combatant Status Review Tribunal (fact sheet of October 17, 2006)#Procedural Protections of CSRTs, which states:

CSRTs offer many of the procedures contained in U.S. Army Regulation 190-8, which the Supreme Court specifically cited as sufficient for U.S. citizen detainees entitled to due process under the U.S. Constitution. (Army Regulation 190-8 is used by the DoD when an individual’s status is in doubt, and therefore an Article 5 tribunal is required.)

Mind you, the conclusions drawn in this (cough) fact sheet are highly circular, but it does state, sufficiently clearly to set my mind at ease, that AR 190-8 was drafted specifically to set out specific rules for an administrative procedure that fully complied with the USA's obligations, under the Geneva Conventions, to conduct "competent tribunals".

Cheers! Geo Swan 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen that. Some of the wording I used actually comes from the Hamdi decision's description of competent tribunals[1] that gives the name of the source document I listed in the article.

Circular reasoning or not, there's a big problem with the section on CSRTs. There are only a few differences from competent tribunals. The Denbeauxs were critical of CSRTs in comparison to civilian trials. I don't think they mention competent tribunals at all.

-- Randy2063 22:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Competent tribunal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502031202/http://www.ndu.edu/library/epubs/cpgw.pdf to http://www.ndu.edu/library/epubs/cpgw.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]