Dave: I don’t read the Hamdan decison quite that way. First impressions (wading through the damned 185 pages) are that the Supremes:
1. specifically do not rule on the issue of Hamdan being a POW with rights under the Geneva Convention;
2. say that the urgency requirement justifying military tribunals in the field aren’t present here, so the president lacks legislative authority to convene these tribunals; and
3. and most bizarrely, they say that the “non-signatory” provisions of the Geneva Conventions apply to al-Qaeda. That they do this, Stevens’s opinion brushing by the point that al-Qaeda fails to comply with the terms of Geneva in any respect, is simply bizarre.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.