It strikes me as odd that McCain has so much faith in the Geneva Conventions after the way he was treated in Hanoi. Nations who we go to war with aren’t likely to care what the rest of the world thinks of them or us.

Colin Powell’s statement about “the moral basis of our war on terrorism,” makes me wonder whether he has any moral foundation other than testing the international waters. I’m sure Justice Kennedy would approve of taking instruction from world opinion, but I don’t. I don’t want to be part of any organization where France, Russia or China can veto its actions.

War with terrorists cannot be compared to other circumstances we’ve face in war. The only reason for detaining these people is to obtain intelligence through interrogation. If we’re not allowed to collect information from them, we should have shot them in the field. This idea that a spying agency should be liable before civil courts for its acts during time of war is ludicrous.

If this is how we’re going to have to fight wars in the future, I think we should just disband the military and put the money into Social Security.

I suggest you check into the first part of that claim. I spoke with a US Army Colonel recently and he confirmed my assessment that our captured military have not been treated in line with the Geneva Conventions since World War II — in fact, not since the Geneva Conventions of 1949 were signed.

I see the statement as Pollyanna thinking.

I doubt it. Ratifying a treaty is a power of the Senate, not the Presidency. I don’t think the Presidency has the authority to nullify an act of the Senate just on his say-so.

Or, the President could merely decline to try any of the detainees and just hold them for the duration of the war on terror. They could then be tried when SCOTUS is more amenable, no?

Or just released when Mullah Omar and Bin Laden surrender and order their followers to lay down their arms.

IMO, it’s more likely that the prisoners will die of old age, but that’s what has been done with POWs in the past.

As a practical matter, I was under the impression that the GCs only applied when the various belligerents were party to the treaty. Al Qaeda isn’t party to the GCs, and the nations the guys at guantanamo are citizens of aren’t at war with the US, so they’re still in a kind of fuzzy area WRT the GCs.

Just because right wingers are characterizing the recognition of Geneva convention rights as a “one-sided treaty with Al Qaeda” doesn’t mean that’s what happened. The Geneva accords are a multilateral treaty with most of the rest of the world. The US made promises to the rest of the world as to how it would treat captives; whether Al Qaeda itself is a party is only relevent to portions of the Convention that apply only to parties. (And even there, members of Al Qaeda might still retain rights based on whether the state of their citizenship being a party to the treaty.)

As for the remainder of your scenarios, first, let’s see what the President wants to do. They’ve been sending some signals that they are sick of the whole GITMO situation themselves. Maybe they will use this decision as an excuse to chage their policies.

Assuming the President asks Congress for legislation, there is no chance that Congress will pull out of the Geneva Conventions. The international cost of that would be too great. Yes, I suppose the President could attempt to abrogate the Geneva Conventions, but he would risk open warfare with our own military if he did it– FYI, the military, whatever they may think of this decision, thinks the Geneva accords are REALLY important because they set a standard that can be asserted when American forces are captured.

No, the President isn’t shipping the prisoners to Israel. Not only DOES Israel care about international opinion, but they also have a Supreme Court that is even more attuned to international law than ours is. And there’s also strong “hearts and minds” issus that militate against this.

What IS possible is another jurisdiction-stripping law. But stripping of jurisdiction, even if upheld by the courts, will not make commission procedures legal, only unreviewable.

It goes on to say that Hamben can’t be charged with conspiracy, because that is not a recognized international crime. However, the government can hold him for the duration of hostilities as a combatent. Based on the current pace of this war, he might end up with more time behind bars for that than he ever would have for a conspiracy conviction.

Undoubtedly Congress could pass a statute overriding the Geneva Conventions as applied to terrorists. Does anyone really doubt Congress would be willing to do this? I can’t imagine more than a handful of legislators voting for a one-sided tretay with Al-Qaeda in an election year. Or couldn’t Congress make a more explicit jurisdiction-stripping provision?

Or couldn’t the President unilaterally pull out of the Geneva Convention, re-enter into it it reservation stating it doesn’t apply to Al-Qaeda and submit it to the Senate for ratification?

Or, the President could merely decline to try any of the detainees and just hold them for the duration of the war on terror. They could then be tried when SCOTUS is more amenable, no?

What if the President decided to shut down Gitmo and transfer all the detainees to Israel’s costody, a country not hesitant to deal harshly with Islamic terrorists and which cares not a bit about international opinion. Would SCOTUS have any jurisdiction at all if that would occur?

I don’t think Hamdan will have much effect in the long run on how the detainees are dealt with. The President and Congress will not let this be the last word.