This Space for Rent

Now this is an unexpected surprise

Of course Scalia, Thomas, and the newest bagman voted for imperial privilege, but it's still worth something that the Supreme Court decided that

Alternatively, the appeals court agreed with the Government that the Conventions do not apply because Hamdan was captured during the war with al Qaeda, which is not a Convention signatory, and that conflict is distinct from the war with signatory Afghanistan. The Court need not decide the merits of this argument because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not between signatories. Common Article 3, which appears in all four Conventions, provides that, in a "conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [i.e., signatories], each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum," certain provisions protecting "[p]ersons ... placed hors de combat by ... detention," including a prohibition on "the passing of sentences ... without previous judgment ... by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees ... recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." The D. C. Circuit ruled Common Article 3 inapplicable to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda is international in scope and thus not a "conflict not of an international character."

That reasoning is erroneous.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, (#05-184) 4.d.ii (page 6 of the pdf)

So it appears that according to US law (and not just the sort of common decency that has been bred out of the upper echelons of the Evil Party) the B*sh junta has been violating the Geneva Conventions by setting up all-american deathcamps. Does proper protocol involve tarring and feathering Maximum Leader Genius and his slimy co-conspirators before or after they're impeached, convicted, and dragged out of washington in irons?

I wonder which Evil Party minions will be leaping forward to defend the Coward in Chief now that his right to issue lettres de cachet has been denied by the Supreme Court?