I am surprised nobody else has brought this up in the last few days.

To be honest, this did not really surprise me.  However, it is likely to have some rather interesting results.

I would not be surprised if the Government goes ahead and holds military tribunals anyways.  And there is a very good justification for this.

According to the Geneva Convention, none of the enemy combatants captured since the middle of 2003 are covered.  You see, the Geneva Convention only covers soldiers of a regulated government military.  Insurgents, partaisans, and terrorists call under the classification of "spies".  And as such, they are not given any protections under the treaty.

And for people that fall under this classification, it is actually legal to do a summary execution.  And to take it a step further, if anybody captured themselves violated the Geneva Convention (targeting civilians, fighting from religious buildings, fighting in civilian attire), they forfit any of it's protections.

And if the country that captures them decides not to execute them on the spot, the Geneva Convention itself states clearly that they can be tried by a mliitary tribunal.  It is all right there in the treaty, and the US is a signatory to it.

Of course, the US can simply make the decision to either return them to the nation where they were captured, or to return them to their home country.  COnsidering that most of the people captured are already under a death sentence in their home countries, that simply means that most would be killed as soon as they are returned without a trial at all.

If you ask me, their best chance is to face a military tribunal.  The US Military has been extremely hesitant to either sentence people to death, or to have an execution.  At the present time, there are only 9 people on death row after being convicted under a military court martial.  And the last time an execution was actually carried out was in 1961.  John Bennett was convicted of the rape and murder of an 11 year old girl in Austria.  President Kennedy approved of the sentence.  In fact, there have only been 11 military executions since 1951.

Compared to what most would face in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, or Afganistan a military court martial would be their best chance to continue living.

So you're arguing the U.S. President ignore the rulings of the Supreme Court? ???

[quote author=

A 50% chance of living is much better odds then most would face in their home countries.


Look, the President is doin' his best to improve on that y'hear? If it hadn't been for Roberts recusing himself, or if someobody had taken Ann Coulter's suggestion and poisoned Justice Stevens, the military tribunals would be a shoo-in!

There's an old saying, "it's a lot easier to get forgiveness than to get permission."
If you can't do "military tribunals," just do "para-military tribunals." That's what Ronnie Reagan would do. Line up ragheads, it's bang-bang time!
When you get caught, just say you were acting in the best interest of truth, justice, and the American way. It worked for Reagan, it worked for Oliver North, it would work for these guys!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/brushteeth.gif

I have never read the Geneva conventions, but I assume the S.C. justices have, and since they cited them in there findings, I guess they interpret them differently than our residant legal expert. 

I don't know if I'm surprised or not by this, but I guess it shows that the justices are not willing to give their third of national power to the pres., at least that's what I hope it shows.