No. Have a look at 18 U.S.C.A. § 2441 - War Crimes. Effective as of November 26, 1997.

I think you’re repeating a John Yoo argument here. If what you say is true, then why didn’t the dissenters argue this in the case? Maybe that should be a sign….

Actually, I don’t hate Bush and I consider myself moderate/conservative. Just because I think this opinion is good doesn’t mean I spend my days making lists of all the ways that Bush is evel.

Conservatives have turned themselves inside out in the past few years. The basis of this recent opinion is that the President has overreached. Where did small-givernment conservatism get to?

In the end this is going to force those in Congress to choose sides, and in an election year. How much you want to bet the majority will not side with Al-Qaeda?

…

But hey… I’m not some tool who thinks that increase tax revenues is sufficient justification for invalidating someone’s property rights.

Sounds like there’s some more work to do on the Supreme Court, eh?

There is a Congressional law stating that violation of the Geneva Conventions is a war crime punishable by life in prison or execution!

That law was written after this case (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) was put into the system. Ergo, you can’t break a law that didn’t exist at the time.

As for your constitutional expert, he’s wrong because we’re talking about terrorists in this instance. If terrorists were covered by the Geneva Convention, then there wouldn’t have been discussions in the 80’s about whether terrorists should be protected by the Geneva Convention.

Furthermore, if we didn’t sign newer versions of the Geneva Convention, then those newer rules wouldn’t be American law.

What must it be like to hate Bush so much that you think he’s breaking the law with his every action? What a pathetic existence!!! I won’t even call it a life.

-The Geneva Convention now applies to detainees.

-The Geneva Convention prevents degrading interrogation techniques (like waterboarding).

-There is a Congressional law stating that violation of the Geneva Conventions is a war crime punishable by life in prison or execution!

End result, Bush administration is in trouble if they keep this up….

But I’m sure the Fred Barnes, expert on all things republiCON, is right: terrorism in the Reagan years was summarily rejected.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court did not write any new law, nor any new treaty, as you suggest. (Again, whenever anyone disagrees with the CONmen, its “judicial activism!”) The Supremes merely said that W overstepped his bounds by acting without the authorization of Congress. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why; this rubber-stamp congress will give him anything he wants, and yet W (and the brain, and the devil, or whatever cute nicknames we’re using today) continue to go behind Congress’ back.

The entire republiCON party needs to go back to basic civics to learn the role each branch of government plays. I would have said learn but its cleear none of them paid any attention in the first place.

BTW, DirtCrashr, how does using dogs to scare enemy combatants, and forcing them to pile on one-another without clothes (among the most well known and yet lesser acts the US routinely commits) fit with the “laws and customs” of war? I’m not suggesting any moral equivalence between, for example, employing scare tactics and beheadings; but just because they do it doesn’t mean we should, either.

Let the name calling and finger pointing begin!

Your post is just flat misleading.