And tell me about rambling which you, by the way, are quite good at avoiding. MY middle name, on the other hand, ought to be “digress.” ;-)

You said it all quite well.

I too believe that the military tribunal part is easily solved (if Congress is up to it, which is doubtful, they’re too busy trying to keep their deeds and offices above the law) and that, as things stand, Hamdan is more likely to hurt than help the detainees. Unless, of course, Bush decides to cave for the millionth time in deadly fear of an angry editorial and order them tried in civilian courts or, failing that, released altogether.

That’s not the bit that really got my goat.

The worst part, and a part that has absolutely nothing to do with the question that the court was asked to decide (therefore making it a classic case of court activism and overreach), was the extension of full Geneva Conventions protection to a class of animals, excuse me, “individuals” that is SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM THEIR PROTECTIONS according to those self-same Conventions. Until 5 “justices” decided to interpret “international” in a fashion that is wholly out of touch with what Article 3 was talking about.

Granted, they used a bit of Article 3 to address the military tribunal issue, but by using that bit as grounds for their findings, they automatically extended every other provision in it to unlawful combatants as well, including the prohibition against “humiliating” and “degrading” treatment, whatever that might be. What it ISN’T is a clear guideline, which means that interrogation is basically over as a way of gathering intel.

No, I’m not talking “torture” here. What I AM talking about is that you cannot effectively interrogate an enemy combatant, particularly not one as vile as the ones we’re currently at war with, without utilizing established interrogation techniques, all of which can be construed as “humiliating”, depending on what the SCOTUS might decide that that means on any given day.

Which, again, means that any type of productive interrogation, being in violation of the Terrorist’s Bill of Rights that the SCOTUS have just established by judicial fiat, would be a war crime.

No, neither Bush nor any interrogator in the field is willing to end up charged with war crimes for “humiliating” a terrorist.

So no more interrogations and intel derived in that fashion, thanks to the SCOTUS.

THAT’S what got my beef.

Al-Qaeda couldn’t BUY better friends and allies than the five they’ve got on the Supreme Court.