[jwalsh07]

The problem is that you are bloviating without having read the decision

This is the same nonsense you pulled out of your rabbit hole the last time I pointed out the errors in your understanding of Rasul v Bush. Some things never change.

[AndyJackson]

No you didn't. Once I asked you quote specifically from the decision where you thought the court was wrong and what was wrong about it you shut up pretty quick.

The problem is that you would like to slander the court about words you would like to have put in their mouths, rather than fault them for the things that they actually wrote in words on paper.

[AndyJackson]

Per the Geneva Convention:

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 [categorizing those who are considered prisoners of war under the convention] from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.