http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/convention4.html#68
********
Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
*********
What this says to me is that we DO in fact have the right to try them, and that the SCOTUS has really messed up in this ruling. Granted, I have not read the Geneva Convention (IV) in its entirety, which I will do later, but from what I have read so far, it does protect terrorists from torture and such, but not trials and justice being served.
I would like to read the entire thing sometime so that I can debunk arguments people make when they loosely throw around the term "Geneva Convention" to decry any questionable actions on America's part. It's the same case with the Constitution...if someone doesnt like something that a politician/administration does, they declare it "UNCONSTITUTIONAL," without really knowing whether the Constitution addresses the situation or not.
*stepping down from soapbox* =P
Yes. We absolutely do have the right to try them. But the Supreme Court didn't say that we couldn't... it just said we couldn't try him like this. They'll have to give him either a regular criminal trial, or a military court martial.
What it says to me is that SCOTUS just declared them as "protected". Art. 68 says we can execute "protected" persons ...."which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began."
So, would Saddam have executed these scum? LOL