No problem. The Geneva Treaty says that combatants who don't wear uniforms and who hide among civilian populations get no protections.
Doesn't the convention also say that anyone out of Uniform can be shot as a spy???
I suggest the NYTimes is making it up. The fellows in Guantanamo already get Geneva Convention standards of care.
The guards were moved out of hard barracks because the Geneva Convention requires that detainees be housed in a manner commensurate with the detaining power soldiers. The guards have been used as the standard for that.
There is no change. They can be held indefinitely. The SCOTUS gave the administration everything they wanted, except some details about how one would have war crime trials, which normally don't begin until after the war is over. No sweat, we will still be there.
Right. "Following the Geneva Treaty" would mean "not offering the protections described in the Geneva Convention(s) to illegal combatants". What the article means to say is that we're going to offer those protections to people whom the treaty explicitly does not protect.
All the "Geneva" discussions of the past few years have made one thing hilariously clear: most people on the left don't have the first clue what the "Geneva Conventions" are. They know they're a nicey-nice thing and that it covers everyone, that's all they really know about them. (Or I should say, "it": the left doesn't seem to know there's more than one Geneva Convention.)