I never got clear on exactly what the courts ruling meant. But an explanation from Cornell University on the Supreme Court ruling, follows. I understand this to mean first, that there must be a proper judicial process to determine the status or the detainees and that they are under the convention's protection until that judicial process determins they are not. In other words, the military can detain them but can't determine their status relative to the Geneva convention unilaterally, a court must do that. And secondly, that the tribunals as proposed by the Bush administration lacked certain rights of redress that wouldn't have fit under either scenario, that of a Geneva POW or under U.S. Military law for a tribunal for a non-Geneva POW.
"that Hamdan is entitled to that Convention’s full protections until adjudged, under it, not to be a prisoner of war; and that, whether or not Hamdan is properly classified a prisoner of war, the commission convened to try him was established in violation of both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq., and Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention because it had the power to convict based on evidence the accused would never see or hear."
Danny - Thanks for the info re: Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld. I hadn't read that before. It's always helpful when you are able to read the actual decision, rather than depending on some talking head's summary of it.