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.
That was the first time I had read the decision too, rather than just the freeper discussions. Scalia's and Thomas's dissents are scathing. I haven't yet read the third.
It sounds to me like the court decided that since Article 2 covered conflicts between signatory nations and conflicts between non-signatory nations that article 3's mention of "non-international conflicts" must be everything else which the appeals court and Thomas's dissent dissagree with.
Still article 3 simply requires a properly constituted court. And a military tribunals according to Thomas are properly constituted.
The Supremes seemed to take the position that because the military tribunal "might" not let the decendants see all the evidence against them for security reasons, that it's not a proper court. Which is an unreasonble position.