yes, but when you have 5 SCOTUS members who disagree, taking decisions of foreign courts into account, rational thought like that goes out the window.
Nobody understands or even has paid a dimes worth of attention to that article. Neither the U.S. or any other country has used it. It was a generalization and a cop-out to begin with.
The senate needs to put the presidents responsibility for the treatment of these civilian terrorists in law with some oversight and limits, and leave it up to him.
This would take the court out of it and give the president the protection of law.
But they can't and won't.
So in lieu of this non-decision, they need to decide what article three actually means. But they won't.
Somebody has to interpret the uninterpretable!
But it is election eve.
Whatta mess........