In the LA Times, Rosa Brooks misrepresents the Hamdan holding in order to score political points against Bush. Brooks writes:
... the real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court's holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda ? a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act.
As Mark Moller points out, however:
Here?s some of what the Court didn?t decide: ... Can civil courts hear claims raising violations of the Geneva Convention? This, too, remains unanswered. The majority, including Justice Kennedy, holds that only the Convention is enforceable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as part of the ?law or war? that governs military commissions. That ruling has no necessary application to civil courts.
Granted, as Moller acknowledges, Brooks point might be a logical extension of Handan ... but it would be an extension. It's certainly not a holding that opens the door to prosecution. Looks like Patterico was right: "Rosa Brooks consistently writes the weakest and most poorly reasoned columns in the L.A. Times ? quite a feat, to be sure."
