So, officially

[womzilla]

Yes, I realize the Hamdan decision is last month's news, but I hadn't realized this implication of it expressed by David Cole in his article Why the Court Said No, in the 10 August 2006 issue of The New York Review of Books:

In fact, the Court's decision further suggests that President Bush has alreadycommitted a war crime, simply by establishing the military tribunals and subjecting detainees to them. As noted above, the Court found that the tribunals violate Common Article 3 [of the Geneva Conventions], and under the War Crimes Act, any violation of Common Article 3 is a war crime. Military defense lawyers responded to the Hamdan decision by requesting a stay of all tribunal proceedings, on the ground that their own continuing participation in those proceedings might constitute a war crime. But according to the logic of the Supreme Court, the President has already committed a war crime. He won't be prosecuted, of course, and probably should not be, since his interpretation of the Conventions was at least arguable. But now that his interpretation has been conclusively rejected, if he or Congress seeks to go forward with tribunals or interrogation rules that fail Article 3's test, they, too, would be war criminals.

So, it is now simple truth to say what I've believed all along: our nation is run by war criminals.