SCOTUS and GITMO

Re: Recent ruling in Federal Court on Tribunals:
I think the SCOTUS is going to side with the administration that the tribunals were good enough. The Tribunals were only required because of the Geneva Conventions, not because of the Constitution. During the first Gulf War we had hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers captured as prisoners of war. Are we suggesting that each of them should have access to the courts?

I agree that the administration made a mistake by not granting EPW status to GITMO, but only as a strategic error. During war, enemy prisoners have the right to humane treatment, and no more. Giving access to the court is unworkable and violates the general deference the Courts have given the military.

The one good thing about the Courts is that it takes so long to do anything. When the Courts do review the military, at is usually well after the fact and not during an operation. Courts can rule and effect future operations by changing the law, but it is unworkable for the courts to administer current operations.

If in fact in the future we plan to give every EPW a trial, we will need Congress to fund and the Executive to build entire systems to handle the issue.

And frankly, I don't know what possible standard can be applied. Do we expect soldiers to act like policemen on the battle field, seal off the area, collect evidence, and submit a report to a prosecutor? It is unworkable, unreasonable, and has never been done by any military past or present.

We almost certainly do have non-combatants in GITMO and other prisons. We also kill non-combatants (as collateral) during the same operations. War is hell and should be avoided, but I see no way we can reasonably separate out the non-combatants from the combatants once they have been detained and removed from the battlefield.

If we decide to try any individual for crimes, then clearly the courts, evidence, and rules apply. But that is not the current situation.