My friend Bill Carroll sent me a link to a really good article at The American Thinker about Bill Clinton's temper tantrum on Fox News last weekend. It was a good article but I won't dignify Bubba's outburst by wasting any pixels on it.
Instead, I'd like to point out this excellent article entitled "Rendering the Hamdam v. Rumsfeld Decision" that I found there after reading the one about Clinton
The article is written by Air Force LTC Joseph Myers. In it Myers convincingly rebuts the Supreme Court's logic behind their decision to offer Geneva Convention Article III protections to terrorists. Myers does a much better job of dismantling the Supreme Court decision than I ever could.
One point that Myers does drive home very well is the ludicrousness of one side offering Geneva protections while leaving the other side free to commit any and all atrocities. He reminds us that the Geneva Conventions are an agreement between two or more sides. Not only are the jihadists not a party to these conventions, even if they were, they likely would not abide by them (in the same way that another signatory - Vietnam - didn't.)
I encourage you to read it.