SCOTUSblog argues that the biggest development out of the story is the determination that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies in light of its prohibition on "humiliating" treatment. I discussed how CA3 is properly read and hence, why this part isn't the most important part of the decision. But to that post I'd add the following: The applicability of Common Article 3 is only notable insofar as it concerns the Court's reading of subsection (d) of Common Article 3 which prohibits:

the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Insofar as the Court reads this as requiring a court proceeding that specifically adheres to the court martial proceedings of the UCMJ is what makes the applicability of Common Article 3 important.

That's the important point from this ruling. That the military commissions run afoul of Article 21 and 36 of the UCMJ. Article 36 requires military commissions to follow essentially the same procedures as court martials where practicable. What's HUGE about this is that the Court makes it almost impossible for military commissions to proceed under anything other than the full panoply of rights and procedures accorded during court-martial. From the syllabus:

Because UCMJ Article 36 has not been complied with here, the rules specified for Hamdan's commission trial are illegal. The procedures governing such trials historically have been the same as those governing courts-martial. Although this uniformity principle is not inflexible and does not preclude all departures from courts-martial procedures, any such departure must be tailored to the exigency that necessitates it. That understanding is reflected in Art. 36(b), which provides that the procedural rules the President promulgates for courts-martial and military commissions alike must be "uniform insofar as practicable," 10 U. S. C. §836(b). The "practicability" determination the President has made is insufficient to justify variances from the procedures governing courts-martial. The President here has determined, pursuant to the requirement of Art. 36(a), that it is impracticable to apply the rules and principles of law that govern "the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts" to Hamdan's commission. The President has not, however, made a similar official determination that it is impracticable to apply the rules for courts-martial. And even if subsection (b)'s requirements could be satisfied without an official practicability determination, that subsection's requirements are not satisfied here. Nothing in the record demonstrates that it would be impracticable to apply court-martial rules here. There is no suggestion, e.g., of any logistical difficulty in securing properly sworn and authenticated evidence or in applying the usual principles of relevance and admissibility. It is not evident why the danger posed by international terrorism, considerable though it is, should require, in the case of Hamdan's trial, any variance from the courts-martial rules.

(Emphasis added)

This is the huge development of the case, not the applicability of Common Article 3. This determination by the court that military commissions must marry up nearly identically to courts-martial procedures means that detainees receive the more protective due process rights that the UCMJ provides. Where the Court is unwilling to entertain the notion that abiding by such procedures is impractical, it forces the military into providing essentially full due process rights to those that would not, but for the Court's intransigience, be entitled to them.

Oh, it's also amusing how the Court dealt with the Detainee Treatment Act, which attempted to divest the Court of jurisdiction to hear such cases. The Court basically said "Uhhh...denied." Here's Scalia's central argument on that odd point:

The DTA provides: “[N]o court, justice, or judge shallhave jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for awrit of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742 (internal division omitted). This provision “t[ook] effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,” §1005(h)(1), id., at 2743, which was December 30, 2005. As of that date, then, no court had jurisdiction to “hear or consider” the merits of petitioner’s habeas application. This repeal of jurisdiction is simply not ambiguous as between pending and future cases. It prohibits any exercise of jurisdiction, and it became effective as to all cases last December 30. It is also perfectly clear that the phrase “no court, justice, or judge” includes this Court and its Members, and that by exercising our appellate jurisdiction in this case we are “hear[ing] or consider[ing] . . . an application for a writ of habeas corpus.”

(bold added--italics in original)

Although the court did reaffirm the gov'ts power to hold Hamdan (and people like him) for the duration of hostilities, the overall decision is a net negative for the gov't position. I'll have to go through the opinion more thoroughly at some point, but the application of Common Article 3 is, despite the media reports, not the major problem. It's the requirement that any military commission must effectively mirror a court-martial.

The government even told the families to be quiet about the incident and sent no flag officers to attend a memorial ceremony or even offer any condolescences. USFK however did send representatives to the ceremony and USFK Commander General LaPorte offered the families his condolescences.

One wife of a deceased sailor was so fed up with Korea, that she left Korea for good and went to the United States. This is what she said before boarding the plane:

If the indifference and inhospitality shown to those soldiers who were killed or wounded protecting the nation continue, what soldier will lay down his life in the battlefield?

Here is a quote from one of the fathers of one of the murdered sailors that really struck a cord with me:

The father said, ¿My son is buried in the National Cemetery. But I¿m going to take my son¿s remains to my family burial site in my hometown.¿ Having watched the situation develop, he thought his son who was killed by North Korean soldiers was considered nothing more than a criminal.

Some parents said that they are more scared of people who consider the U.S. a bigger enemy than North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, who killed their son. We lose courage to defend the country, when we hear that a wife whose husband fell in the battle is preparing to leave this country. Reading a condolence letter from the USFK commander to mark the second anniversary, the wife said, "The Americans remember my husband and his brothers-in-arms better than Koreans... Frankly, I hate Korea."

Here are interviews that ran today in the Chosun Ilbo newspaper from some of the sailors injured in the 2002 attack and here are excerpts of what they had to say:

Another naval gunner, Kim Taek-jung, 25, has given up his dream of becoming a civil engineer and is preparing for the civil service exam instead. "Because civil engineering requires active work at the site, I've made a realistic decision to become a public servant, I still have four or five pieces of shrapnel in my body," Kim said. "One night I remembered the faces of my six dead comrades, but I couldn¿t recall the name of one of them, so I sobbed all night."

Although they suffer from sleepless nights and nightmares, those without external injuries are not entitled to benefits as "persons of merit." Ko Kyug-rak, 25, also a naval gunner, said, "For over a year after the incident I was unable to sleep more than three hours a night." Aboard the patrol boat that turned into a sea of flame, Ko saw his peers burned and their heads blown away and lost some of his hearing. But when he went to a military hospital to claim benefit, Ko was given cool treatment. "A doctor ignored the psychological problems and only asked me to show any external wounds," he said. "If benefits for persons of merit are granted for this level of injuries, the doctor said, it would have an adverse effect on the state budget."

Another wounded veteran, Kim Myun-joo, 26, has applied for meritorious benefit twice, but in vain. "I'm just sad because I feel like that post-traumatic stress disorder and efforts to safeguard the country are being neglected," he said

Of the six victims this paper interviewed, three have office jobs and three are students, all trying hard to make a future for themselves despite the difficulties. What they want from the country is just one thing: that it remembers that many young people were killed or wounded while safeguarding the country on June 29, 2002. "I just wish they remembered the battle once a year, even if they don¿t pay much attention. Nothing else," said Lee Jae-yong, 25.

Don't expect President Roh to remember this event, real only the ROK Navy to their credit and USFK memorialize the event every year. The South Korean ruling party politicians hide their heads in the sand every June 29th because this incident is perfect example of the failure of the Sunshine Policy. The South Korean government gives massive amounts of aid to North Korea and what do they do? They murder Korean sailors. You give them more massive aid and what do they do? They build nuclear weapons. You give them more massive aid and what do they do? They threaten to test fire a tactical ballistic missile which would further highten tensions in the region.

Has the Korean government at least learned anything from this incident to prevent future attacks? Really they have learned nothing because if this same type of incident were to happen again the Korean government would again do the same thing, which is nothing. They would probably just increase the aid shipments to North Korea to keep them quiet until the aid runs out and they need to cause another incident to get more aid. Is it any wonder North Korea is always so billigerent when they know they can get away with it?

Hey, uh...Can I borrow that eject handle so I can use it here?