Eugene Volokh notices something in the Hamdan decision.  It appears that none of the justices –even the dissenters — take the position that Article 3 doesn’t apply to Gitmo detainees (although Scalia and Alito are silent).

Even Thomas, Volokh notes, seems to agree — although he disputes the particular interpretation to be applied to Article 3.  Volokh quotes Thomas at length:

The President’s interpretation of Common Article 3 is reasonable and should be sustained. The conflict with al Qaeda is international in character in the sense that it is occurring in various nations around the globe. Thus, it is also “occurring in the territory of” more than “one of the High Contracting Parties.” The Court does not dispute the President’s judgments respecting the nature of our conflict with al Qaeda, nor does it suggest that the President’s interpretation of Common Article 3 is implausible or foreclosed by the text of the treaty. Indeed, the Court concedes that Common Article 3 is principally concerned with “furnish[ing] minimal protection to rebels involved in. . . a civil war,” ante, at 68, precisely the type of conflict the President’s interpretation envisions to be subject to Common Article 3. Instead, the Court, without acknowledging its duty to defer to the President, adopts its own, admittedly plausible, reading of Common Article 3. But where, as here, an ambiguous treaty provision (“not of an international character”) is susceptible of two plausible, and reasonable, interpretations, our precedents require us to defer to the Executive’s interpretation.

I boldened the sentence that trips me up.

The Supreme Court has a "duty to defer to the President" on interpretations of international law?

What the fuck? !?

This is extremely troublesome, especially in light of how the President is keen on using signing statements to re-interpret domestic laws.

Justice Thomas, it is the job of the courts to interpret law — not merely to rubberstamp what the President thinks the law is.  Scary.