The Supreme Court has blocked the military war crimes trials at Guantánamo, one of the innovations that David Addington (the author of all those signing documents) pushed through by ignoring objections and going around offices that might object.

The story of David Addington and his attitudes and methods is laid out in the current New Yorker, the one whose cover shows an Andy-Warhol-like set of Chinese women sewing American flags. It’s definitely worth the purchase price of the New Yorker or a trip to the library. Unfortunately, the article’s not on-line, but here’s an interview with the author in which she discusses a bit of Addington’s history and his peculiar views of democracy.

I wonder if Addington will try to come up with some sort of “signing document” that will claim for the President the same “right to ignore” the Supreme Court decision that he has claimed for over 750 of the laws he has signed.

UPDATE: A more detailed comment on the decision, showing why it’s even stronger than it seemed at first sight. Via Political Animal.

As I predicted below, the Court held that Congress had, by statute, required that the commissions comply with the laws of war — and held further that these commissions do not (for various reasons). I have not yet read the complete opinions, but from what I’ve seen of not only the Stevens majority, but also the Kennedy and Breyer concurrences (see Orin Kerr with the relevant AMK and SGB excerpts here), it is hard to overstate the principal, powerfully stated themes emanating from the Court, which are (i) that the President’s conduct is subject to the limitations of statute and treaty; and (ii) that Congress’s enactments are best construed to require compliance with the international laws of armed conflict.

Even more importantly for present purposes, the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva applies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today’s ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,” and that “[t]o this end,” certain specified acts “are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever”—including “cruel treatment and torture,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment. See my further discussion here.

This almost certainly means that the CIA’s interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administation has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).

If I’m right about this, it’s enormously significant.