Trying to get my head around the recent Hamdan v Rumsfeld ruling on the treatment of al Qaeda prisoners. By extending protection of the Geneva Convention to al Qaeda it appears to support the Moveon war opponents, by observing that captured al Qaeda detainees have the same rights as captured prisoners of war, even though they're non-state actors who wear no uniforms and adhere to no politically sanctioned statutes, constitutions, or governments. (Hard to imagine calling al Qaeda a "government" when its practical decisions don't have any such legitimacy with most of the people fighting for it. They do what the heck they want to do, including sawing the heads off infidels with a dull knife.)
But some are speculating that there's been a profound shift here. From The Belmont Club (building on a conjecture by Chester):
If protections that normally accrue to states after debate and ratification can now be given over to non-states which have no mechanism for ratification, let alone debate, one can easily imagine a scenario in which non-state organizations form themselves and immediately possess the rights of a state, with no corresponding need to adhere to any laws in their own activities. If this is the case, then we have the answer to the war: it will be privatized, and its ultimate victories won by uninhibited private military actors, not the hamstrung citizen militaries of nation-states.
The Supreme Court has pulled out the stops. So, who would have the advantage in a privatized war? Ultimately it boils down to tactical and strategic, organizational and technological expertise.
Anyone laying odds?