Ken Anderson has some very thoughtful comments in response to the earlier discussion regarding whether GPW Article 129 has any application in the CA3 context (short answer: no, it does not). I'm generally in agreement with his assessment, but I do want to raise one question that I think is the subject of serious debate: did Hamdan actually hold that the US-AQ conflict is governed by CA3 (rather than CA2)? I read Ken's post to answer that question affirmatively, and indeed that had been my initial impression of Hamdan. But Stevens did at least purport not to actually decide that issue, describing himself as instead deciding that CA3 would apply even if CA2 did not, and that in either case the President's commission plans were in trouble. On the other hand, the substance of Stevens's explanation as to why CA3 would apply does make it hard to then argue that the conflict is instead a CA2 conflict.
Any thoughts on which is the better reading?