What Hamdan means — and doesn’t mean: There’s plenty of good analysis at OrinKerr.com and of course SCOTUSBlog.

Orin Kerr also cites an interesting New Yorker piece about David Addington, Bush’s "legal mind behind the war on terror"  It’s pretty clear from the Hamdan decision that Addington, among others, were simply barking up the wrong tree.  The article quotes an Addington colleague:

[A] former high-ranking lawyer for the Administration, who worked closely with Addington, and who shares his political conservatism, said that, in the aftermath of September 11th, “Addington was more like Cheney’s agent than like a lawyer. A lawyer sometimes says no.” He noted, “Addington never said, ‘There is a line you can’t cross.’” Although the lawyer supported the President, he felt that his Administration had been led astray. “George W. Bush has been damaged by incredibly bad legal advice,” he said.

Well, that’s true, although let’s be real — this Administration isn’t interested in good and objective legal advice — the just want legal advice which supports the Administration’s pre-determined position.