Defending Hamdan

[jmm99]

As you will find from this Wiki article on diplomatic recognition, standards differ among nations once you get beyond the basic definition.

Diplomatic recognition in international law is a unilateral political act, with domestic and international legal consequences, whereby a state acknowledges an act or status of another state or government. Recognition can be accorded either de facto or de jure, usually by a statement of the recognizing government. .....

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Diplomatic_recognition

In US courts, the vagaries of I Law do not come into play in determining whether a government is recognized or not. The courts are required to take judicial notice of the Executive's position on diplomatic recognition of a particular government. That rule is established by many cases - here are two:

United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937)

Page 301 U. S. 330
....
We take judicial notice of the fact that, coincident with the assignment set forth in the complaint, the President recognized the Soviet Government, and normal diplomatic relations were established between that government and the Government of the United States, followed by an exchange of ambassadors. The effect of this was to validate, so far as this country is concerned, all acts of the Soviet Government here involved from the commencement of its existence. The recognition, establishment of diplomatic relations, the assignment, and agreements with respect thereto, were all parts of one transaction, resulting in an international compact between the two governments. That the negotiations, acceptance of the assignment, and agreements and understandings in respect thereof were within the competence of the President may not be doubted. Governmental power over internal affairs is distributed between the national government and the several states. Governmental power over external affairs is not distributed, but is vested exclusively in the national government. And in respect of what was done here, the Executive had authority to speak as the sole organ of that government. The assignment and the agreements in connection therewith did not, as in the case of treaties, as that term is used in the treaty-making clause of the Constitution (Art. II, § 2), require the advice and consent of the Senate.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/301/324/case.html

United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942)

Page 315 U. S. 229

.... The powers of the President in the conduct of foreign relations included the power, without consent of the Senate, to determine the public policy of the United States ....

"What government is to be regarded here as representative of a foreign sovereign state is a political, rather than a judicial, question, and is to be determined by the political department of the government."

Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, supra, 304 U.S. at p. 304 U. S. 137. That authority is not limited to a determination of the government to be recognized. It includes the power to determine the policy which is to govern the question of recognition. Objections to the underlying policy, as well as objections to recognition, are to be addressed to the political department, and not to the courts. See Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, supra, p. 304 U. S. 138; 55 U. S. 50-51. ...
.....
Recognition is not always absolute; it is sometimes conditional. 1 Moore, International Law Digest (1906), pp. 73-74; 1 Hackworth, Digest of International Law (1940), pp. 192-195. Power to remove such obstacles to full recognition as settlement of claims of our nationals (Levitan, Executive Agreements, 35 Ill.L.Rev. 365, 382-385) certainly is a modest implied power of the President, who is the "sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations." United States v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., supra, p. 299 U. S. 320. Effectiveness in handling the delicate problems of foreign relations requires no less. Unless

Page 315 U. S. 230

such a power exists, the power of recognition might be thwarted or seriously diluted. No such obstacle can be placed in the way of rehabilitation of relations between this country and another nation unless the historic conception of the powers and responsibilities of the President in the conduct of foreign affairs (see Moore, Treaties and Executive Agreements, 20 Pol.Sci.Q. 385, 403-417) is to be drastically revised....

http://supreme.justia.com/us/315/203/case.html

A Federal court will want evidence of which (if any) government is or was recognized by the Executive branch - any other proof or argument is irrelevant.