The 1949 Geneva Conventions proscribe certain conduct by High Contracting Parties toward specified categories of vulnerable persons during armed conflict. High Contracting Parties are also required to provide effective penal sanctions against any person who commits (or orders the commission of) a "grave breach" of one of the Conventions, which is defined to include the wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, and the causing of great suffering or serious injury to the body or health of protected persons. Congress approved the War Crimes Act of 1996 ( P.L. 104-192 ) specifically to implement the Conventions' penal requirements. The War Crimes Act imposes criminal penalties against persons who commit certain offenses under the law of war, when those offenses are either committed by or against a U.S. national or member of the U.S. Armed Forces. The act applies regardless of whether the offense occurs inside or outside the United States. Offenders are subject to imprisonment for life or any term of years and may receive the death penalty if their offense results in death to the victim. At the time of enactment, the War Crimes Act only covered grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. During congressional deliberations, the Departments of State and Defense suggested the act be crafted to cover additional war crimes, but these recommendations were not immediately followed. However, Congress amended the War Crimes Act the following year to cover additional war crimes that had been suggested by the State and Defense Departments, including violations under Article 3 of any of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (Common Article 3). Common Article 3 is applicable to armed conflicts "not of an international character" (e.g., civil wars, rebellions, and other conflicts between State and non-State actors) and covers persons taking no active part in hostilities, including those who have laid down their arms or been incapacitated by capture or injury. Such persons are to be treated humanely and protected from certain treatment, including "violence to life and person," "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." There has been controversy concerning whether activities by military and intelligence personnel relating to captured Al Qaeda suspects might give rise to prosecution under the War Crimes Act, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in the 2006 case of Hamdan v . Rumsfeld . The following sections provide relevant background and briefly discuss possible implications that the Court's ruling may have on issues relating to the War Crimes Act. At least since early 2002 and lasting until the Court's ruling in Hamdan , the Bush Administration had taken the position that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to members of Al Qaeda captured in the global "war on terror." Specifically, the Administration argued that the Conventions were applicable to international armed conflicts between High Contracting Parties and States that complied with Convention provisions, and therefore do not cover non-State actors such as Al Qaeda. The Administration further claimed that the conflict with Al Qaeda is international in scope, and Common Article 3 accordingly was inapplicable to the conflict because it only covers armed conflicts "not of an international nature." The issue in Hamdan primarily concerned military tribunals convened by presidential order to try detainees for violations of the law of war. The Court held that such tribunals did not comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the law of war, including the Geneva Conventions. However, the Court's interpretation of Common Article 3 had broader implications for U.S. policy towards captured Al Qaeda suspects. The Court rejected the Administration's interpretation of Common Article 3 as not covering Al Qaeda members, concluding that the provision affords "some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to [any] individuals ... who are involved in a conflict in the territory of a signatory." In the aftermath of the Court's ruling, the Department of Defense issued new treatment guidelines concerning military detainees (including Al Qaeda members) that required, at a minimum, application of the standards articulated by Common Article 3. Subsequently, fourteen high-level Al Qaeda operatives who had been held abroad by the CIA and subjected to aggressive interrogation techniques were transferred to Department of Defense (DOD) custody in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The United States has apparently never prosecuted a person under the War Crimes Act. Perhaps as a result, there is some question concerning the act's scope. In the aftermath of the Court's ruling in Hamdan , some suggested that the War Crimes Act be amended to specify whether certain forms of treatment or interrogation constitute a punishable offense. They argued that the scope of the War Crimes Act was ambiguous, particularly as it related to offenses concerning violations of Common Article 3. In a September 2006 address, President George W. Bush suggested that some provisions of Common Article 3 provided U.S. personnel with inadequate notice as to what interrogation methods could permissibly be used against detained Al Qaeda suspects, and requested legislation listing "specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act." On the other hand, some argued that amending the War Crimes Act to cover specific acts would overly restrict the act's scope, making certain unspecified conduct legally permissible even though it was as severe as conduct that was expressly prohibited. Although some types of conduct prohibited by Common Article 3 are easily recognizable (e.g., murder, mutilation, the taking of hostages), it might not always be consensus as to whether conduct constitutes impermissible "torture," "cruel treatment," or "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." In January 2009, President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order barring U.S. officials, employees, and agents, when conducting prospective interrogations, from relying on any interpretation of the law governing interrogation (including Common Article 3) that was issued by the Bush Administration following September 11, 2001, absent further guidance from the Attorney General. For discussion of U.S. and international jurisprudence and agency interpretations concerning the scope of these terms, particularly as they relate to interrogation techniques, see CRS Report RL32567, Lawfulness of Interrogation Techniques under the Geneva Conventions , by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report RL33655, Interrogation of Detainees: Overview of the McCain Amendment , by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report RL32438, U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT): Overview and Application to Interrogation Techniques , by [author name scrubbed]. Prior to the Court's ruling in Hamdan , the Bush Administration did not apply Common Article 3 protections to captured Al Qaeda agents. In some cases, Al Qaeda operatives were subject to harsh treatment, especially in the context of interrogation, which did not appear to comply with Common Article 3 requirements. As a result, some have raised questions as to whether U.S. personnel might be criminally liable under the War Crimes Act for the pre- Hamdan treatment of some Al Qaeda detainees. Although not immune from prosecution, U.S. personnel who could be charged with violating the War Crimes Act would have several possible defenses to criminal liability, so long as their activities were conducted with the authorization of the Administration and under the reasonable (though mistaken) belief that their actions were lawful. Section 1004(a) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA, P.L. 109-148 ), enacted several months prior to the Hamdan decision, provides that In any civil action or criminal prosecution against an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States Government who is a United States person, arising out of the officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent's engaging in specific operational practices, that involve detention and interrogation of aliens who the President or his designees have determined are believed to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity that poses a serious, continuing threat to the United States ... and that were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time that they were conducted, it shall be a defense that ... [the] agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful. Good faith reliance on advice of counsel should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be unlawful. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or extinguish any defense or protection otherwise available ... or to provide immunity from prosecution for any criminal offense by the proper authorities. The statutory defense provided by the DTA appears to apply only to U.S. personnel who were "engaging in specific operational practices" that had been officially authorized. The defense would not apply to unauthorized conduct. The statute also does not appear applicable to higher-level U.S. officials who may have authorized, but did not directly engage in, specific operational practices involving detention or interrogation. As discussed later, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA, P.L. 109-366 ) subsequently made expressly clear that this defense extends to activities that occurred prior to enactment of the DTA and following September 11, 2001. In addition to this statutory defense, a number of other legal defenses could be raised by U.S. personnel charged with War Crimes Act offenses based on conduct that had been authorized, assuming the defendants acted with government sanction and/or had been erroneously informed by responsible authorities that their conduct was legal. Although "mistake of law" defenses are generally rejected, such defenses have been recognized by courts in certain cases where defendants have acted with government sanction or after being erroneously informed by responsible authorities that their conduct was legal.