They're the farthest thing from it. Real patriots understand why we must defend these rights, even at the cost of our lives -- because without them, we aren't the United States of America; we're just another transient tinpot dictatorship of no value and no lasting importance.

FTFA:

"The court's ruling makes clear the legal rights given to al Qaida members today should exceed those provided to the Nazis during World War II," Graham said. "Our nation is at war. It's truly unfortunate the Supreme Court did not recognize and appreciate that fact."

Of course, in WWII, Congress had declared war. The rules may be different in times of war, but, fortunately, our legal system does not recognize laws against concepts/behaviors/tactics.

Strange how the U.S. Soldiers have fewer rights then the terrorists we are fighting.

Is that a "totalitarianism in the US" post; if so, this ruling is great for returning to a rule of law. Is that a "why are soldiers forced to go far away and die" post; if so, because that's what soldiers agree can happen, and the political will of the country, rightly or wrongly, sent them to fight. Is that a "terrorists deserve no rights, scumbags" post; if so, I would point out that these are accused terrorists. There have been failures in identifying them. Just like an innocent man going to jail is bad both for that man, and also because a criminal remains on the streets, locking up phoney terrorists gives us a misleading view of the world. Plus, who knows what the standard of proof is.

So it takes approximately 7 years between blatently unconstitutional actions by one branch to be reviewed and overturned by another branch.

Fortunately for Congress and the President, they can pass new laws and executive orders on time scales shorter than 7 years.

In between lies the downfall of democracy.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

but I'm really surprised given how the Dems have been crying foul for the last 8 years on packing the Supreme Court.

Well, there are 7 justices nominated by Republicans, and the other 2 were suggested by a Republican [thinkprogress.org]. The Court is already fully packed.

The 5-4 decision split along ideological lines, with the five justices most widely considered "more liberal" voting that a CSRT [wikipedia.org] doesn't qualify as habeas. The four considered "more conservative" -- including GWB's two -- voted that secret kangaroo courts are plenty good for any o' them furriners that our president wants to hold without charges.

It is far preferable to have a court who can see both sides of an argument. Far, far preferable than any ideologically uniform court that rubber-stamps whatever agrees with its own outlook(s), and rejects anything that does not.

Believe it or not, the court had to square existing policy with law and constitution. This doesn't exactly mean that each decision (especially including this one) is a simple choice of kittens versus cannonfire. There is no such thing as simple when you make a decision here - knowing that said decision is damned-near permanent, and will have reverberations that you can't even hope to contemplate.

Given all of this, the split decision is IMHO a sign of at least one branch of government being very healthy and sane.

Can't say the same for the other two, unfortunately...

/P

It's a fairly simple equation. If at any point the administration admits that the detainees have rights then they have branded themselves war criminals.

While not perfect, and sometimes it takes decades to resolve, history shows us that the US populace does not tolerate their leaders taking this kind of liberty with the truth and ignoring the spirit of the constitution, if not the letter.

I'm fairly confident that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are going to be as fondly remembered as Nixon and Kissinger. The sad part of course is that the abuse will continue until morale improves.

We cannot allow ourselves to become the things and people we hate. We cannot become a nation that approves of torture, approves of lawless legal system, a nation that will treat others, no matter how heinous, as they would treat us.

Second, will Al Qaeda reciprocate? I'm thinking not. "Hi. We have kidnapped you and are planning on beheading you in our next propaganda video, but first you have the right to challenge being detained at this terrorist training camp in a court of law. Would you like a court-appointed Sharia expert to act as your attorney, or should we fly in private counsel for you?"

Also, how do you fight a war under rules that were designed for domestic law enforcement? Dust the battlefield for fingerprints, stick his AK-47 in an evidence bag, and make sure to read the guy who was firing the rocket launcher at you his Miranda rights in the correct Arabic dialect or he walks. And of course if Al Qaeda manages to kill off the solider who carried out the arrest, all the prisoners he's captured get released since they can no longer cross-examine the arresting officer.

True, but there is a big difference from catching a German Speaking Nazi and holding him until the war is over, and catching someone who might or might not be a terrorist and you having to figure out if they are friend or foe.

True. In the case of the Nazi, you know he's an enemy.

With many of those in Guantanamo, we didn't have that assurance before we put them there.

(Though, to be fair, we can probably pretty much count on it now.)

A dejected Sen. Lindsey Graham blasted the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday on Guantanamo Bay detainees, calling it "dangerous and irresponsible."

2/3 of congress. If 3/4 of the state legislatures vote for it, it can also be done at a constitutional convention.

Neither of those things are going to happen in this case.

The court's ruling makes clear the legal rights given to al Qaida members today should exceed those provided to the Nazis during World War II," Graham said. "Our nation is at war. It's truly unfortunate the Supreme Court did not recognize and appreciate that fact."

Funny, the rest of us consider habeas corpus to be a basic human right.... and by your logic, those contractors that got killed and dragged through that Iraqi city got just what they deserved. After all, they weren't Iraqi citizens, so the law need not apply, right?

That is something which is the fault of the media : they should not acknowledge terrorism by calling the perpetrators terrorists, but should call them criminals.

Those subjected to waterboarding were al Qaeda suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Hayden said.

Even if that were true (and I believe Cheney has confirmed otherwise [hrw.org]) are you suggesting that torture is acceptable, provided that only a few people get tortured?

You don't go to a foreign country and expect their rights, do you?

[in the U.S. Constitution,] There is no provision on juridical persons. As for natural persons, key rights-related provisions including the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments), and the 14th Amend. due process and equal protection clauses, are phrased as applying to "all persons." These rights therefore have been construed as offering substantial protections to non-citizens residing within the U.S.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known.[1] They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1791 as a series of constitutional amendments, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three-fourths of the States. The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the Federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory.

The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the law's operation...

My problem with today's opinion is more fundamental
still: The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has,
run in favor of aliens abroad;

The Court does not question the Government's position that
Cuba maintains sovereignty, in the legal and technical sense, over
Guantanamo, but it does not accept the Government's premise that
de jure sovereignty is the touchstone of habeas jurisdiction. Common-
law habeas' history provides scant support for this proposition,
and it is inconsistent with the Court's precedents and contrary to
fundamental separation-of-powers principles.

German POWs in WWII were treated very well by us as we followed the Geneva Convention almost to an extreme. They lived in large camps and weren't locked up in prison cells so long as they behaved.

Ok, so they have had this democracy for several years now... If we leave and everything collapses, then that means that it's not what the people want.

If we had followed the same policy at Gitmo, the detainees would probably be demanding to enlisted in the U.S. forces by now. But no, the only way Bushcheney knows how to deal with opposition is "get tough."