Maybe the Supreme Court tried to uphold the law. Isn’t that what they’re supposed to do?

Habeas corpus isn’t exactly a new and revolutionary idea. It used to be a point of pride, a cornerstone of democracy and a promise. But as neo said, Thank God, habeas corpus is now considered a “temptation”. As we all know, anything having to do with “temptation” most likely involves Satan so maybe we should all just stop talking about it.

I agree with everything you have written above. But the context is more complicated, because we are also in the middle of a vicious political war within the country that the President has effectively lost. Part of this internal political war involves the legal establishment against the President and the military. Party vs. Party, too. The wider context of the Islamic Ummah waging jihad against dar al Harb seems completely moot to the legal elites, who seek to wage this war against the government, claiming the government is the real enemy, not the jihadi.

My experience with the people on that side of the issue is that they have no interest whatsoever in getting up to speed to the Islamic enemy’s scriptures (Qur’an), traditions (ahadith), law (Sharia), and the template for war fighting (Sira – the life and deeds of Muhammad). They do not believe that this enemy is even a pimple on our arse. Our academic institutions are bought out by the money collected from the Muslim zakat (tithing) throughout the Islamic world, and it does filter down into the legal establishment. There is a law professor at Harvard who believes that we should make accommodations for including Sharia Law in our country (the irony is that he is Jewish and a “Progressive”).

We have no control over the blindness and sloth of our elites. But some day, if things do reach an intense crisis, they most certainly may have a date with the gallows.

Under the classification of unlawful combatants they are not entitled to treatment as POWs . They can be interrogated, and tried for crimes. They can be also be summarily executed by their captors, which may be the new recommended course of events.

This country, IMO, has given these prisoners far better treatment than is called for under the Geneva Conventions.

The detainees at Gitmo are NOT U.S. citizens! Habeas corpus under the Constitution applies only to citizens and aliens legally in this country.

U.S. citizens legal aliens, and illegal aliens that have been arrested for plotting terror ops against this country have been afforded proper criminal trials in civilian courts. All to the detriment of the security of classified information and the safety of the judge, prosecutors, jurors, and prosecution winesses.

All of the above trial participants have been marked for death. The culture of these killers honors revenge as a duty and necessity, even if it takes generations to carry out. These good people who have carried out their duties in our justice system can never be sure of their future safety.

Secret military tribunals may seem like star chambers, but they are the only practical method for bringing barabarians from an honor shame- culture to justice without repercussions for those who participate in the trial.

It is my understanding that the few hundred captives remaining are the worst of the worst and not just some schmucks who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It has been proven that many of those who seemed to be just poor schmucks and were released went right back to the battlefield.

The administration and Congress, at the urging of the democrats, asked SCOTUS how to go about handling these unlawful combatants. They then passed a law conforming to the plan SCOTUS outlined. Now SCOTUS has opined that the plan they asked for was not good enough. What they really wanted was to extend the rights of U.S. citizens to these unlawful combatants because – well, it’s just the right thing to do, in their learned opinions.

And the Democrats both have the ruthlessness and the craving for power to uphold such Leftist ideology in its true colors.

http://www.examiner.com/printa-1446818~Obama_advisers_say_bin_Laden_can_appeal_to_U.S._civilian_courts.html

“Boumediene decision is wrong, like the decision the Supremes made when Bush sued Gore over the 2004 election was wrong”

2000, the decision was based on a suit Gore brought, and they were right to stop Gore from trying to steal the election with selective recounts…

“No. This is wrong. The ruling does not apply to any place that is in de facto control of the US government. It only refers to a territory that is in effective control of the US government, like Guantanamo.”

Oh please…. what rulings say doesn’t always demonstrate what they mean and/or show their effect. Why Gitmo and not another US base? Now we have this precedent, so next time it comes up why not?