[steve-b]

All that was done in that case was to change the mechanism of due process (from civil trial to military tribunal). No attempt was made to suggest that the government didn't have to prove guilt at all.

[Japedo]

however ARTICLE III, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 4 says, THE TRIAL OF ALL CRIMES, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT; SHALL BE BY JURY; AND SUCH TRIAL...etc... Being a responsibility of the JUDICIARY...how the USC could have come up with that ruling and squared it with the CONSTITUTION?

"The Constitution itself never yields to treaty or enactment; it neither changes with time, nor does it in theory bend to the force of circumstances." - Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 120

[jwalsh07]

All that was done in that case was to change the mechanism of due process (from civil trial to military tribunal). No attempt was made to suggest that the government didn't have to prove guilt at all.

Hardly. SCOTUS recognised that citizens of the United States can be classified as enemy combatants. International Law recognises that enemy combatants can be held for the duration of hostilities. The Geneva Convention acknowledges the fact that terrorists, saboteurs, can be held incommunicado for the duration.

Habeus corpus, in the case of any of these three assholes, has not been suspended. That means he can petition for judicial review and perhaps you guys will get your wish. He'll be charged, released on bond and who knows where we go from there?