If "illegal combatants" have the right of habeus corpus, why don't prisoners-of-war?
A simply astounding decision, whose only rational reason for being is not borne out of a concern for Constitutional liberties, but simply in order to hamstring the military and the Commander-in-Chief.
First, that is not what the decision said. What the decision said is that you have to hold a hearing to establish that they are illegal combattants.
Second, all that was established was that they have a right to a habeus hearing, which isn't much. He or his attorney files a writ petition with a competent federal judge, the department of justice replies that a military tribunal was held and found him to be an unlawful combattant and consigned him to confinement at Guantanamo for further disposition, and the federal judge says petition denied.
Of course, if the US military was silly enough not to set up said tribunals - like they have held since forever - and cannot establish that a hearing was held, then the judge might just grant the writ petition, and someone will have to show up with the person and state what they are going to do with him.
That is ok with me. For all you and I know it could be your son or my neighbor locked up in Guantanimo. They have never had the opportunity to tell, even a military judge, otherwise.
"but simply in order to hamstring the military and the Commander-in-Chief."
As the bard would say "First, we kill all the lawyers..."