I prefer to leave that decision to the military, where it belongs. We cannot try each detainee as if they were common criminals. Protections afforded criminals are impossible to apply to unlawful combatants simply because of the circumstances of their arrests. Not to mention they don't qualify for those protections anyway.
This will go down as one of the worst rulings by a Supreme Court EVER.
hmm... I just had a chance to read Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent:
” So who has won? Not the detainees. The Court’s analysis leaves them with only the prospect of further litigation to determine the content of their new habeas right, followed by further litigation to resolve their particular cases,followed by further litigation before the D. C. Circuit— where they could have started had they invoked the DTA
procedure. Not Congress, whose attempt to “determine— through democratic means—how best” to balance the security of the American people with the detainees’ liberty
interests, see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S. 557, 636 (2006) (BREYER, J., concurring), has been unceremoniously brushed aside. Not the Great Writ, whose majesty is
hardly enhanced by its extension to a jurisdictionally quirky outpost, with no tangible benefit to anyone. Not the rule of law, unless by that is meant the rule of lawyers,
who will now arguably have a greater role than military and intelligence officials in shaping policy for alien enemy combatants. And certainly not the American people, who today lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.
I respectfully dissent.”
I hadn’t really thought of it in those terms. Perhaps my initial comment was a bit premature and misplaced.