These prisoners already have legal protections as enemy combatants under military trial as required by the court itself, legislated by Congress, and signed by the President. After all of these legal and representative steps were taken, the Supreme Court directly contradicted it's own stance. From the dissent:
"A mere two Terms ago in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld... four Members of today's five-Justice majority joined an opinion saying the following: "Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority [for trial by military commission] he believes necessary." . . . "Turns out they were just kidding. For in response, Congress, at the President's request, quickly enacted the Military Commissions Act, emphatically reasserting that it did not want these prisoners filing habeas petitions." . . . "What the Court apparently means is that the political branches can debate, after which the Third Branch will decide." . . . "What competence does the Court have to second-guess the judgment of Congress and the President on such a point? None whatever. But the Court blunders in nonetheless. Henceforth, as today's opinion makes unnervingly clear, how to handle enemy prisoners in this war will ultimately lie with the branch that knows least about the national security concerns that the subject entails."
Slashdot Mirror
These prisoners already have legal protections as enemy combatants under military trial as required by the court itself, legislated by Congress, and signed by the President. After all of these legal and representative steps were taken, the Supreme Court directly contradicted it's own stance. From the dissent:
"A mere two Terms ago in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld... four Members of today's five-Justice majority joined an opinion saying the following: "Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority [for trial by military commission] he believes necessary."
.
.
.
"Turns out they were just kidding. For in response, Congress, at the President's request, quickly enacted the Military Commissions Act, emphatically reasserting that it did not want these prisoners filing habeas petitions."
.
.
.
"What the Court apparently means is that the political branches can debate, after which the Third Branch will decide."
.
.
.
"What competence does the Court have to second-guess the judgment of Congress and the President on such a point? None whatever. But the Court blunders in nonetheless. Henceforth, as today's opinion makes unnervingly clear, how to handle enemy prisoners in this war will ultimately lie with the branch that knows least about the national security concerns that the subject entails."
Check your facts:
1 14:@@@L&summ2=m&
We are at war.
Congress passed the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" on October 11, 2002.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00
For a conservative sources, I suggest:
The Federalist Patriot
National Review Online
Above all: Read, watch and listen! C-SPAN is invaluable for exposure to ideas and viewpoints that one would not seek out for himself.