No they didn't. They sided against one form of handling these terrorists. The ruling doesn't go nearly as far as people think.
From Scotusblog
The Court expressly declared that it was not questioning the government's power to hold Salim Ahmed Hamdan "for the duration of active hostilities" to prevent harm to innocent civilians. But, it said, "in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction."That quotation was from the main opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens. That opinion was supported in full by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote separately, in an opinion partly joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter. Kennedy's opinion did not support all of Stevens' discussion of the Geneva Convention, but he did find that the commissions were not authorized by military law or that Convention.
Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the dissenters, each wrote an opinion.
Good post, nice to know that Scalia ended up on the right side. My apologies Antonin.
That's even better. The terrorists say they won't surrender until all of us "infidels" are dead. That should be a long time. The guy will die in our custody.
Was Ginsburg even awake during these hearings?...not that it matters...
...but that seems to leave the door open for SCOTUS itself to define "active hostilities" and when they have ended, does it not??
"Kennedy's opinion did not support all of Stevens' discussion of the Geneva Convention, but he did find that the commissions were not authorized by military law or that Convention."
Regardless, he is off the dinner list.
I wish people would keep this in mind.
From now on, no trials. Just hold them.
"The ruling doesn't go nearly as far as people think"
It goes far enough.
All your "insight" into this ruling is pollyannish whoopsy-doodle.
This ruling is a disaster for our nation. Had such a ruling occurred during WWII (and had been heeded), it would have completely altered the course of history, as this one will (along with other recent SC disasters). That is because the SC simply has too much power.
Had the SC had the kind of power it has today during the WBTS, we would now be two separate third-world nations. Congress and the SC tried to derail Lincoln's war (and subsequent peace) plans, but Lincoln, in large part, ignored them (witness the "pocket-veto").
George Bush does not have the fortitude nor the popular backing to make the right decisions. Lincoln did not have the popular backing, but he definitely had the fortitude to do what was the only right thing.
To him the nation's survival trumped the loftier aspects of it's institutions (or political parties). That was once called common sense. It does not exist today.
We will (or let others) destroy the nation quibbling over intricacies and technical points about what the nation is.
Even FDR understood this with such "unconstitutional" measures as interning the Japanese-Americans during WWII. It wasn't constitutionally kosher, but it was the only prudent thing to do at that point: We could argue the finer points and issue the mea-culpas after the threat to our nation's existence was past.
Lawyers are TRULY going to be the death of this nation.
What we need now is a Lincolnesque declaration from Bush to our Military: "What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship."
It is certainly a risk.. that is true. The alternative, however, is no risk at all. It is certain: The certain death of our republic, and the subsequent death of all it's finer points over which we now quibble.
This ruling further erodes the President's, and thus the military's, moral(e) and legal resolve to prosecute this war to victory.
Actually, that is NOT what the opinion says. What the opinion says is that Hamza did not raise that as an issue, and the Court would not address it. In other words, they are reserving the right to throw that out as well, if they have a majority at some later date. This majority is shameless. We've had military tribunals ordered by the President ever since 1776. Now they are throwing them out to satisfy their own partisan bloodlust.