[Red Steel]

They are terrorists captured on the battlefield, and they are not covered by the Geneva Convention since they fight for no nation. This means that they may wage perpetual war against the US. And our only practical choice is to keep them in detention until they are deemed not a national security risk, which could be a very long time. If this were a conventional war against an enemy nation, the soldiers would show allegiance to their nation and will surrender if they are order to by their national commanders after they are defeated. Again, the distinction here is that these Islamic terrorists will not end their fight against the US because it's a fanatical religious calling to them.

Civilian courts are impractical to handle these terrorists as are large numbers of Prisoners of War (POWs). Would you be so eager to put them in our justice system if the GITMO terrorists numbered in the tens of thousands as have enemy POWs have in the past? No, that would be impractical. The viewpoint you are taking is the same as the Democrats have taken, that we are not at war and that the terrorists are just common criminals for our court system. Do you believe in the same premise as the Democrats do here?

So here we are. The Supreme Court has commanded us to treat foreign terrorists captured in foreign lands, held in detention on foreign soil, like US citizens who have committed crimes with due process of US law. This decision by the Supreme Court will get more innocent people killed because Kennedy wants to play kissy-face with Euros in some Salzberg, Austria school who apparently have the same viewpoint as Kennedy has.

[AndyJackson]

They are terrorists captured on the battlefield, and they are not covered by the Geneva Convention since they fight for no nation. This means that they may wage perpetual war against the US. And our only practical choice is to keep them in detention until they are deemed not a national security risk, which could be a very long time. .....

You and your knee jerk unthinking brain dead version of conervatism is so full of it I don't know where to start. You guys all start off, apparently, not having an f'in clue what a hebeas corpus hearing is about. That is where the US government has to demonstrate under oath and cross examination that the scumbag terrorist they intend to hold for the duration is actually a scumbag terrorist and not a US citizen caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is all, that is it, no more. The US government is simply required to provide some evidence that the scumbag terrorist is actually a scumbag terrorist, case closed, end of story, the guy gets to rot in detention for the durations.

So here we are. The Supreme Court has commanded us to treat foreign terrorists captured in foreign lands, held in detention on foreign soil, like US citizens who have committed crimes with due process of US law

It has commanded no such thing. It has only required that the scumbags and specifically the scumbags being held in Guantanamo have the ability challenge their status as scumbag terrorists in a neutral adversarial hearing.

Furthermore, if you unplug your ears and listen, the reason we have this is because the last time the SC said that there has to be a neutral adversarial proceeding, the Congress passed the DTA and the Secretary of the Navy then wrote implementing regulations that made it, not a neutral adversarial proceeding, but a kanagaroo court. My constitution does not empower suits who never served a day in uniform, acting as a secretary of the navy, to hold kangaroo courts.

You want to get angry with someone for precipitating all this. Get angry with the suit. It looks like it is all on him.