Replies

Your problem is that you and the US government presume to be true that which any form of "justice" would suggest they must prove. I quote from the decision:

In comparison [with the protections afforded the detainees in Eisentrager] the procedural protections afforded to the detainees in the CSRT hearings [at Guantanimo] are far more limited, and, we conclude, fall well short of the procedures and adversarial mechanisms that would eliminate the need for habeas corpus review. Although the detainee is assigned a “Personal Representative” to assist him during CSRT proceedings, the Secretary of the Navy’s memorandum makes clear that person is not the detainee’s lawyer or even his “advocate.” See App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 06– 1196, at 155, 172. The Government’s evidence is accorded a presumption of validity. Id., at 159. The detainee is allowed to present “reasonably available” evidence, id., at 155, but his ability to rebut the Government’s evidence against him is limited by the circumstances of his confinement and his lack of counsel at this stage. And although the detainee can seek review of his status determination in the Court of Appeals, that review process cannot cure all defects in the earlier proceedings. See Part V, infra.

If that is what SECNAV held, then I suggest you fume at the Secretary of the Navy for his blatant stupidity in the face of what was certain to be another Supreme Court review, and not the supreme Court who merely noted the inadequacy of the proceedings to establish the detainees status.

Fair is fair and a neutral adversarial process is a neutral adversarial process. Don't like the results, then tell Bush and his good ol' boys to stop putting their thumbs on the scales of justice. This desecration of anything that most of the western world regards as the basic minimum of due process is simply a provocation and an affront to the civilized world and the sooner we knock it off the easier it is going to be for us to get along with the world.

I am not against holding enemy POW's or charging and trying unlawful combattants. But do so in the light of day according due process to the accused.

Detainees are not on US soil and have purposely been kept out of the jurisdiction of US court

As this SC noted, the Constitution has long been viewed as a constraint on the power of the executive wherever in the world it operates. In the second place, as the SC noted, Guantanamo is under full and total de facto US government sovereignty. To claim Cuban sovereignty is to suggest that upon application of the Cuban government we would be compelled to hand over the detainees to Cuba. We would dispute that Cuba's sovereignty extends that far. You cannot have it both ways.

Captured in fighting off US soil

How do you know that? Have the capturing officers sworn to the manner of their capture under oath on the record in a manner subject to cross examination and review upon appeal? No, you don't know that at all. You just assume that what some government official tells you is true. Why do you trust them here when you don't trust the government to tell the truth on anything else?