Well it sounds as though they were not fine with the Secretary of the Navy - conducted as a neutral adversarial proceeding on the record with counsel provided the detainee - which is the major objection of the SC - so you need to have your argument with him.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3867067.stm
Justice Scalia said that the "carefree" court's "spurious" ruling on Guantanamo was a "wrenching departure from precedent" and "boldly extends the scope of the habeas statute to the four corners of the earth."
The consequence, he said, was "breathtaking." It enabled "an alien captured in a foreign theater of active combat to petition the Secretary of Defense." It brought the "cumbersome machinery of our domestic courts into military affairs".
Well it sounds as though they were not fine with the Secretary of the Navy - conducted as a neutral adversarial proceeding on the record with counsel provided the detainee - which is the major objection of the SC - so you need to have your argument with him.
I need more details on that
My guess is the liberal lawyers that invaded Guantanamo demanded habeas corpus within the US Federal judicial system. Not the military's. There could be no compromise between them and the Secretary of Navy who to my knowledge doesn't even get involved in such matters
You've got Ruth Bader Ginsberg on your side and David Souter who altered eminent domain laws
I have Justices Scalia and Roberts