Those are two separate cases - Hamdi made it's way through a SCOTUS decision, Hamdan is on the way there.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 344 F. Supp. 2d 152 (DDC 2004)
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5393a.pdf
Wikipedia has a good Hamdan v. Rumsfeld summary.
That case will be heard by SCOTUS, probably in March.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 US 507 (2004) votes broke down as ...
Justice O'Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer, concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. Pp. 14-15.Justice Souter, joined by Justice Ginsburg, concluded that Hamdi's detention is unauthorized, but joined with the plurality to conclude that on remand Hamdi should have a meaningful opportunity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant. Pp. 2-3, 15.
O'Connor, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Kennedy and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Scalia's and Thomas's dissents are polar opposites, believe it!
That part does NOT suprise me.
I am suprised as to how each dissented. IOW I figured Thomas for the libertarian one, not Scalia.