[fightinJAG]

Just like his Shiite/Sunni "problem", he shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Habeas lawsuits involve. They don't have a thing to do with diet or reading material or any other such nonsense.

Oh yes they do! They shouldn't, but they do.

Thousands of habeas suits are filed by inmates every day, in every state of the union, claiming that their diet, their reading material, their mail status, their prison garb, their required haircut, their visitor status, etc. etc. etc. causes their imprisonment to be "unconstitutional."

McCain was exactly right here. Someone else needs to do some homework.

[gdani]

Oh yes they do! They shouldn't, but they do.

Thousands of habeas suits are filed by inmates every day, in every state of the union, claiming that their diet, their reading material, their mail status, their prison garb, their required haircut, their visitor status, etc. etc. etc. causes their imprisonment to be "unconstitutional."

Then they should be filing civil lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 -- NOT habeas actions. Habeas actions aren't used for such issues.

And if prisoners *are* mistakenly filing lawsuits using habeas (which would suggest they're filing pro se), this Supreme Court decision does nothing to change that, one way or the other.

I maintain that to suggest that the SCOTUS' decision in this case will lead to Gitmo detainees suing over diet, reading material, etc using habeas actions is, again, to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of habeas actions.