J,

Soldier is asked for proof said terrorist is an EC... Soldier says, "He shot at me." CO shrugs shoulders and moves on...

Damn, that was hard.

And as John pointed out, many in Gitmo were simply dimed out by their neighbors to collect reward money. They should be able to argue their indefinite detention.

It's interesting you believe so strongly in detention without proof/hearings because collecting such is "hard." Our country wouldn't stand for such cavalier detention of one of our citizens and we specifically don't detain indefinitely domestically.

Again, it's sad that you hate this country and the system of government the Founding Fathers set up.

So true Thebs. He's praying for a terrorist attack so we can start detaining anyone we want. Despite his argument proven to be a straw man and a total fallacy, he continues to scream "BATTLEFIELD CSI!!!"

He's like a child who's had his toy taken away.

It's clear J hates America, the courts, democracy and the system our Founding Fathers set up.

No, I admit there may be people in Gitmo who aren't terrorists -- as there have been many examples of... If we want to hold them indefinitely, let's make sure we have the right guys.

Sorry it's okay for you to jail someone without the basic hearing to prove whether or not they're truly a terrorist. It's actually quite pathetic and smacks in the face of your right wing fathers.

What's scary is your seething hope for a U.S. city to get nuked so you can be proved right. Perhaps it's you who should be jailed indefinitely.

As Ben Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

So again, why do you hate this country and the Constitution?

Once again you show how foolish you are. You openly admit your hyperbole of massive POW lawsuits and CSI units dispatched to the ground is only a might.

I'm sorry that the Bush Admin has hijacked the Constitution and international law in such a way that the USSC has to rule on non-US citizens being given Habeaus rights. It's really a shame. But when you change the game so completely, new legal territory must be forged. Make them POW's and stick to the Geneva Conventions and we wouldn't be in this situation.

You get one or the other. Sorry you don't understand this. I'll draw you a picture if that'll help.

And I know it's fun to call liberals "terrorist lovers," yet it's liberals fighting to uphold the Constitution. It's liberals who want to prove that the men in Gitmo are actually terrorists. It's liberals who want to put these people on trial and charge them for their crimes.

Really, why do you hate America, the Constitution and our system of government?

Spoken like a true idiot who hasn't read the ruling. It's on the USSC's website...

The ruling doesn't apply to prisoners of war. Are you too stupid to realize that? The ruling applies to those classified as enemy combatants -- that legal gray area the Bush Admin has used to hold these guys indefinitely.

If you want to hold someone in the midst of a war, you must classify them as POW's and apply the Geneva Conventions. If you don't want to treat your prisoners with the dignity of the Conventions, and thus create a new classification so you can torture, you've got to send them to Fed Court to argue their detention.

If you want to keep looking like a fool by arguing a topic that you are not familiar with, feel free. It's rather comical.