Montana Headlines is a reasonable sort whose opinions I respect even when I disagree with them, which is pretty often.
That's why I hate to see him get caught up in the right-wing response to the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision. I'm no lawyer and haven't read the decision in full. If you want to get up to speed, here's one of a series of posts by a good lawyer who has.
I just have a few gut reactions by a citizen who cares about freedom.
1. Without doubt, the founding fathers considered habeas corpus one of the oldest and most fundamental of all human rights -- so basic that they mentioned it in the Constitution only to outline conditions under which it might be suspended. The Supreme Court justices did not rule as they did in order to extend rights to "implacable foes." They did it to allow people who claim they aren't our foes a chance to prove they are telling the truth.
2. Justice Kennedy looked beyond existing precedents because he found, quite rightly, that no real precedent applies. Guantanamo is in Cuba but under total U.S. control. Many of the prisoners detained there were not caught on any battlefield, and none of them were in uniform. Moreover, we know for a fact that innocent people were held there. It would be nice to think that only the guilty remain, but when you consider that they are being held by the same government that managed Social Security and the Katrina disaster, conservatives should be the first to acknowledge that innocent people may still be there.
3. Rules on detaining combatants aren't meant to punish enemy soldiers because being an enemy soldier is not a crime. The rules are meant to keep soldiers out of combat until the war ends. But when the war will never end in any definable way, and when detainees claim they never fought us in the first place, the case for eternal detention with no charges and no relief falls to pieces. We already have a precedent for holding soldiers for no clear reason long after the reason for their detention has dissolved. It's what Stalin did after World War II. Stalin is not my role model.
4. Montana Headlines is just flat wrong when he see the Supreme Court ruling as an attempt by justices to control "the conduct of war." The court's role is to determine what legal protections apply to those who have been removed from the scene of the war and who claim they are being held unjustly. The court simply held that those prisoners ought to be able to go in front of a judge and make their case. I find it troubling, and hard to believe, that any American would deny them that chance.