Where does it end?

Does everyone who is captured on a battlefield by U.S. soldiers have a right to a habeas corpus hearing in Federal court?

Does he have a right to subpoena soldiers to testify in his habeas hearing?

Does he have a right to pre-hearing "discovery" -- i.e., can he compel the Department of Defense to ascertain the identities of the soldiers who witnessed his capture, so he can subpoena them?

Do the next-of-kin of everyone who is killed by U.S. soldiers in a theatre of war have a right to sue for deprivation of life without due process?

Is this any way to run a frickin' WAR?!

What about the "right's" of the World's #1 terrorist- bush has NONE ! IMPRISON bush- now!

Could the Republican party please pool its' pennies and purchase a set of male gonads?
A pair is preferably but Terrorism is really a minor threat so a single testicle should be enough.

Not "terrorists", but "suspected terrorists", as some have noted above. And not "prisoners of war". Prisoners of war have clearly defined rights under our laws and the Geneva Convention (to which we are a signatory, which makes it law). The prisoners at Guantanamo are labeled "unlawful combatants", whether they were captured in actual combat, fingered by a fueding tribal enemy to U.S. troops and hence detained, or turned over by the Bosnian police after the Bosnian courts found no legal reason to hold them (as is the case with the detainees whose case is the subject of the Supreme Court decision).

I have a list in my computer of 84 insurgency wars since 1850. Their average length is 11.7 years. With the good progress we have had in Iraq, I doubt that it will make it to the average before calming down. What we mostly need is patience to give it time to work itself out.
I am reminded of the old story about a king who wouldn't wait nine months for an heir to be born, so he decided that it would go faster if he put nine women on the job.

In one of the earlier Guantanamo cases, leading up to this ruling, a federal judge asked the lawyer representing the Bush administration the following series of hypotheticals (I'm paraphrasing, but the examples were these)

Judge: If an old woman in Sweden gives money to a charity that she thinks goes to feed Palestinian orphans, but in fact, some of that money goes to Hamas, does the Administration believe they would have the right to kidnap this woman in Sweden, fly her to Guantanamo, and hold her indefinitely as an enemy combatant without any right to habeas corpus?

Bush Admin Lawyer: Yes, we would have that right.

JUDGE: If an Irish teacher teaches English to a Saudi child in Ireland, who happens to be the nephew of a suspected Al Qaeda operative, but the teacher does not know this, does the Administration believe they have the right to kidnap this teacher, fly him to Guantanamo and hold him indefinitely as an enemy combatant without any right to habeas corpus?

Bush Admin Lawyer: Yes, we would have that right.

The chief prosecutor at Guantanamo, a Republican, a believer in the military commissions, resigned his post in protest, because his chain of command said the trials had to result in convictions, no matter what the evidence showed, and because they wanted to schedule the trials near the elections to help the GOP. He mentioned that the nazis were afforded far better due process at Nuerenburg. And he was not the first prosecutor to resign. The military judge in charge of the trials there was recently relieved of his post because he said that the defense attorneys as least had the right to know which of the evidence used against the defendents came as the result of torture.

These patriots stood up because they realize that our values, our checks and balances, and our constitution protect us far better than the Bush administration's war on terror-posturing ever will.

Actually, I think CNN's (Peter Arnett), and Jane Fonda did much of the damage we see today. Wars from the beginning of time had been to portray the other side as less than human. How many people cared during the second world war if the guy in a Berlin store was selling rifles or violins? Bombs Away. We didn't worry about Japanese people either, they were the enemy. McCain was a POW for five years; did he get a lawyer? So, we need to be reporting from the enemy side to gain perspective? I suppose the libs could argue that Hitler had a point of view too. Now, I don't agree with HOW this "War" that isn't a war got started, but we were years after Viet Nam getting a full accounting of our POW's. This "war" is different, because the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, which has always been the case. Doesn't it strike anyone as logical that if the OTHER side was worried about the rights of their non-combatents, they could have put their fighting forces in uniforms or outfits that clearly separated them from the innocents? That's why everyone else wears a uniform in competitive or war scenarios.
Can anyone imagine a football game where everyone is dressed alike? If these "suspected terrorists" were somewhere they shouldn't have been, then they were either the enemy or weren't watching CNN.

"All the people on here babbling about "rights" and the Constitution have no understanding of American law, international law, or military history.

There is no legal or historical right for prisoners of war..."

...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

These rights don't come from laws or documents. They are (or were) self-evident, blatant and undeniable. No man, be he President, King, General, Dictator can take those away.

I beleive that we have two weak choices. Is this the best America can produce?

There are three co-equal branches of government: the legislative, the executive and the judicial. As one of those three co-equal branches, the courts carry as much authority as the Congress and the President.

The legislative branch passes laws, the executive branch administers laws, and the judicial branch reviews laws to make sure they do not violate our constitutional framework. So, it is true that the courts cannot legislate. They can, however, determine that a law or practice of the government is unconstitutional and provide recommendation as to a remedy, which is what they have done in this case.

James Madison, the principal author of the US Constitution, upon introducing the Bill of Rights, referred to the courts as "the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive."

I'm curious that some conservatives, as advocates of limited government, question this idea. Limited government is what the separation of powers is all about.

So, then, the way forward is backward. I see. We are not to try to improve upon that which came before. We are not to attempt to elevate ourselves even the smallest bit.

And, personally, I would rather be shot than confined indefinitely, 'harshly interrogated' over and over, with no real hope of ever being released, or even having my story heard. I would rather be dead.

The right to a trial is an inalienable right. For me, that is Period. If we believe these men have done something that causes them to deserve being locked up, then we need to bring the evidence we have to a court and *prove it*.

Otherwise, even the innocent in Guantanamo will bomb us when they get free. Waterboarding, incarceration, and being treated like an animal are things that are sure to make anyone your enemy. If it happened even to you, you would doubtless hate the US for everything that it stood for by the time it was over. If they did it to your family members, it would be the same.

If we want to show these extremists that we are not what they say, or at least show the rest of the world that we are not what the extremists say, then we need to act like it. Otherwise, eventually the rest of the world will look upon the US the way we once looked upon Saddam...and take appropriate measures.

Come on people, if you always do what you always did , you'er gonna always get what you always got in this case Bush III and we all the people can not afford Bush III Mccain will be Bush III (yes Obama can)!!!!

All the people on here babbling about "rights" and the Constitution have no understanding of American law, international law, or military history.

There is no legal or historical right for prisoners of war to have civilian-type due process (including habeas corpus), for many good reasons. And irregulars (not in uniform, not fighting for a recognized state) have even fewer rights than prisoners of war: traditionally, they were summarily shot. Our Guantanamo detainees are probably the best-treated prisoners of their type in history.

There are probably a few innocent men in Guantanamo -- which is awful -- but awful things are common and unavoidable in war. There is no way to abolish that awfulness; the question is what awful consequences *to ourselves* our liberal foolishness may lead to down the road.

Are we cowards, that we will give up that which we claim to believe in, simply to feel safer? Haven't the terrorists ideology defeated American ideology the instant we begin to alter the very tenets we claim to have founded our country on?

What about the decades of Cold War, and the threat of nuclear annihilation? We stood firm for decades under that shadow -- the shadow of the death of everyone, and everything -- without feeling the need to disassemble our Constitution or alter international agreements.

But now, a bunch of yahoos fly a few planes into a couple of buildings, killing 2000 people (a tragedy of the highest caliber, don't get me wrong), and suddenly we effectively become the Cold War version of the USSR.

As long as we allow fear of these people to change us into that which we claim to despise...then we have lost already. We can kill as many of them as we like -- they still beat us, by forcing us down to their level. As for me...give me Liberty. Or give me death.

"...We still believe in human rights, the presumption of innocence, habeus corpus, and other similar American values, don't we?"

Oh, haven't you heard? Since September 11th, countless aspects of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights (not to mention the Geneva Conventions) have been selectively suspended by our current administration; in their great wisdom, Bush and Co. have deemed those key American principles to be archaic inconveniences they can blow off at will.

Habeus corpus? Sorry, too much paperwork.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Ideoligically inconvenient.

I wish we had time to pursue those articles of impeachment; it would be an excellent first step in restoring the rule of law.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Ttay have no right at all .

Ttay have no right at all .

The whole premise that we are failing to win the war on terror is absurd. Americans have short memories and demand too much instant gratification. If we show our enemies that we are weak, they will eventually beat us. Remember what the first lesson is for an Iranian Kindergarten class...."Death to America!"

"the rights of Terrorists" my ass.

"the Rights of SUSPECTED Terrorists" more like it.

You publish a blog on the web, it's not like space is an issue, why can't the Post get headlines right?

What in the world is wrong with these commenters? These prisoners are enemy combatants caught on the field of battle while engaged in acts of war against our troops. Proof is needed? This is insane. Do these people think bringing General Petraeus to testify has any purpose? Just what is wrong with a military tribunal?

They would be convicted, most likely, that is what is wrong! Perhaps the bleeding heart liberals would like to see these enemies of America freed because we are violating their human rights. When the liberals invite some of these who will obviously be freed because of lack of evidence to the same level of proof needed for civilian courts, into their homes, then we will know they are insane.

Bush's earliest mistake among many was in NOT hanging 9/11 around the necks of the democrat establishment that enable it. He didn't blame anyone other than the perps. Yet he is casually called a "nazi" a "liar" a "war criminal" by the same side that did and continues to do nothing about terrorism other than dismiss it, excuse it, or blame America for it. The '93 trade center bombing case was made a civil case with a few prosecutions. Clinton failed to allow open-season on Bin Laden - after the the first trade center attack, after the Cole, after the Khobar Towers bombing, after Somalia. Jamie Garelick refused to allow intel sharing between agencies that might have allowed for discovering the 9/11 plot. Torricelli's "Deutch Guidelines" further damaged intelligence gathering abilities. Put simply, the relativists aren't exaclty against America. But they're not for it either. If there is a terrorist attack nine months into Obama's presidency - no doubt the left and probably leading dems will NOT take the high road and blame the terrorists - they'll blame "Bushco" - and American foreign policy. And they'll proclaim such blame gleefully.

Some of the reviews mentioned that Bush is ignoring the Constitution and arresting people because he calls them a terrorist. I'm not here to defend him, but I would like to see some solid evidence that these type of actions are actually taking place. Because I simply don't believe it.

Also, someone mentioned the separation of powers. Well, the Supreme Court doesn't have the power to legislate. The courts simply have the power to say something is legal/illegal and that's it. They have no power to tell us what course of action must be taken. I'm not sure where the idea of allowing terrorist suspects rights to the courts came from, but if it was a mandate from the Supreme Court, then it's absolutely meaningless. The courts have no legislative or executive power! They only rule on what is right or wrong.

I do have a question, though. What terrorist suspects are being discussed here? Any particular group, or suspects as a whole?

Why the misleading title?.. This article has little to do with the "rights of terrorists", but rather, it is about the rights that should be given to human beings incarcerated as assumed terrorists. Who picked them up? Why? What is the evidence against them?

As it stands, these imprisoned people have no recourse to defend themselves. They could be innocent, they could be guilty. We do not know.

It might satisfy the appetite for revenge of a few who don't really care if people of another country, another culture, another language, another religion, end up in Gitmo.. just as long as someone who looks like the perpetrator of 9-11 rot in jail. Who cares if they are guilty or innocent. Let's just teach these people a lesson, all of them who are not as white as we are, who are not Christians, who don't speak English, who don't dress like we do.

It's troubling to know that we live in a society that can allow potentially innocent people to be held prisoners just because we are powerful enough to decree that we can, just because it makes some of us feel good.. and we'll vote to keep feeling good.

Dear Sir:

I understand that you wish to use the 'comments' as a sort of free-for-all, in which anyone can say anything. But it seems really dangerous when you re-print those comments wholesale, especially the ones that contain simple factual errors, like the description of Obama as

"... A man with a Muslim background and terrorist friends and Al Quaida and Hammas endorsing him?
A twenty year association with a minister and Black Theologian church that preaches hate America,Jews and Whites?..."

All the Reverend Wright stuff aside (though it bears saying that Wright never preached Hate, just anger), it seems irresponsible of you as a 'journalist' to not question or point out the ridiculous attempts by the right to portray Obama as a terrorist. He's not a Muslim and has no Muslim bias or background, other than living briefly temporarily in a place where there were more Muslims than there are in the US. He has no 'terrorist friends,' and (not that anyone should care) Obama has repeatedly repudiated Hamas' endorsement, which should've been made clear when he kowtowed to AIPAC, and Al Qaeda's number 2 man actually endorsed McCain.

Don't you feel like you're being at all irresponsible by allowing blatant lies (and things that you, as a professional, should *know* are lies) to appear under your byline?

Even the Nazis got trials at Nuremburg, specifically BECAUSE they violated the rules of warfare and the moral standards of civilization. Now we hold people indefinitely without trial for the same sort of charges. Surely Joe Bob terrorist, even if he is an 'unlawful combatant', has not done anything worse than the likes of Herman Goering...

The rights of terrorists?

How about the rights of human beings who are alleged terrorists until tried and found guilty? We still believe in human rights, the presumption of innocence, habeus corpus, and other similar American values, don't we?

The issue isn't the "right of terrorists." The issue is separation of powers as outlined in the US Constitution. This is about not allowing the Executive branch to make unilateral decisions about who is or isn't a terrorist, and then locking them up indefinitely. By requiring the Judiciary to have a role in this process, the Supreme Court is merely upholding one the central tenets of our democracy, ensuring that too much power never rests in one branch of government.

It seems clear to me that McCain opposes the U.S. Constitution and supports fascism while Obama opposes fascism and supports the U.S. Constitution.
It's time to end the fascist take-over and restore the bill of rights by repealing the Patriot Act. Something McCain would NEVER even consider.

Shouldn't the article be title "....on the Rights of Terrorist Suspects"

Apparently not all of the detainees are actually terrorists. In fact, some reputable accounts indicate the majority aren't.

This has nothing to do with the rights of terrorists since you can't claim they are terroristas unless you prove the fact under law. Otherwise the government could (and does) pick anyone up off the street they wanted and imprison them for any reason whatsoever just by claiming they are a terrorist. Think it couldn't happen? Guess again, it already has. Bush imprisoned US citizens without lawyers or trials with no evidence simply by mouthing the word "terrorist". Next a "terorist" will be anyone who opposes his policies. The only reason thisw is an issue is because Bush and his ilk are too stupid to protect us without wiping the constituion under their boots at the same time. Elect someone smarter...

Dear American Voters, reporters and political professionals, and let us believe in Family, Friends, Fellows, Faith. Funds, Foundation, Fun, with Fairness & Freedom and without Fear, Favor, and Failure. This is for Mr. Jiulani.

Hon. Senator McCain and Obama, besides each having many attributes and characteristics. The critical differences between the two of these presidential presumptive nominees are as under:

1. Presidential "Temperament and Composer".
2. Little Washington "insider Versus outsider" experience.
3. "Vision and mission" for our nation future rather than past.
4. American policies, " first U.S.A Centric" than any other country [ ies ] centric.

In my professional opinion Senator Obama leads in all above qualities.

The need of our next movement and generation is a change. The Change in " past Washington and its Leadership". A change we can believe in and not the seductive, deceptive, and confusing slogan of "leader we can believe in" [? Effexor ?".

Our Greatgrand Nation has to address many present and future challenges and start with new clean "Slate and Senator".

God Bless America. its diverse people, and our Greatgrand Nation.

Our Greatgrand Nation is needs the CHANGE at every level and for long time.

I am sure Senator Obama with the help of Senator Clinton and her supporters, can deliver that CHANGE.

Please stay involved, stay engaged, and stay informed. Please do not allow any seduction, deception, and or confusion by some partisan media and leaders effect your vote [ Psychological Terrorism ]..

Yours truly,

COL. [retd] A.M.Khajawall
Disabled American Veteran
Forensic psychiatrist, Las Vegas

PS: Please talk about the " Presidential Temperament And Caliber " of our presumptive presidential Nominees. Thanks.