The case has nothing to do with the Geneva convention. It has to do with the US Constitution, which specifically says that habeas can only be suspended upon invasion or rebellion. It's high time Americans and their politicians stopped being scared candyazzes all too ready to suspend the constitution anytime someone says 'boo".
But it also says that the federal govt will follow ratified treaties signed by the US GOVT. The Geneva conventions is one of them and in that the Law of Armed Conflict is clearly defined these few as "Unlawfull combatants". Again this isn't about Habeas. I'll have to actually read the ruling to see what the judges said....I admit I havn't. Either way Geneva is a signed treaty and we are obliged to follow it under the constitutional powers afforded congress. These guys aren't the same as petty criminals. They aren't required to be read miranda rights. Like I said Franklins miss quote doesn't apply here. No one is giving up freedom. If anything we are following the constitution.
A link would be handy but from the orriginal cut and paste it would seem that the SC has only determined they have the right to challenge there status in court. This wouldn't say they are being held unlawfully or that their rights were infringed apon. If a court says they are "unlawfull Combatants" well then there's no question.....they are.
I don't think they have a leg to stand on.....typically these guys were engaged in armed conflict with US forces while not wearing a uniform or any country. They under the Geneva conventions are stuck with what they are labeled. The US has a constitutional requirment to follow through with that reguardless of what you think of these guys.
