Habeus Corpus has never in the history of the US applied to enemy combatants, legal or otherwise. It is only at this time in history where the "loyal" opposition has decided that by pretending HC does include enemy combatants they have something with which to attack a sitting President at time of war.
The new law is nothing but a reitteration of powers understood to belong to the President under his war powers given in the Constitution. This law originated to prohibit US courts from inserting themselves into the conduct of the war, conduct which is clearly part of the Presidents powers, again as provided for in the Constitution.
The courts have taken upon themselves, despite two hundred years of precident, the power to decide how enemy combatants are handled and has attempted to provide them legal recourse through our own legal system. The Congress has the Constitutional power to define the extent of the Court's power and is clearly attempting to stop the Court's attempt to take power clearly belonging to the President.
Again, never in our history have we provided these rights to enemy combatants and at no time in history or in international law has there been any requirement to find enemy combatant's "guilty" of being enemy combatants in a court of law, nor has there ever been a restriction on how long these enemy combatants can be restrained other than until the war is over.
So, what are the real changes? None. The Congress is attempting to reassert the balance of powers as defined by the Constitution. It is those that have decided that new "privledges and rights" should apply to those that in any other war would have been summarily executed as spies.
Those of you that think this is all about you and your rights need to put back on your aluminum foil hats and go back to looking for the Black helicopters that always seem to follow you.
