WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY,do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Don't think the Gitmo detainees qualify as either U.S. citizens, or 'posterity' (children) of U.S. citizens.

I would certainly like to read that full 'opinion' of the Supreme Court, because it appears that most of them must have gotten their educations in England with some of their recent off the wall decisions (such as this one and the Kelo decision, just to name two).

It appears to me another 'political' decision moving toward that 'one world government' of the Senior Bush's vision and all those serving now and in the past on the Hill who are globalists and answer to the U.N., rather than Americans answering to the Constitution.

And appears our next two 'corporate' party candidates are in the former, not the later, as is most of the federal judiciary at the present time.

The rules are markedly different in the civilian court system. They prohibit the sort of effective techniques that military law allows.

Let me ask you this. Why does this particular war merit treating illegal combatants differently from the way we've treated them in every other war since the country started? What about the Constitution has changed? What about the way we detain prisoners?

The same way they do now. All this decision does is give these prisoners a day in court to determine whether the government has enough evidence of crimes to warrant keeping them in custody, as opposed to keeping them locked up forever. It doesn't affect the interrogation process.

"That’s a prohibition."

Nevertheless, it isn't.

Therefore, it makes no sense to take detainees. Decisions decisions. If I were a soldier, I know which one _I'd_ make.

No, it doesn't. You cannot say that each and every person in Gitmo necessarily did your #5. Maybe some did, but most didn't. You're generalizing to fluff up the narrative.

"As for getting useful information, spoots, yes it did."

Use words more carefully, boy! You said the decision "prohibits", when it does no such thing. It may, indirectly, make less likely, but it certainly does not "prohibit" getting info.

Now, of course, they have been shoehorned into them as "illegal combatants" and have been granted greater rights than POWs of signatory nations.

As for getting useful information, spoots, yes it did. Detainees can immediately file a habeus petition (something, by the way, that even US citizens in prison must wait to do until every other option is exhausted) which puts them into the court system and out of the purview of military rules.