There are two sad things about the ruling by the Supreme Court. The first is that it took so long to get here. Should people be taken prisoner at the whim of the administration, held for as long as the administration decides without any charges being preferred, and then tried when the administration feels the need, using rules that they themselves established? Most thinking people long ago decided that this was unreasonable, that the Bush Administration's protestations that we should "trust them" to do the right thing, "trust them" that these are terrorists (without providing any proof whatsoever), were absurd on their face. It is sad that it took so long, against such staunch opposition, to reach this fairly obvious conclusion.

The other sad thing is that the three justices on the court who most profess "original intent," who claim to be conservatives in the clearest definition of the word--concerned with "conserving" the "true" meaning of the Constitution--are the ones who voted against the Bush Administration's huge reach for unfettered executive power and attempt to unbalance the checks and balances on which our nation was founded. I find it hard to believe that Madison, or Jefferson, or Hamilton would have felt this vast expansion of Exectuvie power to be within the "original intent" of their classic document. It saddens me immensely that Alito, Thomas, and Scalia disagree. Radicals, possibly; certainly not conservatives. (Of course Scalia has demonstrated many times his willingness to toss out his principles in order to grind a personal axe, such as his dissent on the homosexual ruling, or his judgement in Bush v. Gore.)

Other than that, perhaps at last the tide has turned, and we can regain our national honor, and at least some of the international respect and admiration that this administration has frittered away.

This administration hasn't just "frittered away" our national honor, it has thrown it away as if it were infectious waste, in the process bringing into sharp focus every detestable shortcoming of the 'conservative' cast of mind. This ruling is the first faint glimmer of light at the end of the Bush II nightmare.

We cannot look at the decision that won with 5 votes as the most important thing.

Rather, we must look at the shocking fact that 4 justices - Roberts did not vote here but voted the same way at the apppellate level - those who are the ones the republicans now in power are putting in office - are willing to vote against this decision.

*We're only one vote short, and barely that with Kennedy often joining them, from this radical right-wing change*.

We need to be far more worried, in my opinion, about the future direction of the court over these 4 than we need to celebrate the narrow victory as the traditional justices hold off the assault.

Bush could get another appointment. We need to really pay attention to this.

Craig is right about the threat posed by the four radical-right justices. But there's an easy answer to that: We just need to elect a president of our own persuasion, then have those four guys assassinated so that our new president can fill the vacancies.

.....Oh, sorry. I was channeling Ann Coulter for a second there.

This is a great decision, but as others here have touched on, there still is great trouble. And this decision might have no effect on what's happening now and the near future. Our Congress is debating meaningless "support the troops/president" resolutions and anti-flag burning amendments. The Court not only has four justices who seem fine with the suspension of habeas and unlimited executive power, one of them (Thomas) went out of his way for the first time in his 15 years on the bench to read in dissent to yesterday's decision. This is what he cares about. Our President and executive openingly deride a free press, while leading us in endless war that is at best incompetance, at worse crimes against humanities.

Its great the Court gave this decision, but what does it matter? I have no faith Bush will actually give these people an actual, public, fair trial. No faith he will shut down Gitmo and all the horrific practices done in our name. And no one will hold them accountable. Not Congress, not the democrats, not the media, not the voters, not even the Court.

Woo-hoo, way to go Supreme Court. Yay.

And yet he keeps on flying, which he probably will continue doing untill the end of his second term. The question is why? After lying, spying, misleading the american people and the world, why do you let him go on?

The Supreme Court decision also stated that it is Congress that has the authority, not the President, to decide how these men will be tried.

Karl Rove, I'm sure, has already devised legislation to be introduced around the end of September giving the President the authority to deal with detainees as he sees fit.

In congressional races across the country Democrats who voted against the legislation will be painted as pro terrorist and the gullible public will vote in a Republican majority once again.

"with CONVENTIONal W is dum" ?

or by television 'sit-com'?

or by 'Duvalier' proclamation?

"SOMETHIN'S HAPPININ HERE..... and the man with the Gun over there" has us dumbyafounder with Justice and Freedom and Liberty for who?

jp

Given the propensity of this Administration to write signing statements giving itself the right to ignore Congressional acts that it finds disagreeable, will it feel that it has a similar right to ignore Sumpreme Court decisions where it thinks they got it wrong?

In short, as the Supreme have no way to actually enforce a decision, we need to trust G. W. Bush & Co. to actually allow an outside agency to limit their power. This flies in the face of the concept of the "unitary executive" held by this Administration, which essentially holds that the Executive branch is not bound by either Congress or the Courts. I'll believe it when I see it.

The US Supreme Court has certainly delivere4d a stinging rebuke to the GW Bush in respect to one important aspect of the mal-administration of the US - but this is by no means enough: it is actually a mere slap on the wrist. GW Bush and Gang should be tried for war crimes, no less.

Put this third-rate scoundrel GW Bush alongside that monster Saddam Hussain - who looks worse? I see only the difference that it was impossible in the USA for GW Bush to do what Saddam Hussain did in Iraq - if he could've he surely would've: remember how he reacted, as Governor of Texas, to the plea for mercy from Karla Faye Tucker? Remember his reactions to the abuses at Abu Ghraib - which occurred only because he (or senior members of his mal-administration) willed them to happen?

When will the world wake up and put such monstrous 'leaders' out of business? Citizens nationwide and worldwide can surely gather the

power to do that.

US citizens: IMPEACH GW BUSH!