A judicial opinion is not the proper place for such political arguments, but the reality is that we need very much to establish that we DO understand that the threat of Islamic terrorism is real and it must be countered. Certainly, there are many things wrong about the way this Administration is approaching the job, but all too often voices on the Left DO depart from merely criticizing tactics and DO make statements suggesting that either the threat is overstated, the threat is in response things that are our fault, or that our actions are a greater threat to peace and security than those of the terrorists (and that's not even addressing the wild conspiracy theories coming from the Far Left). While people are certainly entitled to express these opinions it can't be argued they play into Republican hands politically.

"not engaged in a traditional battle with a nation-state"

Then why were we engaged in a "traditional battle with a nation-state", and now occupying that nation-state even though it had nothing to do with "the worldwide, hydra-headed enemy, who lurks in the shadows"?

"While people are certainly entitled to express these opinions it can't be argued they play into Republican hands politically."

Terror threats don't play into Republican hands politically? I don't understand your argument at all. There's nothing but factual evidence that they've used fear for political gain for the past 5 years. Be it the odd fluctuations of the "terror alert level," Cheney saying that a Kerry win would result in terrorists attacks, or the current excuse regarding the dangers of the Times bank monitoring story(that Bush himself "outed" years ago.) The current Republicans have proven time and time again that there is NOTHING they won't politicize. Ah, and remember their outrage about the Mary Cheney "lesbian daughter" comment? They were SO OUTRAGED. HOW DARE THOSE DIRTY DEMOCRATS? Ask Murtha or Kerry if they have any shame. Ask McCain about South Carolina (before he became a pod person.) I wonder if they'll swift boat all 10 Iraqi war vets that are running as Dems?

I don't wonder.

They will. Winning elections is the only thing that matters to the Neo-Cons and their base alike. The Republic be damned as long as you win.

... is that the threat is, in part, due to things that are our fault. This is not America-bashing; this is looking at the world through the cold, hard eyes of reality -- as was originally promised by an administration that allegedly disdained pie-in-the-sky theories.

Do we "cause" terrorists? No. But though the seed is there and is probably implicit in humanity, we provide the fertilizer that allows it to grow from a localized disturbance to a global operation. We prop up the despots, we overturn the governments, we spend the outrageous amount of money on oil that lines the pockets of autocrats -- not to mention arbitrary detention, rendition, and torture. We create sympathy for the terrorists in the lands where they hide and make it that much more difficult to root them out. Do you think bin Laden could have evaded capture for five years if there weren't a huge bloc of people who shelter him because they hate what they think America is?

The answer isn't surrender, but it also isn't a ham-handed, ideology-blinded ruthlessness. The claims and plans of the jihadist are not rational and we can't conform to them. But the hopes and goals of some of those who support them -- perhaps even most -- are rational. They want what most people want: safety, prosperity, freedom from interference.

It's just a dumb policy to ignore that and so play into the hands of the terrorists.

Oh, and as the level-headed majority of justices pointed out, it's also illegal.

It seems to me that what is (mostly) missing from the discussion of "whether Al Queda should be treated like a nation state" is the question of who gets to decide WHO is actually a member of Al Queda. We have enough information about the detainees at Guantanamo to know that some of them were not actually involved in a terrorist group. I wish the argument was more about the basic right of individuals to know the charges against them and to be able to defend themselves against these charges than about how we categorize terrorists apropos our laws and the Geneva Convention.

Then why were we engaged in a "traditional battle with a nation-state", and now occupying that nation-state even though it had nothing to do with "the worldwide, hydra-headed enemy, who lurks in the shadows"?

Because all the people Cheney brought in off the Policy for the New American Century wanted to. That's why.

Maybe I'm being naive, but, as a self-proclaimed strict-constructionist, shouldn't Clarence Thomas be less concerned with the "realities of war" and more concerned with the Constitution?

Thomas' criticism of the others makes it sound like he's saying the Constitution (and its limits on presidential power) needs to be interpreted in a different way in light of the changing face of modern warfare.

But that would be like saying the Constitutiion is a living document that needs to be reinterpreted over time...

It's hard to deal with people who:

1. Are so easily manipulated into being scared that they piss their pants at the sight of an Arab person.

2. Will never ever take into consideration that a belief they currently hold just might not make a lick of sense (example: our current military actions are REDUCING the number of terrorists).

In other words, regardless of current or future poles, at least 85% of the people who voted for Bush in the last election will vote Republican in 2006.

These two guys are living examples of what happens when you put someone really odious in their respective high offices. (Interesting that both were the handiwork of Bush Sr.) Old Strict-Construction Clarence reveals here -- again -- that he has absolutely no idea what the framers of the Constitution intended and what the original understanding of its provisions was. Or he does know that, doesn't care, but still makes arguments based on original understanding when it suits him. Because what it comes down to is that words don't mean anything to either of these guys -- they're just children enthralled with police power, and now someone's actually given that power to them.

In fact, the framers of the Constitution were very worried about presidents possibly imprisoning people on no charges. They had seen that kind of thing done by kings, and they went out of their way to write habeus corpus (basically, the right of arrestees to a trial and a chance to go free) into the Constitution even though they believed it already existed as a "common-law" right. They also narrowed the exceptions to it compared to those permitted in England, specifying that the president could not suspend it (only Congress could), that this could happen only in case of "rebellion or invasion," and, even then, only if "the public safety" required as much. So how does Thomas read all this? As authorizing the president to suspend habeus corpus whenever he wants. Oh, but the founders didn't know about big, bad al-Qaeda. Right. Guess what, Mr. Justice -- terrorism is not a modern invention, particularly not terrorism rooted in religion. The Gunpowder Plot, as the founders well knew, had come very close to blowing up the entire British government. So the writers of the Constitution were plenty worried about dark and "hydra-headed" conspiracies; they just recognized, as hugely unqualified judges like Thomas don't, that a president might well be found leading such a conspiracy if he had the power to imprison whomever he pleased.