Interesting that a year later the Supreme Court reversed their 'position' on it entirely. That was their reason for not even hearing it previously:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6518979.stm

The court's majority opinion was that "the will of Congress" should prevail and that habeas corpus did not apply to foreign nationals being held at Guantanamo Bay because it is not US soil.

and now:

By voting 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled that the Guantanamo Bay foreign prisoners "have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus" to challenge their detention before U.S. federal judges.

"We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court majority in the 70-page opinion. "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

The liberal-dominated justices found that the Navy base, in fact, was operating as if it were on U.S. soil, so its detainees deserved the same constitutional rights as all other Americans

A lot of this came into the public's eye over Salim Ahmed Hamdan:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/commissionsHamdan.html
and the human rights watch on it:
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/inthecourts/supreme_court_hamdan.htm



>>>>>>A terrible ruling. Since when do non-citizens get the protection of the US Constitution?
>>>>>
>>>>>Why is this terrible? So now we can have real trials with real evidence? There's a problem with that?
>>>>>
>>>>>Doug
>>>>
>>>>Non citizens, don't rate the protection of the US Constitution.
>>>
>>>Really. So when people from other countries come to visit the US, they're not entitled to due process?
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>Sure they have due process. The Guantanimo prisoners are not on US soil. They are on Cuban soil, which happens to be controlled by the US. The government's argument has been that they are not in the US. If they were here, they would have a right to due process and the US law enforcement agencies would be dealing with them, not the military, which is why they have not been brought here.
>
>First of all, I was responding to your comment above that "non citizens don't rate the protection of the US Constitution." Now you agree that they do, if they're in the US. Good.
>
>Now we can talk about the prisoners at Guantanamo. The first question is whether US military bases outside the US are "US soil." I don't know the answer to that, but it seems important.
>
>Tamar