>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
>
>

Yep, this is another example of bad law being written from the bench. I don't understand the distinction between "operating as if it were" and being US soil. This is how the supremes work though. If they don't like something, they just make up an excuse to change it. As I understand it, we lease these lands and build our own bases. I wonder if the supremes are now going to start imputing ownership rights to renters, who are "operating as if they were the owners" of rental property? God help us all, except Dragan!<g>