A Blow Against Tyranny

"We can say with confident horror that more Americans are likely to die as a result. . . .

"Justice Kennedy's opinion is full of self-applause about his defense of the 'great Writ,' and no doubt it will be widely praised as a triumph for civil liberties. But we hope it is not a tragedy for civil liberties in the long run. If there is another attack on U.S. soil -- perhaps one enabled by a terrorist released under the Kennedy rules -- the public demand for security will trample the Constitutional delicacies of Boumediene."

And the New York Daily News editorial board writes: "The U.S. Supreme Court was profoundly - dangerously - wrong in granting prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their detentions in America's civil courts. . . .

"It is a monumental example of judicial overreaching, issued with utter disregard for the perilous consequences of elevating extreme - emphasis on 'extreme' - legal niceties over national security.

"Justice Antonin Scalia showed great foresight in concluding his dissent with a dire prediction: 'The nation will live to regret what the court has done today.'"

The Coverage

Jess Bravin writes in the Wall Street Journal: "The 5-4 decision is the third time in four years that the Supreme Court has rejected the White House's treatment of prisoners it deems enemy combatants. Taken together, they amount to a repudiation of President Bush's view that the 9/11 attacks imbued him with sweeping authority to set aside civil liberties, as President Lincoln did during the Civil War and President Roosevelt did during World War II. . . .

"The decision increases the likelihood that the next president will move to shutter the detention center by relocating prisoners to other facilities. By eliminating the legal advantages the administration sought from Guantanamo, the court removed a major argument for maintaining the prison. Its operation has drawn criticism abroad and has undercut U.S. efforts to build counterterrorist alliances, diplomats say.

"Even before the terrorist attacks, the administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, aimed to expand the scope of presidential power, based on the idea that Congress and the courts had impinged on its prerogatives. Even as court rulings became increasingly pointed, the vice president and his aides beat back efforts to moderate detention policies, officials familiar with the discussions said. . . .

"Thursday's ruling is a blow to the departing president's legacy. In December 2001, administration lawyers championed Guantanamo as the location for an extralegal detention camp, asserting in now-public memorandums their belief that no judge would have jurisdiction to review the treatment of prisoners there. At the time, one official told The Wall Street Journal that the base amounted to the legal equivalent of 'outer space.'"

Linda Greenhouse writes in the New York Times: "The court declared unconstitutional a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that, at the administration's behest, stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from the detainees seeking to challenge their designation as enemy combatants. . . .

"Months or years of continued litigation may lie ahead, unless the Bush administration, or the administration that follows it, reverses course and closes the prison at Guantánamo Bay, which now holds 270 detainees. . . .

"In a concurring opinion on Thursday, Justice Souter said the ruling was 'no bolt out of the blue,' but rather should have been anticipated by anyone who read the court's decision in Rasul v. Bush in 2004. That decision, part of the initial round of Supreme Court review of the administration's Guantánamo policies, held that because the long-term lease with Cuba gave the United States unilateral control over the property, the base came within the statutory jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear habeas corpus petitions.