Please excuse the ignorance of the following questions from a non-attorney (me.)

1. Does this ruling give the Gitmo detainees the same rights as, say, OJ Simpson?

2. Does this ruling mean that if Executive-prisoners are detained on de facto and de jure territory that the United States does not control, they do not possess the right of habeas corpus?

3. Does this ruling extend the Constitutional rights enjoyed by US citizens to every citizen of the world?

4. Would the court have ruled this way if the petitioner were a prisoner rended by the US to a Romanian or Jordanian facility?

5. Does the ruling open the door for "obviously dangerous and guilty" prisoners to have their cases dismissed and be released into the world to saw heads off and blow up children at school based on legal transgressions committed by the Bush Administration?

MyBlog: <link>