The detainees are to be treated as POWs since they are members of a military force, an irregular militia, acting against the interests and military of a sovereign government, ours. My phrasing of, “the right to be detained” was used to draw a distinction between being captured by a military force vice being detained in a police enforcement action. The SCOTUS decision comes down clearly for the latter. This pronouncement from the bench, granting the right of habeas corpus review to non-US combatants severely hamstrings American military operations. (What is a combatant? This is a difficult issue even for academics sitting in a quiet classroom; making that decision with bullets flying, bombs bursting and your comrades with blood and organs outside of their bodies is near impossible but our fine military personnel make this decision with a high degree of correctness on a daily basis. How does the civilian world know the decisions are correct? Impartial military reviews. Our fine men and women are held to the highest of standards.) Men and equipment must be sacrificed to “detain” the “non-combatants”, even during battles. Then they are to be diverted off the battle fields to the nearest court in a most timely manner; the Constitution does guarantee a “fair and speedy” trial for American citizens; the recent SCOTUS decision is extending the umbrella of that protection to not only noncitizens of the US but to the very people who wish to destroy American and for all which we stand. . POWs are subject to the protection of our Constitution; they are, as you pointed out, protected under the articles of Geneva conventions, which all recruits, including myself, are required to learn at boot camp. U.S. military personal know how to treat our POWs – though, sadly, some have foolishly, and with incalculable damage, disregarded this knowledge of proper conduct.

Your argument with this administration is exactly that. I cannot in good faith argue for the conduct of the President’s foreign policies. While I have supported his decision to enforce UN sanctions and resolutions, I have disagreed with this administrations handling of operations, but you fight wars with the administration you have not the one you wish you had.

Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof -- Shhhhhhhhh. Don’t speak Hebrew in front of the Goyim. It confuses them. J

Your a priori assumption is not a given. You ask, “... but how do you get at justice through unjust means?” Agreed, unjust means do not lead to a just end, but you have not established that the means are unjust.

The inclusion of my observation, made by Denis Prager, if memory serves for both the author and quote, is not a non sequitur; it was tangential. The connection being justice, the direct subject, to mercy. In general the statement means that people, all people, must be held responsible for their choice, but when some people, in order to be merciful, allow some other people to be held unaccountable, the ones who do right are the ones who are punished; e.g., if I allow a student to cheat and face no consequences for the choice, he may receive the same grade as someone who has studied for the test. This is clearly and inherently unfair to the student who prepared, even if it does no damage to the test grade he received. In particular to our discussion, by extending rights of US citizens to non-American combatants, regular or irregular militias, SCOTUS does damage to those who have defended the Constriction by giving what was earned righteously to those who did nothing to earn the rewards of freedom.

“Isn't it true that to deny justice to any of us is a denial of justice to all?” You may be confusing Camus’ argument that no man is free while even one is enslaved. But to answer your question, no. Justice is an imperfect device. It is nor possible to assure justice for every person. If we truly wish to be certain that no innocent is ever punished, we could live as the Amish do and not proscute anyone, but this will only assure injustice since some will pray on others. The Amish believe that God will grant justice in Heaven, but if we all, but a few, followed this pattern, the honest and ethical would first have to endure hell on earth.