While I AGREE with today's majority opinion that "all enemy combatants detained during a war, at least insofar as they are confined in an area away from the battlefield, [but] over which the United States exercises 'absolute and indefinite' control, may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal court," I also AGREE with Chief Justice Roberts (and his fellow dissenters) that the Writ can be suspended in time of war, such as the war on terror that we find ourselves involved in right now, and that suspension power belongs to Congress, such as Congress has exercised in this case, "as the Constitution surely allows Congress to [wield]."

The issue there, as the majority opinion points out, is that Congress has never directly said "We suspend habeas corpus." They've danced around it for a bit, but habeas has never been formally suspended. So having never had habeas formally suspended, the majority felt that they should rule in a manner consistent with the idea that... habeas hasn't been suspended.

Precisely why the so-called "war on terror" (which is, of course, a tactic, not a country or paramilitary organization, and therefore cannot be won or lost in any way that coheres with historical precedent) will have to be either dismissed or meaningfully defined to justify its invocation for an indefinite future as an executive 'blank check.' Amazing how this euphemism wasn't dissembled immediately by the Dems or the press after the close of full-scale military ops in Iraq. What we have been doing for 4+ years is occupation, not warfare.