John, I want to second your post and add some of my own thoughts. Today, in short, the Court held that the Great Writ, as the right of habeas corpus is known, can only be suspended explicitly by Congress in case of invasion or rebellion. Moreover, the alternative system set up by Congress was held to be insufficient. A useful summary is here. Vigorous dissents came from Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia.

Roberts focused on the alternative system devised by Congress:

Declaring that petitioners have a right to habeas in no way excuses the Court from explaining why the DTA [Detainee Treatment Act] does not protect whatever due process or statutory rights petitioners may have. Because if the DTA provides a means for vindicating petitioners’ rights, it is necessarily an adequate substitute for habeas corpus.

Roberts contends that the majority misread the DTA which, in Roberts view, is adequate to address claims by the detainees.

Scalia in his dissent reminds us that such a ruling, namely that enemy detainees enjoy habeas corpus rights during a war, marks a stunning departure from practice in previous wars. He begins his dissent:

Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war.

Where does that leave us? The ruling does not close Guantanamo nor free prisoners. We will now presumably watch the spectacle of detainees marching into Article III courts with the full panoply of judicial rights enjoyed by U.S. citizens, including access to government evidence to contest their detention. The media will focus on “Bush loses.” But if in fact the government is faced with dozens and dozens of cases in which the choice is to share classified material or release terror suspects who may kill again, the “loss” will be to all Americans’ safety and security.