James is pretty much right on Guantanamo and this ruling: the problem isn’t Gitmo itself but holding people without trial (or coming up with a charge) for the better part of a decade. What I find most ridiculous about this ruling (and I could be misinterpreting it terribly), is that “enemy combatants”–i.e., terrorists–now have more rights in the American judicial system than legit POWs.*

The thing is, it’s easy to say “charge them or let them go”…but then I see stories like this one, about the number of former Gitmo detainees who go back to being terrorists and I get frustrated. Is it better to lock up one innocent man so ten killers don’t go free? I don’t know.

*Seriously, if I’m wrong, please point it out in the comments. I really hope that the liberal justices on the high court aren’t this stupid, but I’m not at all sure of that. My understanding is that POWs have essentially no recourse in American courts, whereas “enemy combatants” now do.