Here are two editorials on the Supremo's decision regarding the terrorist's detention, in publications I respect: the Washington Post and National Review. They come to differing conclusions.
The Post says it's A Victory for Law
The central part of the ruling declares that the special military commissions set up on President Bush's order to try alleged members of al-Qaeda are unlawful. It gives the administration a simple choice. It can proceed with cases under current law, using standard military courts-martial, which provide fuller procedural protections for the accused than do the commissions. Or it can go to Congress for specific authorization to deviate from those rules.
The holding should ensure that trials of al-Qaeda detainees take place under clear rules ratified by Congress. If Congress does its job conscientiously, any departures from normal trial rules should be both demonstrably necessary and narrow. As we have argued before, the administration has legitimate concerns about what rules of evidence should apply in these cases and how to protect sensitive intelligence information. Some accommodations may be necessary. Now, however, balancing these concerns against the accused's rights to a fair trial will not be the sole province of the administration itself but a shared responsibility of the executive and legislative branches. The results will bear the mark of democratic legitimacy: They will be law.
National Review says "An Outrage" The Editors on Hamdan & Supreme Court on National Review Online
Hard as it may be to believe that the Court, without any grounding in either American law or the Geneva Conventions, has effectively signed a treaty with al Qaeda for the protection of its terrorists, there may be a silver lining. The case implicates only trials of enemy combatants, whom the president remains authorized to detain until the end of hostilities — however long that takes. In addition, the Court held that military commissions would be permissible if Congress authorized their precise terms and procedures. Sens. Lindsay Graham and John Kyl, who were the engines behind the Detainee Treatment Act that the Court cashiered, have already indicated they are ready to get to work on this. Arlen Specter also has a proposal. There is no issue more important than national security, and with the 2006 elections beckoning it is essential that Republicans move quickly on legislation. Our elected representatives need to be on record, now, about what rights they would give to Qaeda terrorists in wartime.