The Guantanamo guests appear to have constitutional rights from what I read from googling "US constitutional rights and Guantanamo prisoners."
I can't remember details but didn't the Supreme Court rule the US government couldn't deprive them of habeas corpus even if they were offshore?
PS--- just found in Wikipedia:
"On June 12, 2008 the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that the Guantanamo detainees were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution.[ Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, described the CSR Tribunals as "inadequate", and wrote:
"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
Justice Kennedy was a Reagan nominee.
Which is why I believe we should have tried and executed ( if guilty) those found to have violated the rules of war and held the rest until the peace, anotherwords never let them go.
They declared war on us, once you let loose the dogs of war cry havoc and understand that the cost are everything.
I never believed the Bush policy of treating them outside the classic rules for conflict held water. The result has been a loose of the moral high ground.
Cheney and Co were wrong. I don't doubt their intent was good, but they pushed the envelope in ways we should not have.
Prosecute the criminal terrorist yes. Military tribunals yes. Permanent detention until the cessation of hostilities (effective life without parole) yes.
Had the administration not hybridized some new status, we would be cleaner now.
