In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba.

"I strongly agree with those who dissented," Wha? said.

Antonin Scalia, who is always so disapproving of “foreign” precedents, writes “The Habeas Corpus Act…did not run outside the sovereign territory of the Crown. The Court says that the idea that ‘jurisdiction followed the King’s officers’ is an equally credible view.”

The Beagle is clearly reading this dissent at random and out of context, but the Beagle is not accustomed to referring to Wha? as "the Crown" or the marines as "the king's officers."

Common law from "Old Europe" aside, the argument that no laws or procedures should apply because they’re not on U.S. soil is ludicrous on its face. Last time I looked, we considered our rights and privileges to extend throughout United States, its territories and protectorates, the Marianas Islands, and rental properties all over the world, including the prison at Guantanamo.

The argument that “they are enemy combatants” seems specious, at best, because how can we determine that with any certainty if they have no right to bring evidence of who they are? For the time being, they are who some goatherd said they were when they heard there was a price on Ahmed’s head.