I believe that organizations like Al Quaeda operate completely indifferently toward our laws. What our Supreme Court rules for how we manage a legal process that they don't recognize as legitimate will have absolutely no affect on their operations.

The question is whether we want to grant the state the right to detain people without proving they have authority to do so. In our society, that authority comes from the rule of law and by the people selectively granting that authority. Denying *anyone* the right to protection from arbitrary arrest is a threat to all of our security (liberty), though not from outside forces. We do not want to have a society where we exchange rule of law for a police state that is allowed to arrest and confine people without any legal restraint. If the state is *legitimately* detaining someone, then proving they have the legal authority to do so should not be difficult. Habeas corpus merely says that they must -- that the authorities are ultimately answerable to the People. In that sense, the prisoners at Guantanamo are not they only ones being denied their rights; we all are. If we are a government of the people, we (through representation) must demand that those in whom we trust the use of force justify their use of it.

The only reason to deny someone habeas corpus is because you want to detain them illegally and without evidence of wrong doing. That's scary stuff.

The real threat to our security will ultimately not be Al Quaeda or any other outside actors. It will be domestic totalitarianism. Before you say it will never go that far, take a close look at the Patriot Act and it's extensions.

Now I'll go read the other responses...

Jim