But of course only by a 5-to-4 vote with all the neocons voting against it. Here’s a link to the entire decision, Boumediene v. Bush. Some quotes:

Petitioners have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause’s protections1 because they have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo.

The Suspension Clause has full effect at Guantanamo. The Government’s argument that the Clause affords petitioners no rights because the United States does not claim sovereignty over the naval station is rejected. The Court does not question the Government’s position that Cuba maintains sovereignty, in the legal and technical sense, over Guantanamo, but it does not accept the Government’s premise that de jure sovereignty is the touchstone of habeas jurisdiction. Common-law habeas’ history provides scant support for this proposition, and it is inconsistent with the Court’s precedents and contrary to fundamental separation-of-powers principles.

The Government’s sovereignty-based test raises troubling separation-of-powers concerns, which are illustrated by Guantanamo’s political history. Although the United States has maintained complete and uninterrupted control of Guantanamo for over 100 years, the Government’s view is that the Constitution has no effect there, at least as to noncitizens, because the United States disclaimed formal sovereignty in its 1903 lease with Cuba. The Nation’s basic charter cannot be contracted away like this. The Constitution grants Congress and the President the power to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not the power to decide when and where its terms apply. To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say “what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177. These concerns have particular bearing upon the Suspension Clause question here, for the habeas writ is itself an indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers.

Because the DTA’s2 procedures for reviewing detainees’ status are not an adequate and effective substitute for the habeas writ, MCA3 §7 operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ.

Petitioners have met their burden of establishing that the DTA review process is, on its face, an inadequate substitute for habeas. Among the constitutional infirmities from which the DTA potentially suffers are the absence of provisions allowing petitioners to challenge the President’s authority under the AUMF4 to detain them indefinitely, to contest the CSRT’s5 findings of fact, to supplement the record on review with exculpatory evidence discovered after the CSRT proceedings, and to request release. The statute cannot be read to contain each of these constitutionally required procedures. MCA §7 thus effects an unconstitutional suspension of the writ.

In considering both the procedural and substantive standards used to impose detention to prevent acts of terrorism, the courts must accord proper deference to the political branches. However, security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles, chief among them being freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers.

Then there’s the dissent by Cheney’s pal, neocon and presidential ass-licker, Tony Soprano Scalia. To get a flavor of Scalia’s militarized police state mentality, here’s the first line of his dissent:

Today, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the Court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war.

So Scalia makes the by now classical neocon fake argument that anyone detained abroad by our military is, by definition, an alien enemy. In other words, who really needs courts and their attendant baggage of rules and precedents? Scalia doesn’t. If the Army captures you, you are automatically an enemy, court or no court, guilty or not guilty. And we are at war, says Scalia, apparently forever but declared by no one. This is pure horseshit and deadly horseshit at that.

More Scalian HS:

America is at war with radical Islamists. The enemy began by killing Americans and American allies abroad: 241 at the Marine barracks in Lebanon, 19 at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, 224 at our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, and 17 on the USS Cole in Yemen. See National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, pp. 60–61, 70, 190 (2004). On September 11, 2001, the enemy brought the battle to American soil, killing 2,749 at the Twin Towers in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon in Washington, D. C., and 40 in Pennsylvania. See id., at 552, n. 9. It has threatened further attacks against our homeland; one need only walk about buttressed and barricaded Washington, or board a plane anywhere in the country, to know that the threat is a serious one. Our Armed Forces are now in the field against the enemy, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, 13 of our countrymen in arms were killed.

More war noise; the fake Global War on Terror. Blowback? What blowback? We were simply attacked, out-of-the-blue, by radical Islamists, those same people who are guilty, not because they did anything, but just because they were captured by the military.

And Scalia also accuses the non-dissenting Supremes of taking an action that will both kill more Americans and make it too difficult for the president and the military to protect us because their decision will, "most tragically, … set our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner". Now how’s that one for a judge? We can’t have a situation where there has to be evidence to support indefinite incarceration. No, that’s too much to ask. Just toss ‘em in jail and let ‘em rot.

We need to kick Scalia off the Court and onto his fat, totalitarian ass. Any government that can jail you forever without charge or means of defense is a tyranny by definition.

Update 6-14-2008: McBomber, of course, thinks this is "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country". He also said, "These are enemy combatants, these are people who are not citizens, they are not and never have been given the rights that the citizens of this country have. Our first obligation is the safety and security of this nation and the men and women who defend it. This decision will harm our ability to do that."

McBomber does not believe in the Declaration of Independence’s concept of natural, unalienable rights that are yours because you are a human being. He thinks rights are given to citizens by … whom? The government? The Constitution? Hmm. So, apparently, non-US citizens don’t have rights that are to be acknowledged by the US government. They are a sort of sub-human class or at least a sub-American class. This is the standard neocon prejudice. All other people are defective somehow, usually in their political system. And it is the moral obligation of the McBombers to set the world straight, by force if necessary. That’s the stuff that heroes are made of.

———————————————————-
1The Suspension Clause (Art. 1, §9) in the Constitution says: "[t]he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it".

2Detainee Treatment Act of 2005

3Military Commissions Act of 2006

4Authorization for Use of Military Force

5Combatant Status Review Tribunals