In a major rebuke to the Bush administration's theories of presidential power - and in an equally stinging rebuke to the bipartisan political class which has supported the Bush detention policies - the U.S. Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 decision (.pdf), declared Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutional.

The Court struck down that section of the MCA because it purported to abolish the writ of habeas corpus - the means by which a detainee challenges his detention in a court - despite the fact that the Constitution permits suspension of that writ only "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion."

As a result, Guantanamo detainees accused of being "enemy combatants" have the right to challenge the validity of their detention in a full-fledged U.S. federal court proceeding.

The ruling today is the first time in U.S. history that the Court has ruled that detainees held by the U.S. Government in a place where the U.S. does not exercise formal sovereignty (Cuba technically is sovereign over Guantanamo) are nonetheless entitled to the Constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus whenever they are held in a place where the U.S. exercises effective control.  

Supreme Court Restores Habeas Corpus, Strikes Down Key Part Of Military Commissions Act 

meanwhile ….. 

David Hicks's conviction for supporting terrorism may be invalided by the ruling his Adelaide lawyer says. 

"If a detainee now, having been told that he has got access to the US courts, brings an action disputing the lawfulness of his detention, the lawfulness of the military commission process and is successful, and the Supreme Court strikes down the military commission Mark 2, then Hick's conviction would be invalid," Mr McLeod said. 

"And everything that happened to him subsequently would be invalid. So his return to Australia in chains, his incarceration for seven months, the application of the commonwealth and state confiscation of profits of crime legislation would not apply because he has not been convicted." 

Mr McLeod said Hicks would be free to sell his story, something he has not yet considered as he tries to get on with having an "ordinary" life. 

"So there would be huge consequences." 

"You can rest assured that will happen because there is an army of human rights lawyers who would be at this very instant working out what actions and whose names would be filed."

The judge in the first Guantanamo Bay trial barred evidence yesterday that interrogators obtained from Osama bin Laden's driver, ruling he was subjected to "highly coercive" conditions in Afghanistan. 

The ruling could have implications for the trial of Canadian Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr, whose case is scheduled next. The judge said the prosecution cannot use a series of interrogations conducted at the Bagram Air Base and Panshir, Afghanistan, because of the "highly coercive environments and conditions under which they were made." 

Mr. bin Laden's driver, Salim Hamdan, says that at Bagram he was kept in isolation 24 hours a day with his hands and feet restrained, and that armed soldiers prompted him to talk by kneeing him in the back.

He says his captors at Panshir repeatedly tied him up, put a bag over his head and knocked him to the ground. He also says he was subjected to sleep deprivation, and solitary confinement.  

Gitmo Judge Bars Coerced Evidence

A federal judge on Tuesday, in a rebuke to the Bush administration, ordered the release in the United States of 17 Chinese Muslims who have been held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.  

U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina read his ruling from the bench at a hearing to consider the appeals by the members of the Uighur ethnic group who are seeking freedom and asking to come to the United States.  

The judge said there was no evidence the detainees, who have been held at Guantanamo for nearly seven years, were "enemy combatants" or a security risk, and that the U.S. Constitution prohibits indefinite detention without cause.  

Judge Orders Chinese Muslims at Guantanamo Freed