I'm afraid I'm neither an expert on law or on history: if the decision is not in the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, can the President or Congress simply call them on it and continue what they're doing? I know it's quite possible for a Supreme Court to be wrong, but I'm uncertain what the correct next step would be, or maybe what the next politically-viable next step would be.

Recall that if the President ignores them they can do nothing. It's only acquiesence that gives the Court power.

Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court's order and had the Cherokee removed anyway. "John Marshall made his decision, let him enforce it." is the quote, IIRC.

If GWB did the same thing, it would make for an interesting backdrop to the campaign, for I am certain impeachment proceedings would begin. And the Chief Justice was one of those who dissented from the Supreme Court's decision.

I find it interesting that five members of the court decided to intervene in a political question, which the court's decision in Marbury v. Madison was a sidestep to keep them from making decision on a political question. I think it was pure folly on the part of the court to interject themselves like this into the war powers, which are reserved to the other two branches of government. Congress, upon reflection for what this means to its own jealously held enumerated powers, ought to be upset.

Much interesting fodder for speculation.

Let me see if I have this straight. President Obama can apprehend and take to Gitmo Álvaro Uribe Vélez and Vaclav Kaus and keep them imprisoned forever, and ignore any Supreme Court decision to the contrary.

Regarding separation of power

Oops.. Regarding separation of Power, whatever happened to the evidence obtained illegally by the executive branch in the Congressman Jefferson Case. Down the memory hole?

Yes, the Executive prosecutes wars, not the Judiciary. The Constitution confers no rights to the enemy.

The Executive has police powers, that's why there's a Justice Department.

Congress can trump the Supreme Court by passing a law overturning this decision and the president may sign it or not as he sees fit.

Congress can't trump the Constitution anymore than the Court can.

True, but the Constitution doesn't speak to the rights of foreign hostiles.

I am afraid we are missing what has happened.

For one thing, The Constitution very much does apply to all sorts of persons, including enemy P.O.W.'s.

Surely we are not supposed to swallow the absurdity, the unjust absurdity, of locking people up and just forgetting about them because we can't handle the truth about the fight we are in.

The irony of this case is the notion that the jailhouse fighters might be lawful combatants--privileged belligerants is a better term. The cases at least imply this. If this is so, then they are properly confined until the conclusion of hostilities. Catch and release is never the rule for prisoners of war.

On the other hand, if they are not privileged belligerants, then they are war criminals and may dealt with according to the usages of the Law of War.

Our entire system in flip-flopping about this worse than Hanoi John Kerry, because we can't face the ramifications of the Global war against the jailhouse.

Why wouldn't we be? What were the rights of the Confederate and Nazi POWs?