As a veteran, I was stunned with the decision of the Supreme Court Boumediene v. Bush, until I had an opportunity to reflect. I admit my first reaction was how to integrate the Constitutional right of habeas corpus with a hot battle field? 

How do we reconcile the fact that our military special operations folks have been attempting to locate and kill bin Ladin with the Supreme Court ruling? If our military corners bin Ladin in a cave what is the dividing line between killing an enemy combatant and the new responsibility created by the Supreme Court?  Is bin Ladin allowed to demand an attorney to file for habeas corpus? How is physical custody defined:  actual confinement in a facility regardless of geographic location or just surrounding the terrorist?

The majority opinion disregarded precedent and the military deference doctrine. The decision removes the military from the habeas corpus process and assigns it to a civilian court.  How does an enemy combatant, on the field of battle, access habeas corpus?  Are we to have ACLU attorneys embedded with our special operations people?

Chief Justice Roberts nailed it when he said the decision clouds more than clarified. I think the Supreme Court decision encourages our military to kill rather than capture a terrorist.  Attempting to integrate the criminal justice system into the battle field will be fraught with pitfalls. This is why Congress approved the Uniform Code of Military Justice and approved military commissions or tribunals.

Senator Obama agrees with the Court’s decision and provided the Nuremberg analogy. Except, Senator Obama was wrong.  Nuremberg was not a civilian court but an International Military Tribunal created by the winning powers. The rules of the Tribunal were agreed to by the Allied representatives six days before the trials began.

At the beginning of this observation, I mentioned I was initially stunned by the decision. Now, I find myself chuckling. As George Will commented in his article, “None [of the enemy combatants] will be released by the court’s decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing . . .”

The Supreme Court decision is incomplete. The Court mucked it up. As a result, it will be a long process in sorting out the Court’s decision. This decision may even be reversed.  Who knows?