Guantanamo detainees denied access to federal courts

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that a 3-judge panel has denied detainees access to the courts:

In a victory for President Bush in his global war on terrorism, a divided federal appeals court ruled today that the suspected enemy combatants at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba had no right to challenge their imprisonment in U.S. courts.

In a 2-to-1 vote, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the detainees had no access to U.S. courts because they were taken into custody overseas and held in a facility over which U.S. courts have no authority.

"Federal courts have no jurisdiction in these cases," wrote Judge A. Raymond Randolph for himself and Judge David Sentelle.

In her dissent, Judge Judith W. Rogers said Congress had no constitutional authority to deny individuals held by the U.S. government access to the federal courts.

Even I know this is not true. Enemy combatants detained during a time of war are not entitled to federal courts. I'm not aware of this happening at any time in our history; I'm not aware of any German or Japanese prisoners during WWII being granted access to U.S. civilian courts. They were detained until the war was over.

Furthermore, the detainees are not covered by POW conventions because they were not in uniform and did not represent a recognized, governmental military force. These individuals knew the rules before taking up arms against the U.S.

In past wars, enemy combatants caught out of uniform were treated very differently; usually much worse. Sometimes they were hanged immediately as spies. An interesting case is the "Little War" the Portuguese waged against French invaders circa 1800. Why did the French treat these guerrillas (literally, "little warriors") differently than captured British soldiers? I invite liberals to investigate the answer to that question.

Generally speaking, this is a political issue, not a legal issue. The dissenting judge is a liberal with the typically liberal belief that we're not at war against terrorists. It seems that because a large, uniformed military force isn't shelling our coasts, there is no war, despite the WTC atrocity and many decades of attacks prior. I can't see any other way to read this.