I agree that the survival of the American system and the rule of law is paramount, but I don't see the recent Supreme Court Ruling as either a valid correction or a severe slap-down to Bush and his backers.

It appears to be partly a power struggle over what the Supreme Court may rule on.

It appears to be a recognition by the Supreme Court of aspects of the Geneva Accords that the U.S. may or may not have formally ratified.

It doesn't get Hamdan out of Gitmo nor does it rule on the legality of Gitmo as an entity.

On a practical level, the incarceration of 'enemy combatants' with no official standing (such as 'POW') may have been a valid, if not entirely legal, stop-gap measure as prisoners of some kind have been taken. Exigencies of war can do that. Over time it becomes important that some meaningful plan to put a name to the enemy and perhaps empty Gitmo be devised. If the Adminstration doesn't to it, someone will do it for them, and the Supreme Court has basically said it's Congress' call.

I am sure there are enemies interned in Gitmo who it would be a bad idea to release, just as I'm sure there are probably some relatively harmless people there who are victims of circumstances. What I'm not sure of is whether there is a mechanism of impartial justice to separate 'em out and deal with them as they deserve.