To me, this basically means we don't take terrorists as prisoners any more. Either they get killed in combat or our partners in the region will "interrogate" them.
The court seems to have overturned itself on this decision as compared to Johnson v. Eisentrager (see link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Eisentrager ).
I think the extreme reading of this is that everything we do, short of declaring war, is a police action where those we are in conflict with are covered by Constitutional protections. If the prisoners at Gitmo have constitutional protections there, when and where did they get them? Is Gitmo any different from any other foreign land?
I am confused.