The detainee policy in the war on terror

I have to disagree with the title of this editorial, Justice 5, Brutality 4, and feel I should offer reasoning from a different prospective to help balance this out. During the war on terror an issue through the past has been how to treat detainees. This author certainly seems confident when he labels Guantanamo as a "Constitutional-rights-free zone" that root from an "Imperial overreaching" president and "compliant Republicans and frightened Democrats." Yet, some of his own evidence seems to contradict some of his words. The central part of his argument seems to be the importance of habeas corpus to the American legal system and constitution, and so by denying this right we are denying detainees the protection of justice. However the author later points out that a specific place in the constitution states habeas corpus may be denied only "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." It seems clear to me that even if we have made a mistake, we had the right to deny habeas corpus under the constitution at the particular time if they were suspected of being "enemy combatants" because it falls under public safety. With that being said, it seems a little bold to make such allegations that the supreme court justices who voted against it were brutal and that people should be disturbed that they strayed away from a clear line of reasoning. It seems to me there is reasoning to vote for or against it. Not just the justices, but the author uses several other self-declared labels for other representatives of our government to sway the reader. I'm not saying what happened at Guantanamo is right one way or the other, detainee policy if a fine constitutional line for any government at war. However I do feel this particular author used labels that were simply too harsh and is out to demonize anyone who will not agree with his opinion, thus I felt it was my duty as a citizen to show the other side of the fence in this particular issue.