After lauding Thursday's Supreme Court decision restoring habeas corpus for detainees, Mr. Taplin says that things get "dicier" because, inter alia, many of the detainees are "very dangerous."  How do we know that any of the detainees is "very dangerous"?  What evidence have we seen of this? Isn't it a bedrock principle of our Constitution that people may not be imprisoned for what they think, but only for what they do?  Even a conspiracy charge requires, if I remember correctly, at least one overt act.  If detention of "very dangerous" people by Mr. Taplin's standard is to become the norm, will we be locking up everyone who has more than one small drink, spends beyond his means, expresses hatred for his partner, boss, or government or for another political party or for another race or religion?  Will we be locking up the four conservative members of the Supremes who clearly do not believe in our Constitution?  If the guideline is great danger to our country, I would submit that those four Supremes are much more dangerous than anyone in Gitmo.  The folks in Gitmo may kill some citizens of the United States if set free, as may many citizens of the United States not now subject to detention, but they cannot destroy our Constitution, perhaps the greatest political document of all time.  The four Supremes can do that if they get another vote.