Does the poll have any relevance? Should the five justices in the majority revisit their decision and reverse themselves because of a poll?

There is much precedent for SCOTUS to ignore or even overrule the popular will. The most blatant example being Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Sorry Tony Nazar, although I agree that there IS much precedent for SCOTUS to vote against popular will, the Bush v. Gore decision wasn't about that at all. It was about whether they should stop the recounting of disputed votes.

For the "selected, not elected" crowd Tony Nazar runs with:

The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, "Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed," by reporter Dennis Cauchon:

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....
That look was followed in November by an analysis by a consortium of media outlets, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, CNN and AP. It determined that George W. Bush still would have won under either legally possible recount scenario which could have occurred: The Florida Supreme Court ordered recount of undervotes statewide or Gore's request for a recount in certain counties. The New York Times led its November 12, 2001 front page article, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote," by reporters Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder:

Unless we caught any of these detainees red handed and are able to prosecute them for war crimes, what exactly is the point of holding them indefinitely without trying them?

Should we convert this way of thinking to all non-US citizens who are detained in American jails? We think they did something, and they're not citizens, so let's just lock them up forever and see what happens. They don't have any rights anyway, right?

We arrested these people. It is our duty to move them through our system legally and quickly, rather than wasting space and time.

I'm not surprised people think that non-citizen detainees should have no rights and be locked away forever without charge. Americans are suprisingly ignorant of their constitutional rights, or are somewhat disparaging of the ones they know they have.

A 2007 poll found that 55% of Americans agree that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. Only 16% of respondents knew the First Amendment protects freedom of the press.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/SOFA2007results.pdf

It baffles me that people don't want to put terrorism suspects into the court system. The whole point of our legal system is that a fair trial = justice. I do understand that people are scared of terrorists, but please, to say that anyone suspected of breaking US law in any fashion should not be subject to US courts is just stupid. It's moronic. We're lucky the five Supes kept their heads and nudged US law into a place that's smarter than the average US citizen, appearantly. We should thank them.

There is simply no logical basis to keep them out of US court. They should absolutely be able to contest their incarceration and we should absolutely be able to show concrete reasons why they should be incarcerated. If not then they should be let go. To say otherwise is simply cowardice.

Older Americans have been brainwashed to believe in God. Therefore they believe their pastors. Their pastors tell them to believe Republicans. Republicans say the prisoners are terrorists.

If God says they're terrorists, why bother with trials?

This poll just shows how much damage has been done in terms of fear-mongering. If there is clear evidence that a detainee has done wrong with American or international law, then let them stand trial in an American court. Otherwise, let them go home.

I never ever thought I'd ever say this..... I am ashamed of my countrymen. This is a disgrace.

I wonder how many Americans have thought their position on this one through? Suppose they themselves were in a foreign land and taken in custody on suspicion of being terrorists. Should their status as:

a) Foreigners; and
b) Terrorism suspects;

deny them an entitlement to challenge their incarcerations in their host country's civilian court system?

Should other countries do unto Americans what Americans want to do unto foreigners?

Susan writes, "We arrested these people."

Wrong. For the most part, they were enemies captured on the battlefield. If the court had ruled that these people were covered by the Geneva Conventions, I would have a problem. Now what? Are our soldiers going to have to be policemen, while they're trying to fight a battle? Are they going to have to , in effect, Mirandize every combatant they capture? Are they going to have to testify in court to justify split second decisions on the battlefield? This is crazy.

Seriously, if anyone knows, this particular standard ever been applied to any military during any war? I doubt that very much. I'd be interested to know if I'm wrong.

There has been such little real discussion in the news about this and about who the people we are detaining really are. Instead, we get grandstanding rah-rah "patriotic" (even though what we've been doing goes against what our founding fathers believed in) insecure blather......macho movie crap. "us against them" "dead or alive"......it would be comical if real people weren't involved.

And the media gets everyone whipped up with fear. Our country has based so many of its decisions on fear over the last 8 years, and it's not only made us less safe, but it has resulted in the corrosion of our democracy, the deaths and mutilation of many innocent people, and the waste of large amounts of money to corruption and cronyism. I love my country as much as anyone else and I want it back.

I am saddened that so many of my fellow countrymen would throw an innocent person in prison and not even think twice about it. If it were to happen to someone they loved, they would be outraged. And yet, they don't see that this is a cycle of hatred and fear and possible future retaliation against us that we are perpetuating. It does not harm us to give these people a trial. If they are guilty, they will be sentenced. But if they are innocent, they should be freed. And while in custody, they should be treated as we would want any of our military to be treated if they were captured. We should not use as justification of cruelty and torture that some of our men have been beheaded by their captors. That is an "eye for an eye" mentality and not the Christian "turn the other cheek"...and the cheek version is actually much more powerful in the long run.

Though I do agree that those who commit acts of terrorism and/or acts of war against the United States are NOT entitled to the protection of the Constitution,which BY THEIR ACTIONS they have rejected.

This only applies to those CONVICTED of said crimes.. Until and unless, a conviction is obtained this country is supposed to believe in "Innocence till proven guilty" and this is how I believe.

For many of the detainees I strongly suspect there will never be a trial, There has never been a plan to have a trial, and thus there is NOT right to "Detain" them pending trail.. And pending trail is the ONLY reason, to detain someone who has not been convicted.

'And pending trail is the ONLY reason, to detain someone who has not been convicted.'

Intelligence gathering is the reason to detain prisoners at Guantanamo.

Non uniformed combatants captured on the battlefield are considered spies or terrorists and are fair game for summary execution on the spot.