So Who Won?

From reading the details in the articles, it would appear that things have improved for Yassar Hamdi, Jose Padilla, and the 600 or so "detainees" at Guantanamo Bay because of today's Supreme Court ruling. Reading the headlines, it isn't quite so clear. CNN's headline:

A mixed verdict on the terror war
Rulings offer partial wins for White House, civil rights activists

The Washington Post puts a more positive spin on it:

Enemy Combatants Can Challenge Detentions: Supreme Court rules for U.S. citizens captured abroad in the war on terror.
Detainees Can Use Courts: Supreme Court says Guantanamo detainees picked up abroad can use U.S. courts.

The NY Times headline is similar:

Supreme Court Affirms Detainees' Right to Use Courts

I think I like MSNBC's the best:

Detainees win rights: Supreme Court says U.S. citizens and foreigners held on terrorism charges may challenge their captivity in American courts, a defeat for President Bush.

And good for Sandra Day O'Connor:

"We have no reason to doubt that courts faced with these sensitive matters will pay proper heed both to the matters of national security that might arise in an individual case and to the constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties that remain vibrant even in times of security concerns," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court.

O'Connor said that Hamdi "unquestionably has the right to access to counsel."

I wonder if that old fascist Ted Olson was given a heads-up on these rulings so his resignation wouldn't seem to be directly tied to them. And it's probably just wishful thinking, but it seems as though O'Connor may be having buyer's remorse. She was one of the five who installed aWol in the presidency in December 2000, and it was rumored that she wanted to retire from the court while a Repug was president so she would be replace by another conservative. Over three years later and she's still there; maybe she's now waiting for anybody-but-Bush?