From Today's Washington Post editorial...
"But the detention and interrogation regime that Mr. Bush wants Congress to sanction is almost as bad as the one the Supreme Court forced him to set aside in the Hamdan case . . . . But they were not 'lawful' -- at least not as the Supreme Court has articulated the law."
Now, perhaps I'm missing something (I am just a lowly 2L), but I thought that Hamdan determined the military commissions set up to be unconstitutional and that Hamdi found the detentions to be constitutional. I don't remember Hamdan being ordered released. In fact, the Court's opinion specifically says "It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the Government's power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities in order to prevent such harm." (Slip Opinion at 72.) Justice Kennedy in his concurrence notes without objection that "regardless of the outcome of the criminal proceedings at issue, the Government claims authority to continue to detain him based on his status as an enemy combatant." (Slip Opinion at 11, Kennedy, J. concurring.)
Furthermore, Justice Breyer in his concurrence states "Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary." (Slip Opinion at 1, Breyer, J. concurring.) This is exactly what the President is doing.
I've read through Hamdan and have found no place where the Court makes a ruling on the legality or Constitutionality any interrogation efforts or policies.
Did The Washington Post not read Hamdan (admittedly, it's quite long) or do they just not care?