As a for instance... why would "avoiding US constitutional law" matter when it doesn't cover the detainees anyhow, as the Constitution only really covers ci

As a for instance... why would "avoiding US constitutional law" matter when it doesn't cover the detainees anyhow, as the Constitution only really covers citizens? This is dead wrong. The Constitution covers all residents of the United States. Even illegal aliens are entitled to constitutional protections thanks to the 14th Amendment, which specifically says that no state shall "...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." See the cases of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 369, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064. and Wong Wing v. U S, 163 U.S. 228 (1896) 163 U.S. 228. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yick_Wo_v._Hopkins http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wong_Wing_v._United_States http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wong_Wing_v._United_States Now, the U.S. argued under Bush (and perhaps is still arguing?) that the detainees at Guantanamo are neither citizens nor are they within the territory United States. But I think this theory is far from completely decided. Arguing that Guantanamo is somehow not part of the territory of the United States, when clearly we exert our sovereignty there takes a special sort of blind sightedness. Furthermore, after Guantanamo is closed, if the detainees are brought onto US soil, then the Constitution will unquestionably apply to them. Getting back to my original point: saying that the Constitution only applies to citizens likewise ignores nuance and simplifies the problem to the point of falsehood.