Court ruling or are they ruling?

Hey all, I wanted to write about a topic that I feel needs to be address. What Constitutional rights do enemy combatants have?
One of the most controversial topics from the war in terror has been the rights of enemy combatants. This label was given to those who fight with radical Islamic fighters against troops like the American armed forces. Many have criticized the existence of the prison in Guantanamo Bay most commonly known as GITMO. This military facility houses approximately 355 detainees according to the latest estimates provided by the Pentagon. Many critics have often spoken out against the lack of rights of those detained at GITMO. Some have even argued for them to have similar rights as soldiers who are captured during War. This would entitle them to rights under the Geneva Convention adopted in 1951 by countries that belong to the UN as written on their own web site. Although still not clear what rights they are entitled to based on the circumstances of the current war on terror: yet, the United States Supreme Court delivered a heavy blow against the efforts on this very situation with their decision on June 12, 2008.
The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in favor for enemy combatants to be entitled to habeas corpus. They can challenge their incarceration in GITMO, and they deserve a trial in a criminal court according to the ruling. Justice Kennedy wrote how it isn’t Constitutional for the military to capture individuals in the battle field without letting them know their rights. He vigorously comments on how suspending enemy combatant’s habeas corpus as Congress had decided on in 2006 isn’t Constitutional. I wonder how Justice Kennedy would feel about it if he was in the front line fighting for his country.
I am angry at the ability of judges to legislate from the bench. Enemy combatants are for the most part foreign nationals fighting for a radical cause, and they don’t give a damn how they kill Westerners especially Americans. Congress already limited our brave men and women’s ability to fight when they placed even more restrictions on the rules of engagement used in the battle field. Thank you Justice Kennedy and the four other lawyers for allowing radicals access to our Court system. Thank you for allowing them the possibility of recruiting more potential killers from the prison population. I challenge you to find anywhere in the Constitution where it states that enemy combatants are entitled to habeas corpus. Justice Thomas clearly addresses previous cases with a different ruling from this one. Judicial review should clearly occur to maintain the balance of powers possessed by the two other branches of government, but judicial activism shouldn’t hinder the effort of our troops based on a phantom portion of the Constitution.
I want to know if you are tired of how much power judges have? Do you feel that many of their decisions are based on their own political bias instead of their interpretation of the Constitution? James.