Final answer:
The Supreme Court's decisions on the treatment of foreign terrorists held by the U.S., such as those in Guantanamo Bay, have generally supported the federal government, affirming its authority but also upholding international law standards, like the Geneva Conventions, and restoring habeas corpus rights.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Major Decisions of the Court on Terrorism and War in Iraq
Regarding the major decisions of the Court on terrorism and the war in Iraq, they have largely gone for the federal government. The Supreme Court has made landmark rulings that impact the handling of foreign terrorists and the application of constitutional rights in the context of national security.
In particular, cases such as Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and later decisions addressed the treatment of detainees and the validity of military tribunals under both U.S. federal law and international law, specifically the Geneva Conventions.
Initially, the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Bagram were denied habeas corpus rights, being labeled as 'unlawful combatants' by the Bush administration. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 sought to solidify this approach by removing jurisdiction from federal courts.
However, the Supreme Court's rulings, such as in Rasul v. Bush, have affirmed the federal court's authority to review the legality of foreign nationals' detention at Guantanamo Bay, and in 2008, the Court's decision struck down parts of the Military Commissions Act as unconstitutional, restoring habeas corpus rights to detainees.
The struggle between ensuring national security and upholding individual rights and international law standards has been at the center of the United State's response to terrorism. This tension is exemplified in how the U.S. has sometimes taken a unilateral approach, rather than working in concert with international institutions like the UN, to address global terrorism challenges.