Final answer:
Supreme Court rulings, such as Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Boumediene v. Bush, have confirmed that even enemy combatants have certain legal rights, including due process and habeas corpus, which must be upheld regardless of national security concerns.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether enemy combatants should have the same procedural safeguards as American citizens is a complex legal issue that has been addressed by the Supreme Court in several landmark cases. The Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case asserted that the government has the authority to detain persons designated as enemy combatants, but citizens detained in this manner must be afforded due process and the ability to challenge their status before an impartial authority. It underscores the importance of a meaningful opportunity for detainees to contest the basis of their detention.
Drawing from Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it's clear that an effort was made to limit the rights of detainees by creating military tribunals and avoiding the protections offered by the Geneva Conventions. However, this was later ruled to be in violation of U.S. federal law and international treaties. Therefore, under the law's current interpretation, detainees at places like Guantánamo Bay have habeas corpus rights to challenge their detention in federal courts, as per Boumediene v. Bush.
Throughout history, including during World War II and post-9/11, there have been instances where national security concerns have taken precedence over individual liberties. Despite this, the judiciary has consistently reaffirmed the principle that even in times of international conflict, there is an essential need to balance civil liberties with national security. The Supreme Court has played a critical role in ensuring that such balance is maintained, especially where due process and humane treatment align with both the Constitution and international law.