but whether that would be the presumably meaningful review the Congress prescribed. Note also that a panoply of constitutional and statutory protections ensures that a person imprisoned after a probable cause hearing will receive a speedy trial and be convicted or released, thereby mitigating the impact of an erroneous finding of probable cause predicated upon limited and possibly one-sided evidence. In contrast, the determination of a CSRT is only a determination of the detainee’s status as an enemy combatant. Thereafter, it may be that nothing prevents the Government from holding an enemy combatant “for the duration of the relevant conflict.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 518-21, 124 S.Ct. 2633, 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004) ; see Boumediene v. Bush, 476 F.3d 981, 988-94 (D.C.Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>), cert. granted, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 3078, 168
holding that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review the weight of evidence  holding alien detained as enemy combatant at guantanamo bay has no constitutional right to writ of habeas corpus holding that managing conservator while in texas to seek return of child by writ of habeas corpus may not be served with civil process and is subject to jurisdiction of court in which habeas corpus is pending and only for purpose of prosecuting writ of habeas corpus holding that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review the weight of evidence   holding that statutory habeas jurisdiction extended to guantanamo