Judge Raymond Randolph said: "Federal courts have no jurisdiction in these cases."

The appeals court rejected the main argument by lawyers that it was unconstitutional to deny the prisoners a right to challenge their imprisonment in the federal courts. Judge Randolph said of the lawyers' case: "The arguments are creative but not cogent. To accept them would be to defy the will of congress."

Yes, and the courts have such a fine history when they uphold the will of congress over that which the Constitution proscribes. We get such admirable work as Dred Scott, Plessy v. Fergusson, US v. Reynolds...

The question is not the will of congress, the question should be, "Does this violate the letter or spirit of the Constitution?" The blunt answer is, yes it does, and there is no way to remove habeas corpus from people in US custody that does not, regardless of the location of their incarceration.