Following closed-door hearings in which the Dept. of Justice presented its full justification for holding the five Algerian men, detained in Bosnia in 2001 and held in Guantanamo Bay for the last seven years, Judge Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court in Washington ruled that the government had presented insufficient evidence to continue holding the men. (He did allow them to continue holding one other prisoner about whom the DOJ also presented evidence.)

Included among the men freed was Lakhdar Boumediene, the subject of the landmark case, Boumediene v. Bush, which established their right to habeas corpus proceedings.

The Times also notes, however, that the men aren’t likely to be immediately let go, either; Dept. of Justice lawyers are expected to appeal.

In a statement issued this afternoon, the DOJ said that while it was pleased it was permitted to hold onto one of the detainees, “we are . . . disappointed by, and disagree with, the Court’s decision that we did not carry our burden of proof with respect to the other detainees.”

The DOJ added: “we are promptly reviewing the decision with respect to the other five petitioners. But we also think that this ruling demonstrates the need for Congress to enact procedures that allow these petitions to be adjudicated in a way that is fair to the detainee but that allows the Government to present its case without imperiling national security.”

The Judge in the case, however, Judge Richard Leon, in an unusual statement actually asked the government not to appeal the ruling, saying that, as reported on SCOTUS blog: “seven years of waiting for our legal system to give them an answer to their legal question is enough.”

The DOJ has been working hard in recent weeks to keep the habeas corpus cases filed by hundreds of detainees from moving forward, even though the Supreme Court ruled in the Boumediene case in June that they’re entitled to challenge their detention. On Tuesday, Justice Dept. lawyers filed an opposition to an order by another federal district court judge handling the cases of more than 100 Guantanamo detainees. The judge had ordered the government to turn over the legal and factual basis for holding the men, and all exculpatory evidence.

On Tuesday, the government opposed the judge’s order. In an e-mail sent to lawyers handling the cases last week, the government lawyers had called the court’s order to turn over evidence “legally inappropriate and unworkable.”

The Democratic nominee, in answering a question about civil liberties from a member of the audience at a school gym, proactively raised Gov. Sarah Palin’s controversial attack from the Republican National Convention — when she claimed Democrats cared more about reading terrorists’ their rights than national security.

“First of all,” Obama said in his biting rebuttal, “you don’t even get to read them their rights until you catch them. They should spend more time trying to catch Osama bin Laden; and we can worry about the next steps later!”

As the crowd applauded, Obama punctuated his point with almost mock exasperation. “Seriously! These folks,” he said, turning to his own commitment to killing terrorists:

My position has always been clear: If you got a terrorist, take ‘em out — take ‘em out. Anybody who is involved in 9/11 — take ‘em out!

Yet unlike his Republican rivals, Obama argued that national security can be entirely consistent with upholding the Constitution:

But what have I also said is this: When you suspend habeas corpus, which has been a principal dating before even our county –- it’s the foundation of Anglo-American law — which says, very simply, if the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, “Why was I grabbed” and say, “Maybe you got the wrong person.”

The reason you have that safeguard is because we don’t always have the right person. We may think this is Mohammed the terrorist, it might be Mohammed the cab driver.

Now I’ll shift from reporting to speculating, and note that in the moment Obama proffered the Mohammed example, he seemed to consider how the line might be misconstrued. Watching his voice rise in that packed Michigan gym, I think Obama knew he went farther than his typical line on racial profiling. (As you can see in the video below.)

To recalibrate, he gamely inserted himself into the habeas hypothetical. “You may think it’s Barack the bomb thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president.”

Then, Obama delivered a rousing close to his extemporaneous constitutional address:

So the reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It’s because that’s who we are – that’s what we’re protecting! (applause) Don’t mock the Constitution! (applause) Don’t make fun of it! Don’t suggest that it’s un-American to abide by what the founding fathers set up — it’s worked pretty well for over 200 years!

The crowd rose to its feet in loud applause. It was one of the most warmly received arguments of the day, a departure from the economic policies that anchor Obama’s current stump speech.

During the primaries, Obama’s habeas corpus line usually drew applause, and he has been advocating the issue in Congress.

Obama is one of the 13 senators to co-sponsor the Restoring the Constitution Act, a bill to restore the rule of law and roll back major parts of the Military Commissions Act, which the Supreme Court recently found unconstitutional. The 5-4 decision was praised by Obama, while Sen. John McCain derided it as one of the “worst” judgments in history.

Watching both parties’ conventions, you wouldn’t know the rule of law has been seriously undermined by the Bush administration, or that torture, rendition, domestic warrantless surveillance and other crimes have become common tools of U.S. policy under a corrupted Justice Dept.

It was heartening, if only for a few moments, to watch a citizen raise those issues, and for a presidential candidate to respond with principle and passion for restoring the constitutional order.