"Third Strike" and you're out?

Not with this maladministration.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled for the third time that the maladministration's treatment of the Guantánamo detainees is unlawful. But, just to put things in perspective, here's a snippet from the news article:

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

[...]

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than six years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

But of course. The maladministraton has avoided, evaded, and ignored what the law requires each and every time. Why should they follow the rules now, and go sit down with a third strike called?