tom543, by that same logic, isn't anyone who commits any felony at all eligible for the same kind of treatment?

There are punishments for crimes.  There are fines, prisons, and in certain countries and states, executions.  But you can only be given a punishment if a judge and jury decide you should get one.  This is because you have rights:

• the right to know what you're accused of
  
• the right to begin the trial process soon after your arrest
• the right to legal counsel to assist you in your defense
• the right to a public trial so that your friends can come and make sure everyone is following the rules
• the right to be present at your own trial
• the right to have your guilt or innocence decided by a jury

They're a different kind of "right" from, for example, the right to bear arms, or drink alcohol, or vote: the government can decide whether to let its citizens bear arms (maybe not without a permit, for example), drink alcohol (not under a certain age), and vote (maybe not if you've been convicted of a felony).

But governments cannot decide not to let a defendant be present at his own trial, or to wait as long as they want before starting the trial.  If they could, the government could arrest anybody they wanted, hold them for as long as they wanted, try them secretly, maybe without a way to defend themselves properly, maybe without them even knowing, and sentence them however they want.  Is this the way you want your government to work?

The Supreme Court's ruling was that terrorists and people suspected of being terrorists must be allowed to enjoy the same rights that the rest of us get.  Not the rights to vote and bear arms (hell no).  I'm talking about:

The right not to be tried and convicted secretly.

The right not to be imprisoned forever without a trial.

The right to get help from someone who understands the law.

These are not rights we have because we're law-abiding citizens.  They're not rights we have because we're citizens of a certain country or other.  They're rights we have because we're people, and people deserve to be treated with basic respect, whether or not they have done things that they should be punished for.  The Supreme Court's ruling only means that terrorists are people too.

If a person is suspected of having done something horrible, by all means, let's start a trial to decide whether they're guilty.  If they are, it is a crime not to punish them as the law demands.  But is also a crime to treat them as anything less than a person in the process.

terrorist do not follow rules of society, therefore they should not be treated like members of society

Pretty straight forward!!