AP and Reuters confuse me

On my Bloglines page, I currently have both

Bush Can Hold U.S. Citizens Without Trial (AP)

AP – The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday that Congress gave President Bush the power to hold an American citizen without charges or trial, but said the detainee can challenge his treatment in court.

Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:31 AM

and

U.S. Citizen Can’t Be Held in Bush’s War on Terror (Reuters)

Reuters – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that an American captured overseas in President Bush’s war on terrorism cannot be held indefinitely in a U.S. military jail without a chance to contest the detention.

Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:26 AM

It’s on my My Yahoo page too.

U.S. National News from AP Jun 28 10:46am
* Bush Can Hold Citizens Without Charges * Family of Captive Marine Asks for Prayers * Magnitude 4.5 Earthquake Strikes Midwest * Peterson Defense Getting Upper Hand Early * Supreme Court to Hear Case on Medical Pot

Top Stories from Reuters Jun 28 10:47am * Court: Foreign Terror Suspects Can Use U.S. Courts * Iraq Formally Returns to Self-Rule Two Days Early * U.S. Citizen Can’t Be Held in Bush’s War on Terror * Supreme Court Decides Terror Case on Technicality * U.S. Military Denies Reports of Zarqawi Capture

Helpfully, all of the links are down. So that’s completely clear, then. For god’s sake, can you two come to some agreement please?

Edit: I think I might have worked it out based on those summaries. Here’s my idea – it’s legal for him to be held without charges, but it’s not legal for him to be held without being able to challenge his being held in court, even if that doesn’t mean that charges are pressed. Does that make sense?