Senate report concludes: no proof of contact between

[kandrathe]

I don't think that anyone's arguing for terrorists to not be punished, here.

But if you've got a person in custody, some, you know, charges might show that you are detaining him for a reason.
Considering that according to the fourteenth amendment, eqaul protection under the law is to be provided to both citizens, and non-citizens, that bill should be seen as non-consitutional as well.

Well, I'm pretty sure it will need to go to the Supreme's... There is mention in the section on limitations on Congress, but it is pretty clear that the purpose of this bill, and the Detainee Treatment Act falls into that "rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it" section. But, the lawyers will need to duke it out. It can be argued that foreign nationals (terrorist cells) infiltrating the US for purposes of flying planes into buildings could be considered a type of asymetrical invasion.

Section 9:The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

• The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.<>
  
• No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
  ...<>
  [st]

I think the reason that the writ can be suspended is to allow the government to insure that sources of the invasion or insurrection are contained. Otherwise, you could have a situation where the terrorists would use the writ as a shield to continue to attack. I am dubious of things like the "war on terror", "war on drugs" or the "war on unhappiness". So, I could also see where the Supremes might determine that using war powers against asymetrical foes is too far a stretch, however convenient.

Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I think the extension of Constitutional rights (including the 14th amendment) to non-citizens is another open question. It regulates how States can treat the citizens, and the "any person" clauses talk about "without due process". Which we could read to mean, without a legal process. But, 1st this is a Federal jurisdiction case, so it might not apply, and 2nd they would have a due process covered by the laws recently passed by Congress on "the process for detaining, questioning, treating, and prosecuting" terrorists and enemy combatants.