Suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus
The 2006 arguments to suspend writ of habeas corpus are not linked with a credible constitutional requirement: That of invasion or insurrection.
In 2006, one of the arguments floating around to suspend the writ of habeas corpus is the assertion the US was invaded in 2001.
The claim is untimely.
There's no credible argument the US leadership was confused between 2001-2006, and has only now comprehended what has happened. Recall, in the wake of 9-11, the public learned the DOJ Staff had already planned the Patriot Act before Sept 2001. Despite the "confusion" of Sept 2001, the DOJ Staff and Members of Congress diligently found statutes and portions of the Constitution to ignore. This shows calculation, not confusion.
The real issue is why the DOJ Staff or anyone can argue that they should now ignore what they did not have the imagination to ignore in 2001. DoJ Staff and Members of Congress were reckless with their recklessness.
As background the writ is the power of the Court to compel the executive to explain why they are holding someone in jai. This springs from the abuses in England whereby the English Attorney General banished people to a remote island so they could not appear at trial.
To prevent this abuse, the US in the Constitution forbade this act.
Despite the Constitutional requirement, Members of Congress have been complicit with this Executive's assertion of similar British abuse.
Rather than end the abuses when Hamdan affirmed the rule of law, Members of Congress want to do the same with this Miliary Commissions Bill, but strip this right of all people to be brought before a court on the basis of an accusation.
Those who imprison others and punish them without trial are on shaky soil. The US, when it illegally executed the Nazi saboteurs without a competent trial, faced a backlash from the Nazis. All American service members who were shot down over Nazi-occupied Norway were treated the same: Executed without trial, as otherwise required in Geneva.
Addington and Gonzalez argued for the Nazi approach: Refusing to respect the laws of war, rather than ensure Geneva was protected.