"It isn't a kangaroon court held with rubber hoses."
Whew! Obviously I have more confidence in and respect for the present custodians than you do.
But at the risk of being accused of trying to keep this on a civil level, I note you directed someone to read the majority opinion as well as Scalia's dissent. I suggest, in addition to Hamdi and Padilla, you also read Eisentrager, and Ahrens and In Re Quirin and the rest of the long history of this issue and then go read Braden. The very idea that such a reach was attempted to attain such a contrivance not only does harm in itself to the system but gives a fair indication that something that wasn't broken didn't need fixin'.
What do you have against sending a military judge around to hold hearings and declare that the individual in question really is an unlawful combattant. It isn't hard. The army did it in Gulf War I.