I think you need to go read up on the case a little more. General Wilkinson did not suspend habeas corpus, nobody did. He claimed the Supreme Court didn't have the power to issue the writ, and Chief Justice Marshall set him straight. But as a sidelight to that, since neither Congress or the President had suspended habeas corpus then the Court was not in a position to rule on just who may suspend it.
Nice try though.
I've read the case and its background many times. Your comments on it make it readily apparent that you have not though.
General Wilkinson did not suspend habeas corpus, nobody did.
What Wilkinson did was to prevent the execution of the writ. Specifically, three writs were issued - to Erick Bollman, Samuel Swartwout, and Peter Ogden. Wilkinson blocked the writ's execution for Bollman and Swartwout by placing them on naval ships in the Mississippi River, then sailing those ships out of the jurisdiction of the territorial courts (Judges Sprigg and Workman) that issued the writs. Ogden was released when a subordinate officer of Wilkinson's received the writ, not knowing Wilkinson's intent. But Wilkinson had him rearrested, along with a fourth prisoner - Alexander. Ogden and Alexander were issued a second set of writs by Judge Workman. Wilkinson outright refused the writs from there on, while having Swartwout and Bollman transferred to Washington in the custody of the navy. In both cases his rationale was that the necessity of the situation deemed the arrests appropriate.
The issue arose as to whether Wilkinson had the authority to obstruct the execution of a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court decided this question on the grounds that neither Wilkinson, nor anybody else but Congress, prevent the writ's execution, and then only by a legislative suspension in times of war or rebellion. He claimed the Supreme Court didn't have the power to issue the writ, and Chief Justice Marshall set him straight.
Wilkinson did no such thing, nor was that argument even presented in the case. Bollman and Swartwout were being held in Washington on an affadavit of Wilkinson charging them with involvement in the Burr conspiracy. The U.S. Attorney in the case requested a bench warrant from the D.C. court charging them with treason, while Bollman and Swartwout's lawyers petitioned for habeas. The D.C. court issued the bench warrant and refused the habeas writ.
Bollman and Swartwout's attorneys then filed an appeal of the writ's rejection to the Supreme Court, and brought on Luther Martin - a constitutional convention delegate and famous attorney at the time - to argue their case. The Supreme Court accepted a few days later, hearing the case Ex Parte and rejecting the lower court's rulings on both counts. The treason warrant was dismissed for insufficient evidence and the habeas writ was issued on the grounds that no constitutionally permitted suspension had taken place without Congress' approval. This made Wilkinson's denial of the writ and the D.C. court's refusal of it unconstitutional, so the writ was issued.
But as a sidelight to that, since neither Congress or the President had suspended habeas corpus then the Court was not in a position to rule on just who may suspend it.
Your logic is fundamentally convoluted and your understanding of the case is nonexistant. Why am I not surprised by this?
A suspension of habeas corpus can ONLY occur when it is constitutionally authorized, and as Marshall correctly stated only Congress may do that. Without Congressional authorization under the permitted circumstances of invasion and rebellion, the denial of the writ by a member of the executive branch is unconstitutional.