"Definable ends" only in retrospect. I doubt Lincoln saw an end of the Civil War when he suspended habeas corpus. Nor did FDR perceive that the Axis would ever submit to "unconditional surrender" when he forced the issue on Quirin.
I understand your point. But I am quibbling with Lamberth -- who, without specific examples, is overstating his case, serving only as a fear-monger.
Which the SCOTUS promptly and correctly bitch slapped Lincoln for doing. Only Congress has the authority to suspend Habeus Corpus.
L
The war on Islamofascists is different -- not only do we not know how long it will last, no one even knows how to define what an "end" to this war looks like. By most accounts it's expected to go on for at least 50 years (and since it's been going on for the last many centuries, that's probably an optimistic assessment). It is a pretty solid reality that any infringements we allow in the name of this war will be permanent.
The real argument here is whether we should permenantly give up Constitutional protection of x, y and z rights. But the temporary suspension of government protections that characterized traditional wars is not relevant here. As things stand now, there will be no point in our lifetimes where the war on Islamofascists can be declared won, and our Constitutional protections restored.