What burden does this place on the government? The government must merely demonstrate that there is a legitimate and lawful reason for holding these prisonsers prisoner. It would require for instance military officers stating under oath that said gentleman was captured bearing arms on the battlefield and is an enemy POW.
The reason that this is an important right in the war on terror is that many of the folks in Guantanimo were captured elsewhere. They may be illegal combatants. They may also be someone who was caught on the wrong airplane at the wrong time and has never had the opportunity to make his case. Until a neutral judge hears that, with a record of fact that is appealable, you don't know.
I understand the exigencies of war, but the guys at Guantanimo are hors de combat, thousands of miles from any front, and processing them through the legal system is hardly a legal strain on US government resources (most of which is standing around doing not very much anyway).
Me, I am awfully jealous of constitutional protections against arbitrary executive authority. I would not give up habeas corpus lightly.
You are way off base being that they were-—
- Captured in fighting off US soil
- Are not US citizens or legal residents
- Are unlawful combatants MEANING not in uniforms and part of a guerrilla army
— Detainees are not on US soil and have purposely been kept out of the jurisdiction of US courts