[Iwo Jima]

Thank you for the reference. I will look it up and read it. I think that what you have quoted may be a good line to draw, too. I doubt that someone who came secretly and illegally into the United States the night before the act of terrorism for the sole purpose of committing the act of terrorism is entitled can claim Constitutional protection.

But the question then becomes, who decides that that is what happened and how?

[mrsmith]

I think that too depends on whether it was an "act of war".
The courts have insisted, very strongly, that they have juridiction in nearly all other cases.
That is a strong protection against abuses by the other Branches of the government-
notably the 'not really an emergency' use of orders such as this in the case of "insurrection", which is the abuse we seem most concerned about.

[mrsmith]

Threads that discuss most points pro and con:
Abandoning the Constitution to Military Tribunals
Yes, But It's Our Star Chamber
WHO PUT WHAT IN BOB BARR’S CHEERIOS?