To abolish Habeas Corpus, it must exist in the first place. Sure, Habeas Corpus exists for U.S. citizens, but where and when did foreign beligerents gain the right of Habeas Corpus?
President Bush has created military tribunals for trying foreign beligerents under his authority as supreme military commander in chief. This is within his authority, and abolishes nothing (certainly not habeas corpus, as you and I still retain that right - ergo it can't have been "abolished" by definition).
"The Writ of Habeas Corpus was designed to protect every person from being detained, restrained, or confined by any branch or agency of the government." Scaggs v. Larsen, 396 U.S. 1206 (1969).
Anyone may file a writ of habeas corpus. Even convicted terrorists.
It also goes without saying that "[i]n absence of Congressional action a writ of habeas corpus cannot be denied in a proper case even in wartime." Ex parte Stewart 47 F.Supp. 410 (D.C.Cal.1942)
And, of course, the most famous case on the matter:
"The President, under this clause, cannot suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, nor authorize a military officer to do it." Ex parte Merryman, 17 Fed.Cas.No. 9,487 (1861)(Chief Justice Taney.)
I've been reading your posts. It would greatly shock and dissapoint me if you are among those uneducated lost souls floating around these threads who think the "constitution does not apply to non-citizens." Surely, you understand the Constitution restricts the actions of the government regarldess of who it is dealing with. If you do not grasp this basic feature of our government, don't bother replying. I don't mean to be rude, but a discussion would be pointless. However, I am confident you DO understand how the constitution works and that you DO understand that ANY person may file a writ of habeas corpus.