That's simply incorrect. Military tribunals are under the Executive Branch. Civilian Courts are under the Judicial Branch. Moving the trials of foreign warriors from the Executive Branch to the Judicial Branch would VIOLATE our Constitutional separation of powers.
Moreover, by attacking U.S. territory directly, foreign warriors are NOT granted more rights than if they attacked American interests abroad. The Japanese who conquered the American Aleutian islands during WW2 did not suddenly get all of the protections afforded to American citizens by our Judicial Branch courts. Likewise, foreign terrorists who attack and plan attacks against domestic American targets do not suddenly obtain the full protections of American civilian courts under our Judicial Branch. In fact, a review of my 1901 Alabama state Constitution explicitly grants the citizens of this state to unilaterly use force of arms to stop such attacks WITHOUT any trial whatsoever.
The fact that we would grant military trials at all to those who place themselves under the Geneva Convention's definition of spies and sabotuers subject to summary execution (i.e., not clothed in the military uniform of their country while planning/executing attacks), merely shows that the U.S. is extraordinarily concerned with civil rights - even to the extent that we risk damage to our nation in order to give trials to such people.
To: A.J.Armitage
"...Likewise, foreign terrorists who attack and plan attacks
against domestic American targets
do not suddenly obtain the full protections
of American civilian courts under our Judicial Branch..."
# 113 by Southack
************
As long as we are in peace-time,
a criminal cannot be subject to a military trial.
You have your talking point, and you'll repeat it however inane it is. There's nothing in the Constitution creating military tribunals in the first place, let alone requiring them, let alone stating that certain groups must be tried by the executive. All you have is a slogan you remember from grade school civics, and you've spun off a novel legal doctrine having nothing whatsoever to do with the actual contents initially described by the slogan you've memorized. The Constitution does not say, "We the people say, separation of powers! Bicameralism! Rah! Rah rah rah! Voooote BUSH!!!"
BTW, what common law principle would come to mind back then if someone had suggested your doctrine at the time of the Founders? I'm asking to see if you have even a slight idea what ideas actually formed the provisions of the Constitution.