It must be kept in mind that terrorists are legally defined as combatants. According to the Geneva Convention they are "illegal combatants" and their actions are classified as war crimes but they are "combatants".
The Japanese on Kiska were also combatants living on U.S. soil. However, they had a higher legal standing under the law because they were legal combatants.
The question becomes, "Are combatants waging war against the United States on U.S. soil covered by the Bill of Rights.?"
The question becomes, "Are combatants waging war against the United States on U.S. soil covered by the Bill of Rights.?"
Anyone who decides the 9/11 attacks were acts of war cannot argue for civil trial of the combatants, whether citizen or alien.
No, that's not "the question". You're missing a major point. The purpose of the so-called trials is to determine whether the accused is a combatant (or one who aids combatants). If we're determining in advance that Joe Resident Alien is indeed a combatant, then why bother with a trial at all? What would be the point in having a trial for someone whom we've already declared guilty?