Dubya and Ashcroft have delayed this too long, as it is.
I have no problem holding him incommunicado (with the exception of a lawyer) if at least TWO (2) branches of government agree that he poses too great a danger to be allowed all of his Constitutional protections. However, even if he is determined by SCOTUS, to be a terrorists and that trial can be delayed, he should still have access to an attorney (even if the attorney is required to be a retired JAG officer, with an active TS clearance).
But, if SCOTUS rules in favor of him, then three people should go on trial. The accused terrorist should then be tried on the charges levied against him by the administration and Dubya and Ashcroft should be tried for blatantly and intentionally violating a US citizen's Constitutional rights.
On the other hand, if SCOTUS rules against the suspect, then only two trials would be necessary - those of Dubya and Ashcroft. After all, just because SCOTUS finally ruled against the suspect, does not mean that the citizens Constitutional rights were not violated up to that point. In fact, it only means that they should have asked for the court's blessing of their actions sooner.
That's why we have separation of powers in the US - so no one branch of government can unilaterally deny a US citizen his rights, as has Dubya and Ashcroft. If he is really all that Dubya and Ashcroft say he is, then there should be no problem in getting the court to approve continuing to hold him incommunicado. But, the operative word is "continuing". For unilaterally denying him his rights and holding him incommunicado for over a year, with no explicit court or Congressional approval, prior to this time, Dubya and Ashcroft should still be held legally accountable.
They should get a medal. You should go work for the Saudis.