I do understand that perfectly that point of view. But it does require American people as a whole to understand this history of law and the interpretation of the Constitution and what that document allows and demanding our Congress and SCOTUS reevaluate it as well. Because Presidents have claimed that there are exceptions for detaining Americans without trial, possibly indefinitely, since the Civil War.
Given the exact words in Constitution: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it, indefinite detention without trial was at least plausibly constitutional during the Civil War. What we are facing today is neither an insurrection nor what the Founding Fathers meant by an "invasion". Too much dependence on evolving rulings and precedents can lead to an interpretation that is clearly contradictory to the actual words of the Constitution. I prefer to defer to the specific words, with any reference to history merely a guide to how those words have been understood. I have no problem at all with holding trials for treason and executing every evil slime who takes up arms to support the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but if they are citizens then their right to a trial is not subject to congressional infringement.