This is the text of the 5th through 8th amendments:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

It has always been recognized that there are certain wartime privileges that the federal government enjoys, one of which is to take enemy prisoners of war when off in foreign lands waging a war. I don't dispute that, and in fact think that is a necessary part of the federal government's war powers.

That said, I think you will find nothing in the Bill of Rights that supports the notion that there are separate basic rights between citizens and non-citizens when it comes to being detained and brought before a court, civilian or military. In fact, nearly ever clause is written in an abstract way to specifically not authorize the government to behave in the proscribed way toward anyone. Part of this is because the very notion of an "American citizen" didn't even exist when the Bill of Rights was enacted.

The Bill of Rights is abstract, and not intended to be more than the framework on which court procedures and the law are written. I understand the concerns that Wes and others have, but I think these can be mitigated by court procedures aimed at keeping the spirit of the Bill of Rights while working under the realities of a military occupation of foreign lands. Also, as I have said before, since Congress has not formally declared war, I see no reason to indulge the President in the pretense that he has wartime powers at his disposal. Since there was no formal declaration of war, I see no reason to regard the detainees as prisoners of war, rather than as criminals.

The point about the distinction between a time of declared peace, and a time of declared war is everything to the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, etc. If the President can simply deem a campaign against a terrorist faction as tantamount to a war, any act that brings the terrorists on our soil can be used to meet the definition of "invasion" in the Constitution that allows for the suspension of Habeas Corpus. If war is dumbed down to that point, then war powers will become normal powers.