I will further agree that American citizens as well as those aliens committing crimes within our borders - with specific exception to those on military attack or espionage missions - should have access to due process.
But if you ask me to accept the premise that an enemy combatant brought to Guantanamo from Iraq or Afghanistan should have access to Constitutional rights, I wholeheartedly disagree.
I would agree that moving the venue from within the borders of the United States to a leased military post in another country changes the dynamics. However, it still comes back to the label, in this case, enemy combatant has replaced terrorist as the principle subject of the discourse. Why should
terrorist enemy combatants have access to the rights granted others by the Constitution?
A combatant is a person who takes part in an armed strife? Consider, someone caused a sweep or round up of what could only be called suspects. It is not at all difficult to imagine that some mistakes were made. Why worry if they mistakenly pick you up, you will have an opportunity to clear up their mistake. Errors that caused the mistake can be revealed when the person accused has the opportunity to provide proof of their innocence. So you see, the question is the same, how do you know who is a
terrorist enemy combatant? What has happened at Guantanamo Bay is that far too much time has passed without benefit of any process much less due process.
The main objective of a war on terrorism must result in eliminating more terrorist than it creates.