It's not a legal argument at all. Go up to a random person on the street (not in San Francisco), and tell them that the rights of people caught fighting against the U.S. in Afghanistan are just as important as those of law-abiding immigrants trying to build a life in the U.S.

To the contrary. I think you have to have a very legalistic dedication to procedural due process to assert that people abroad advocating the violent overthrow of the United States should have the same rights as ordinary accused in the United States.

I have to disagree: the instant that something becomes a privilege, and not a right, is the instant that some administrator can decide that I personally don't deserve that privilege. There goes my personal protection against our police force, and my personal ability to speak my mind.

Beyond that, if it's good policy for US citizens to have freedom of speech, or right to a fair trial, or to not be tortured, then it's good policy for all humans to have those rights.

By asserting the "random person in the street" argument, you're asserting a tyranny of the majority. You should know better. Shame on you.