For me, there is a world of difference between mistreating a relatively low number of terror suspects - and regretting it after a few years - and detaining innocent civilians, including children, without trial.
No behavior of the United States should dictate what Australia should allow itself to do. A state that treats people in that way will not be called a true democracy by me, though.
The US government has all these things, except perhaps the 'regretting' part.
The US prison system is stupid, no doubt. But even the worst prisons in the US are much better than what Australia is forcing refugees to endure. With the small difference that the US prison system doesn't have a 100% rate of non-convicted detainees, unless Australia's refugee detention.
You... honestly believed that I was suggesting literal magic, rather than just using a colourful word for special?
Anyway, I'm not forgiving Australia's actions on asylum seekers by comparing to US actions. I'm stating that "constitution" law does not prevent abuses. You say that there is a relatively small number of terror suspects? There is also a relatively small number of asylum seekers in offshore detention. However, the three million domestic US prisoners generally have terrible conditions. Where is the constitution protecting them? What about the police armed with military equipment that refer to civilians as 'the enemy' and have a problem with shooting black people? The constitution isn't providing much protection there.
Where did the US constitution protect over a million dead Vietnamese from a US puppet war?
Where did the US constitution protect several hundred thousand dead Iraqis from a war of US military adventurism?
My point is not to make a laundry list of US misdeeds, but to point out that there is nothing special when it comes to human rights and a document called "the constitution", and it seems the US talks about its constitution more than everyone else combined.
Just to reiterate, constitutional law is just law that's harder to change. It can be changed. The US Bill Of Rights is explicitly a list of changes to the constitution. Governments can restrict themselves further without a constitution - the UK has plenty of human rights legislation without a document called "the constitution". Likewise you can be signatories to treaties that restrict your government without making constitutional amendments or making domestic law.
On the other points:
> will not be called a true democracy by me
'True democracies' don't prevent abuses either. Democracies have a history of all sorts of abuse - apart from modern states, we can point to slavery-era US slaughtering its way across the continent, empire-building England, all the way back to the ancient Greek democracies like Athens... who kept slaves. And if it's claimed that these states aren't 'true democracies' as a result, then that's pretty much a textbook example of the "No True Scotsman" argument. 'Democracy' is not a synonym for 'egalitarian utopia'.
> detaining innocent civilians, including children, without trial.
You are aware that there were untried detainees in Guantanamo, yes? And if they're untried, you can't just claim them guilty-by-default.
> and regretting it after a few years
Give me a break. This is simply flat-out apologism. And just like the Australian people with offshore detention, the US people with suspects in Guantanamo Bay were split amongst those people who were angry, those people who were glad (some openly), and those people who don't care.
The US constantly talks about it's constitution, in pretty much every media channel available. It doesn't mean that the US doesn't engage in surveillance or torturing detainees. The US has done some horrific treatment of detainees - and if you include regular prisoners in the term 'detainees' (since they are), then Australia pales in comparison to the US treatment.
It's puzzling as to why people think that constitutional law is somehow magic.