Thanks, ozoned, for bringing that part of the constitution to everybody's attention, I figured you would.
Since you did, then I'm sure you realize that contained wihin the UCMJ and the Geneva conventions, adopted by Congress, are all the rules and regulations required to handle detainees, which CsG and the Bush Admin are attempting to thwart, to find a way around...
So, if detainees are treated according to the principles in those documents, it's likely constitutional. But that's not what's being advocated, is it?
The questions in the poll assume that detainees will never receive legal standing unless it's granted them by the current admin, which is, fortunately, entirely untrue... Those are apparently the nuts and bolts of the secret and as yet undivulged procedure you reference with your unanswerable question. They'll be held until the SCOTUS gets fed up with the Admin's shenanigans, or until their care and feeding is outsourced to some other nations... Even then, I doubt that's strictly constitutional, at all, or is desirable in any way. That would mean that anybody could be whisked away to some offshore facility, and have no recourse at all, given that the Admin would simply claim to not have them in custody...