No TL I'm not being funny, the first link you gave mentioned several incidents that lasted several hours to several days. Now unless I'm mistaken that is not the same as "held incommunicado for as long as the President wants". So some kind of process was working.
In the second link you give evidence that the court has infact reviewed, in direct contradiction to the statement: "So a constitutional right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we used to think of in an old-fashioned way as “inalienable” can now be instantly stripped from any American by the President with no meaningful review by any other branch of government." Unless of course somebody is saying the Court was not meaningful or another branch of the government, and there may not be any arguement from me on that point
Now DO NOT get me wrong I personally think that being held for 72 hours without being charged should be unconstitutional, but our courts have said otherwise. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with the Patiot Act, I do have a problem with bold statements of doom and gloom without proper back up. "Hale" if we're going to run around "Willy Nilly" over Doom & Gloom, which Doom & Gloom do we choose? The Doom & Gloom of a potential or the doom & Gloom of a did?