Habeas Corpus

I chose to read Law and Terror by K. Anderson. What I got from this article it talked about the legislative branches have concern about the president having absolute power in times of national security wartime and how we as a nation should deal with person that pose a threat to our country safety. What are the proper steps to take so these person habeas corpus right ate not violated and not interrogated/tortured beyond reason?
“Do I abide by the law and let the whole country fall apart or do I violate on law and save the whole county”. I believe that this become a troubling question for any president when the country welfare is threatened. The legislative branch is not truly concerned with the president having total power in these situations if they were concerned they would implement and establish a clear set regulation that would have step in place that may lead up to act of terrorism has been committed when the nation is on full alert for example. When an act of terrorism is committed to me it does not matter if they are detained on or off foreign soil they become an enemy of the state. Habeas Corpus should not exist for you. I understand that this is a right established by our fore fathers in the constitution, but what I do not understand is how you expect to have these right when you are trying to destroy everything that lead to the establishment of these rights and possibly form a county that is was in my opinion so these right do not apply. Why do you think you the land was obtained on foreign soil? When any country has Special Forces and their job is interrogation you think they are thinking about Habeas Corpus?
The thesis for my final will be when written did the constitution consider what would be unjust treatment for crimes/person against the nation two hundred years later and when written could our Fore Father possibly know what imamate danger lie ahead for our great nation.
Foner, E. (n.d.) Lincoln Abuse of the Presidential Power (video) available