I understand that Habeas corpus can be suspended if it's in the interest of the public's safety ?

Question

How is not granting a prisoner or someone(who may be unlawfully detained) the right to a trial, in the public best interest ?

Could this be a flaw in the legal system ?

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
-Aticle 1, Section 9 , Clause 2

Oh i was thinking in terms of the detainees in guantamo if this is why they can hold them in prison without trial .

Answer 1

Actually, no. Habeas Corpus can only be suspended "when in cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public safety may require it". (Article I §9)

While immigration may be a problem, it's been roughly the same for decades and doesn't count as an invasion. Nor does popular dissent count as rebellion. Habeas Corpus can only be suspended when the threat is so severe, that federal courts cannot function.

Not only Habeas Corpus, but the plain text of the 6th Amendment, as well as several Supreme Court rulings (most recent July 2006) have confirmed the right to trial, including those detained as "enemy combatants".

The problem is, you're talking about legal issues. The Bush regime has abandoned the rule of law, and stated that the courts do not have the authority to question or review executive actions. Bush has repeatedly ignored Supreme Court orders, because since he controls the executive (law enforcement) branch, there is nothing the court can do to him.

{EDIT to linlyons} You are incorrect both about what the law says, and how it is applied. Read the Constitution. Read the Geneva Conventions (3rd and 4th primarily). Then read the several recent Supreme Court cases where Bush has been slapped down for constititutional violations relating to the Gitmo detainees.

Read the laws and cases for yourself, and you'll understand that there is no justification for willful deliberate violation of federal law.