We changed due process, they have due process, and as a bonus we get to smack them around too. I do not see a need to grant non-uniformed enemy combatants 5th amendment rights. Apparently neither do a sizable majority of US senators. So as of now this IS the due process
I have no fear of this being misused because if the government is so bent on torturing the innocent for whatever reason then the law is moot. Law is an abstract, power is what counts, and the law is meaningless if the power ignores it. The fact that this was asked for shows the power still respects the law.
Law itself is meaningless. This is something I find sort of sad in seeing how people react. People cling to the law as if the law itself gives them power, but in fact the law only applies if the powers that be accept them. I don't think there has ever been a legal revolution, a legal coup, or a legal war. Likewise there has never been an illegal revolution, coup or war if that side won.
If the US becomes a dictatorship at some point in its history (and I'm sorry to tell you but its not, nor will it be in 2 more years) it will first be illegal, and then it will be legal. It will then be illegal to oppose the dictatorship.
If you oppose the use of torture on terrorist suspects and prisoners then just state that. To frame it around the law is pointless and silly, trying to turn it into a legal matter is a large part of the problem with the 90's in terms of intelligence gathering.
I support the use of this mild torture on terrorist suspects, a majority of senators do as well, including a good number of democrats, and I will assume a majority of the american people (though of course you could frame that question in a lot of ways in a survey).
In 2008 a democrat will be elected unless the DNC is run by a retard (debatable), George Bush will go hang out at his ranch, and all this hand wringing and fear mongering will be past us.