The problem is that this is exactly the type of issue a court should decide. When the government violates clearly expressed tenants of the Constitution, Federal courts stand as the sole safeguard between the people and the unbridled power of the state.
Now, I'm not saying this is that exact situation. But it's definitely something I'd want a court to examine in detail.
The Supreme Court didn't intervene when Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. It didn't intervene when Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. It didn't intervene in Japanese internment.
The Supreme Court is, and has been since 1803, the final arbiter of the constitutionality of national security programs.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were never appealed to the Supreme Court because the power of judicial review wasn't established until 1803, but they have referenced the acts in modern opinions and said they would be found unconstitutional.
SCOTUS did in fact hear argument and issue a decision on Japanese internment, mostly famously in favor of the government in Korematsu v. United States, but they also struck down indefinite detention in Ex Parte Endo.
In Ex Parte Merryman, Chief Justice Taney ruled Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional. This almost precipitated a constitutional crisis, as Lincoln either threatened or actually ordered him to be arrested.
In modern times there were the Guantanamo cases: Boumediene, Rasul, Hamdi, Hamden.
And that's just working off your examples. The Supreme Court absolutely decides the constitutionality of national security cases.
I believe what rayiner is describing is similar to the "political question" test. The court may have the ability to hear and decide on any constitutional question or appellate dispute, but they have determined certain issues to be fundamentally political in nature (such as gerrymandering), or primarily subject to legislative remedies (many national security issues, including Korematsu, which upheld broad discretion in affording leeway to the federal government in the interest of national security).
You may disagree with this. But, the Supreme Court has a staggering amount of written and unwritten precedent and protocol that is considered. And national security based cases are unlikely to be subject to as strict of scrutiny before the Court.
You're moving the goal posts. "Strict scrutiny" is a specific legal standard that isn't really relevant to this discussion which implicates clearly established constitutional rights (automatically invoking a higher standard of review.)
The courts side against the government in national security cases all the time. See e.g. Ex Parte Endon, Merryman, Hamdi, Hamden, etc. so I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.
The Supreme Court also routinely addresses political questions, see e.g. Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Griswald v. Connecticut etc. The "political question test" is not a tenant of constitutional law, but rather an element of some conservative jurisprudence. Incidentally, one with which I'm intimately familiar, having taken Constitutional Law from Robert George.
The statement that the Supreme Court doesn't decide issues of national security, from a historical perspective, are just not correct. I've been told it's polite to give people a way out in these types of scenarios, but this is Hacker News. I don't disagree with some "unwritten precedent and protocol," I disagree with your statements.
All of which, by the way, I've proven wrong citing specific case law. This isn't discussion sections or precept. You can't not do the reading, wave your hands, and expect me to go along.
Now, I'm not saying this is that exact situation. But it's definitely something I'd want a court to examine in detail.