Suspension of Habeas Corpus

First of all, I want to concede that my prior assertions that Bush is the first president ever to suspend the writ of habeas corpus were flat wrong. I have been doing more research in order to become more informed. I stand corrected.
The law reads: "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." This writ has origins over 700 years old, and was designed to protect the common people against the unilateral indefinite detention by a king. Basically it means if you put a man in the box you have to charge them with a crime and bring them before a court. I view the historical suspension of the writ in the US as meaning "better to be safe than sorry".
Bush is the fourth US president to suspend habeas corpus. Andrew Jackson suspended it for 2 months because of an invasion (War of 1812 with British) & Lincoln suspended it because of a rebellion (Civil War, bloodiest war US has ever fought). Lincoln was indicted for this action (which he ignored because DC was surrounded by hostile confederate militias), and Jackson was fined and prosecuted by Congress. Also in the early 1870s, President Grant suspended habeas corpus temporarily in nine counties in South Carolina, as part of federal civil rights action against the Ku Klux Klan. If you know of more please let me know. Though I could find no information on it, I am wondering if the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was considered suspension of the writ. Pearl Harbor was clearly an invasion, but maybe the detention was not considered indefinite since everyone was released after Japan surrendered.
The previous suspensions happened between 130-200 years ago - there were no phones, satellites, internet, etc. I think the US is a much more settled country, with instant information technology that makes suspending the writ a more extreme measure than in the past. For example, Jackson had to send a handwritten letter by messenger from Washington DC to the troops in New Orleans, basically saying "round em up, lock em up, stop the bloodshed and we'll sort it all out later". Too much dawdling or caution could have meant the end of the country, and information traveled at a horse's pace. To the argument that 9/11 constitutes an invasion - I say that's giving way too much credit to 19 illiterate Saudi punks. Most importantly, I don't think the war on terrorism will ever be over. Suspending the writ for a year after 9/11 until we could accurately determine how much danger we were in, maybe, but forever does not seem justified. I don't understand why it would be hard to charge someone with a crime and prove their guilt. My fear is that the cornerstone of our criminal justice system may be gone forever. As you know, I have spent a couple of nights in the box - albeit for good reason. I don't want anyone to be indefinitely detained by the US government based on rumors, innuendo, or a hunch.