The Constitution doesn't explicitly say that the power to suspend habeas is given to the Legislature
I should think that's implied, given that the restriction on suspending it is located in Article I (The Legislative Branch), Section 9 (Limits on Congress)
That's why I said "explicitly". Yours is a reasonable conjecture. As was Lincoln's argument: that the rebellion would suspend the execution of all American laws in the areas he (Lincoln) specified in his habeas suspension directives. (It's part of life that a reasonable argument often counters another reasonable argument.) So, the assertion is that Lincoln's a monster for suspending habeas in an area getting ready to rebel? He had taken a vow to uphold the Constitution and to see that all the laws of the US were faithfully executed. To do that he made a questionable assumption about the suspension of habeas. Which is why I labeled the arguments painting Lincoln a monster and a dictator were purely rhetorical.
Contrast Lincoln's carefully constrained application and painful necessity with the Bush administration open-ended rationale and specious levels of threat. There are obviously terrorists seeking to do us damage. We know it. They know we know it. Yet, the courts aren't threatened with closing. We aren't in imminent peril. The Bush people just wanted to press a belief in the Unitary Executive and had a rubber stamp cowardly Congress to effect it.
Two points. First, he isn't making a new allegation. Second, does the friggin' Telecom Immunity Bill ring a bell? Hellooooooo, McFly. They didn't decide to protect these people on a hypothetical.
Perhaps you're right and most likely there is something there. But you do realise that you can substitute almost any government bill in there and any industry and have a scary conspiracy theory. Myself, I would prefer to have a bit more evidence before I break my pitchfork out.
Somehow that doesn't sound like a reasonable response to a bill that was designed to prevent inquiry into a rotten situation. The courts are where evidence of crimes are supposed to be aired. Take the courts out of the equation and we're left with what?