Well, I guess it depends on what you define as a right.  Habeas corpus can be suspended in times of rebellion or invasion.  Other rights cannot be suspended in that sense.  Also, as mentioned above, habeas corpus only concerns the ability to seek judicial review of government detention, it doesn't entitle someone to freedom from government detention.

I hate to be picky, but the phrase "unless your a moron" was both uncalled for and unintentionally hilarious.

And to note, I never said I personally believed in that interpretation. But it is a valid take on the Constitution-- the Founders assumed the existence of a writ, yes, but it's an interesting academic question if we would have habeas corpus at all if the Judiciary Act of 1789 had not been passed. Since it does exist, though, the debate is kind of moot for practical purposes.

I do believe strongly that habeas corpus should not be interpreted as a right. If it's a right, then only United States citizens have it. If it's a restriction on the structure of the government -- which its position in Article I strongly suggests-- then that means all people the U.S. government seeks to detain can resort to it. If it's just a "right," then non-American citizens (see, e.g., Guantanamo) are SOL.