Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

...No graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole people; for it is the birthright of every American citizen when charged with crime, to be tried and punished according to law. The power of punishment is, alone through the means which the laws have provided for that purpose, and if they are ineffectual, there is an immunity from punishment, no matter how great an offender the individual may be, or how much his crimes may have shocked the sense of justice of the country, or endangered its safety. By the protection of the law human rights are secured; withdraw that protection, and they are at the mercy of wicked rulers, or the clamor of an excited people...

....The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.

Read the preceeding paragraphs, then the following, asking if the respondants strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree [rotate]: "The President of the United States should be allowed to order the detention any individual, without the review or oversight of any court.

This is not strictly your topic, but I would love to know the results to this question:

"If America suffers (does not suffer) another major terrorist attack before next year's election, will that make you more likely or less likely to vote for the Republican (Democrat)?"

The conventional wisdom always seems to hold that Americans instinctively "rally around the president" and (presumably) his party at times of crisis.  It would be interesting to ask them what they think before the crisis.  Needless to say, a breakdown of the results in each cell of the 2x2 matrix (does/does not, Rep/Dem) would be fascinating.

On habeas corpus specifically, I would ask:

"If the government says person X is a dangerous terrorist, do you have a right to know the government's evidence for this statement?"

-- TP  

I think a rankings question about how much they consider constitutional issues when discussing counterterrorism would be helpful.

something like

On a scale of one to five, with one being not at all concerned and five being very concerned, how concerned are you about protecting civil liberties when creating counterterrorism policy?...how concerned are you about civil liberties under current counterterrorism policy?

On a scale of one to five, with one being ineffective and five being very effective, how effective must a counterterrorism policy be at protecting American lives for you to consider surrendering your civil liberties?...how effective do you consider current counterterrorism policy to be?

Five part multiple choice (strongly agree ...disagree)

I support the right to a jury trial for any American.

I support the right to a jurty trial for any person.

I support the right to a jury trial for pedophiles.

I support the right to a jury trial for terrorists.

If your daughter was stopped for "suspicious activity" and taken to jail, do you think she should get a trial? What if she insists she is innocent, but the arresting officer insists she had a weapon, and calls her a "terrorist"?

If a neighbor named Ahab is stopped for "suspicious activity" and taken to jail do you think he should get a trial? What if he insists he is innocent, but the arresting officer insists he had a weapon, and calls him a "terrorist"?

Do you think all U.S. citizens should have the right to "habeus corpus" (the right to be brought before a judge to determine if you are guilty or not)?

What if they are foreign-born? What if they are visitors and not citizens?

What rights would you expect for yourself or your child if you were arrested in England? In France? In Iraq?

What if they are suspected of a serious crime, like terrorism?

I don't know how this should be translated into polling questions, but I think a critical aspect of the habeas corpus discussion: no one wants themselves to be picked up by the police, stuck in jail, and/or tortured, but lots of people don't mind if that happens to other people if it might mean they would be safer. So if the government only picks up Arab terrorists, or communists, or poor black people, then they don't care. But if the government went after them or their family members or friends, then they would care.

I feel more safe or I feel less safe: Because my local police department does not have to disclose to anyone who is in the jail and the reason they are there.

I feel more safe or I feel less safe: Because my local police department must disclose to the public who is in the jail and the reason they are there.

I think your wording should reflect that about half the respondents actually know what "habeus corpus" is - just say a word of latin, and they're lost.  I would recommend paraphrasing what it means, rather than using the term, in most of your questions.

Perhaps:
"Do you think the President should be able to indefinitely jail anyone he deems a threat without charging him or her of a crime or allowing access to a lawyer?"

To me, this gets the point across that this is a dictator we're talking about, not a president.

Wish I had more time, I have ideas but wordsmithing these takes a while.  I'm happy to see that you're doing this poll!