[oceanview]

do you understand why Padilla cannot be given a trial? what happens when he calls Zubayda and KSM as witnesses, should the government be required to produce them? can you answer just that simple question for us, should the government be required to produce those two people as witnesses in Padilla's trial?

[lugsoul]

Simple question. Simple answer. If the government intends to use evidence provided by them to justify the abrogation of Mr. Padilla's constitutional rights, then they have to produce them. That would be the Sixth Amendment. If he just wants them for his defense, then they don't have to produce them, but he is entitled to compulsory process to get them in court - though I don't think subpoena power extends to Diego Garcia.

Why don't you answer a simple question, now - other than terrorism, what other circumstances justify the Federal government disregarding the Constitutional restrictions on its power? If the answer is none, point to the provisions of the Constitution that allow it in cases of terror.

[Protagoras]

do you understand why Padilla cannot be given a trial? what happens when he calls Zubayda and KSM as witnesses, should the government be required to produce them? can you answer just that simple question for us, should the government be required to produce those two people as witnesses in Padilla's trial?

A fundamental misunderstanding of the system.

[antiRepublicrat]

...what happens when he calls Zubayda and KSM as witnesses, should the government be required to produce them?

6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ... have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor..."

I'd say yes. It would take some seriously activist judges to get around the clearly stated right.