Honest question. Let me try to answer it the same way.
Let me start by saying that I have grown a deep distrust of the federal courts. I have little faith in their judgement and find it amusing when they claim that politics has no place in their business. The catch is that they are unelected and thus unaccountable when they ignore the constitution, precedent and 200 years of American jurisprudence.
The Padilla case is a tougher call than Hamdi but basically the same. Both aligned themselves with al Qaeda and waged war on America. I really don't give much weight to the geography of the situation because I don't believe that rights have borders.
Having said that, I think suspending Habeas in Padillas case is one of those bridges too far. But if you agree that Padilla is a case where he needed to be squeezed for intel then you already agree that at least some of his constitutional rights should be abridged. I'm with you there, it would be lunacy to afford Padilla his 5th Amendment rights if he had knowledge of possible attacks on America and terrorists on our shores.
Probably where we depart is that in a time of war, I place my trust in the elected CIC to make the proper judgement rather than the courts. That is the CIC's constitutional duty, to execute the wars that COngress authorises. A CIC who abused that trust would at least face the voters at the ballot box.
I'm not buying the hyperbole about a rogue President with a split Congress morphing into Benito Mussolini. Too many of us who would rather fight than bow to that nonsense if the Congress didn't act.
So, here's what I think. I would have no problem with Padilla being represented by a court appointed attorney in a Habeas hearing but I would be disappointed if he escaped military justice.