[Congressman Billybob]

Since the Supreme Court said, unanimously, that someone in Padilla's position could be tried by a military tribunal and executed as the maximum sentence, it is the 2-1 majority of the Circuit panel that is misreading the law. Not the author of this article.

John / Billybob

[John Beresford Tipton]

I am aware of In Re Quirin.

It looks to me as though the Second Circuit chose wanted to avoid the Constitutional question re power of commander in chief vs. Congress.

Instead they went to a strictly statutory interpretation route, deciding that whatever the state of the law was in Quirin's day it was changed in the early 1970's by the Non Detainder Act. I think they felt that if Congress wanted the petitioner to be held by the military, Congress would change the law, and it would not make much difference because the petitioner sure was going to be around for a while (though in civilian custody).