[george wythe]

This will go the SCOTUS again. The first time, the SCOTUS refused to rule on this issue using a technicality, IIRC (if I recall correctly).

[burzum]

The Supreme Court tends to take national security issues very seriously. Rulings directly relating to national security are very rare (that I've seen), but they tend to side with the government (i.e. the McCarthy hearings case). I don't think the ACLU will have much power when a more balanced Supreme Court takes hold. Some justices remember that without national security, there would not be a Supreme Court.

[NJ_gent]

Indeed, you're correct. They issued a partial ruling on the Hamdi case, which prompted the US to cut a deal with him to get rid of the case (to avoid negative precedent). In the Padilla case, we're just going through the motions yet again on its way to the SCOTUS. They side-stepped the case last time by citing jurisdictional questions. Of course, they opened the whole thing up to a potential government shell game; but it's doubtful the people or the courts would stand for such a mockery.

What it comes down to is simply this: As per the United States Constitution: you cannot arrest an American citizen on American soil and hold him in prison indefinitely without a laywer or trial. Them's the rules we all agreed to when we signed on to this whole free country thing. Want indefinite detentions without trials? Move to one of the communist nations; they love stuff like that.

• See also: 5th Amendment
• See also: 6th Amendment
• See also: 8th Amendment
• See also: 14th Amendment
• See also: Ex Parte Milligan
• See also: Posse Comitatus Act