[Valpal1]

The constitution has not been suspended by declaring Padilla an enemy combatant and placing him in military custody. His rights were not violated because he dispensed of them himself waging war on the U.S.

Who decides who is an enemy combatant? The President and the military, not the courts. The courts have no business micro-managing a war or the military.

The courts should have stayed the hell out of this instead of opening a can judicial review worms. They have crossed the seperation of powers line and created a big fat mess.

Last time I checked, the rights guaranteed by the constitution can only be suspended by a declaration of martial law. Declaring someone an enemy combatant is micro scale martial law.

Lesson to be learned: Don't engage in acts of war against the U.S.

[ndt]

"The constitution has not been suspended by declaring Padilla an enemy combatant and placing him in military custody. His rights were not violated because he dispensed of them himself waging war on the U.S."

The whole point of the trial is to determine whether he was waging war on the U.S.

Until that is proved the rest of your argument is moot, and until that is proved as a U.S. citizen, he has inviolable rights.

There is no such thing a "just a little" martial law.