extend this concept to the battlefield. suppose instead of being caught at OHare airport, Padilla had been caught after a shootout in an Afghan cave. what happens then, does he also get the trial you say he deserves? does the army have to mirandize him? does the army have to travel with a criminalist to take evidence against him as they would for any "normal" criminal? do the soldiers at the shootout need to be deposed for his trial? how would he get a fair trial, if these normal procedures that are part of any criminal prosecution in this country, were not followed?
Padilla cannot get a trial by the standards in the civilian justice system. are the foreign wiretaps used admissable? do we have to allow his lawyers to depose the top AQ people we have captured as part of Padilla's defense?
as far as I am concerned, he gave up his citizenship when he became an agent of a foreign power.
Why not? So long as we are talking about a handful of US traitors, why abandon our usual legal procedures? Consider your own example. What if he says "I wasn't firing on US soldiers. They kidnapped me because they heard I was American, but didn't kill me because they found out I'm a Muslim." Sounds implausible to me. I'd vote guilty if that's the whole defense. But what if he can bring forth credible witnesses that support his story?
Something Bush said shortly after 9/11 has stuck with me, although he quickly forgot it. To paraphrase, he said we should go about our business and not let terrorists force us to change our way of life.