Replies

no choice here - the administration fought this all the way. its clear that they will lose the "enemy combatant" designation case if it gets to the SCOTUS, Scalia will even rule against them. so they are trying to duck it and get Padilla on something in civilian court for which they can actually present a case without blowing our whole intel capability in open court on the "dirty bomb" charges.

...so they are trying to duck it and get Padilla on something in civilian court for which they can actually present a case without blowing our whole intel capability in open court on the "dirty bomb" charges.

Makes sense to me. Obviously, I'm not an attorney; but I would expect terms like "minimizing evidentiary complications" and "prosecutorial discretion" to be flying around about now. The real question, and it's always the question, is how much power does the Executive have in the war against terrorists. I hope we can work it out before another bunch of treacherous rats turns our vaunted "civil liberties" against us again in another devastating attack.

It's the never ending fight between the perfectionists and the realists. Questions such as what exactly is an enemy combatant, or what civil liberties apply to suspected foreign terrorists and their domestic fellow travelers etc. will be weighed against the need to protect intel assets and erring on the side of caution when the threat of WMD's are involved.

I know of very few citizens who have been handled ala Padilla; I don't see this as anything but Bush trying his best to protect the nation by sending a clear message to would be attackers. Lincoln, FDR, etc. had a free hand for the most part to prosecute wars; and with some painful but fairly isolated exceptions civil liberties were preserved to a degree that kept us in one piece. The current climate of political treachery that I am witnessing in the country is most troubling.