[Lazamataz]

On the other hand, YOU people would have these people released just because the government hasn't personally laid all the charges against them, the physical evidence, witnesses and methods just for you. I have a problem with THAT too.

Correct. I would release any person that the government refuses to lodge a charge against. Color me kick-my-heels-up nutty, just crazy about the Constitution like that.

Contrary to your assertion, I am not asking them to lay out physical evidence, witnesses, or 'methods' (whatever that is) at this time. Those can be presented in a closed court session. All I am asking for is habeas corpus. Produce the charge or let him go.

I mean, it is Constitutional for the President to suspend habeas corpus during times of National Emergency. But I am not aware that President Bush has taken this decision at this time. Since he has not, the right to face your charge still is in force.

Bear in mind that Padilla was carrying $10,500 cash. Presumably he did not declare it. Transporting $10,500 into the country without declaring it is against the law. Why don't they just charge him with that? That would be sufficient to hold him.

They didn't even tell us they had him for a whole month.

[cake_crumb]

In many of these cases, the charges are being kept sealed for now...which is very different from the person not being charged at all.

[Sabertooth]

They didn't even tell us they had him for a whole month.

I believe there are aspects of this case that raise concerns. Not sure yet where I come down in this particular instance.

When they apprehend a guy who's a citizen but also an agent of a foreign conspiracy against which we're at war, there are some competing considerations, are there not?

On the one hand, we have the legitmate Constitutional questions you raised. On the other, we also have Constitutional obligations to provide for the common defense, and protect the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Would handling the Padilla case in a normal criminal fashion possibly compromised the investigation into the conspiracy? Was there reasonable suspicion that compromising the investigation might facilitate a successful terrorist attack with a radiological bomb?

I don't honestly know, but I'm also not prepared to count those considerations as inconsequential.

We're fighting a war on our soil for the first time in well over 100 years. None of us has personal familiarity with conditions and stakes like these, and we're still working through what the differences ought to be between peacetime and wartime with a domestic front.

Keep rasing the questions you have, because however we decide, the merit thoughtful consideration.