How do you know?
The President has designated Hamdi and Padilla as combatants. The law of the land is that he has every right to do so, Ex Parte Quirin. So far, three federal judges have upheld this precedent. Quirin is quite explicit on the fact that being a "citizen" does not trump being an enemy comabatant.
What's the President's evidence? Ex Parte Quirin? An American citizen landing with the Germans to spy during a declared war and was caught in the act? That's undeniable evidence, and sufficient for revoking citizenship. Where is that unquestionable evidence for Hamdi and Padilla?
Federal judges have upheld the precedent. Do you understand that federal district court establish no precedent, except for the limited area in which they are? Federal district courts across the nation have ruled differently from one another in just about every legal question raised in this country. For a question of this magnitude, their ruling has the accuracy of the opinion of a barroom bum.
Certainly being a citizen does not trump being an enemy combatant. But where is the evidence of these two men being enemy combatants, not overwhelming evidence, just enough to establish a prima facie case? The Justice Dept has refused to provide any when ordered to by one of those unfallible federal court you seem to hold such faith in.
If they are entitled to the full protection of the Constitution as you seem to think then Hamdi, not having been Mirandized on the battle field, is free to walk even though he was trying to kill Americans. Doesn't make any sense at all.
If they are American citizens, they are entitled to due process. If they are enemy combatants, the same evidence that proves so is the same evidence that could strip them of their citizenship. Where is the evidence? How do you know either of these two men were trying to kill Americans?
What doesn't make any sense at all is one citizen being so fast to establish a precedent to trample the rights of another. Don't you realize, that if for some reason the "government" (executive authority) had some grievance against you that you could be in the same position, and you could screan, "I didn't do anything!" all you wanted and no one would hear you because of this same precedent?
Are you crazy? 