[atlaw]

I agree. But that still begs the question. Had either of those two events been subject to a congressional declaration authorizing combative counter-measures, would you have supported detention of U.S. citizens without charge at the time? This still seems to me to be executive branch overkill, almost an exuse to suspend judicial guarantees where there is no need to do so. And it is no less an objectionable precedent if it is said that the guy simply has to be detained without charge because we cannot make the charges stick, but we really, really know that he is otherwise a threat. (And by the way, I meant none of my last comment to Don Joe to be directed to you. I can't say I've ever taken umbrage at a fellow poster before, but his comments really chapped me, perhaps unnecessarily).

[donozark]

You simply are not following the thread. The words I have posted in reference to Ex Parte Quirin were for the most part, what DOD/DOJ is using as basis for establishing "enemy combatant" status of Padilla, as put forward by the Professor McGinniss from NW Univ. IMO, entirely legal. Time will tell...