[lepton]

A precedent for holding an American citizen, no matter how odious a citizen, without due process.

During WWII, a group of 8 Germans were dropped of in the U.S. to carry out espionage activities - except one of these Germans was actually a U.S. citizen. The courts upheld that they were the military's concern. THAT was the precedent to which you refer. They have due proccess - not that of a civilian criminal, but that of one carrying out acts of war against the U.S., while not falling under the criteria of the Geneva Conventions on War (Though the administration has decided to allow them the general protections anyway).

Next?

[William Terrell]

They have due proccess - not that of a civilian criminal, but that of one carrying out acts of war against the U.S.. . .

Unfortunately, there is one distinguishing feature of the WWII case. "During WWII, a group of 8 Germans were dropped of in the U.S. to carry out espionage activities - except one of these Germans was actually a U.S. citizen."

The evidence was conclusive; the citizen was caught in the act in a declared war being an enemy spy. No such evidence has been presented for the citizens held now. If there is evidence, why hasn't it been presented? "Security concerns"? Then why not in camera?

This is a test of that precedent in this case. Is is by no means settled that it applies. The whole issue of holding citizens without civilian due process, when there is no conclusive proof of belligerence, as an exploration of the minimum necessary requirements to do so ought to disturb you.

[Stavka2]

except one of these Germans was actually a U.S. citizen

Wrong. Once he joined the military of a recognized foreign power, he lost his citizenship. Padillo was never a member of an established enemy military.