Hardly. Gonzales himself made a tacit admission that the Bush Administration was making a de facto suspension of habeas corpus against the two men labelled as enemy combatants. You can call it what you want, but it's fairly clear that the Bush Administration is seeking the moral equivalent of suspension of habeas corpus for enemy combatants - and it will be interesting to see what happens if the court demands that one or the other be subject to the normal due process granted defendants in this country.
Dirtboy I truly don't think that your problem is with the Habes Corpus aspect of the Padilla case. He has exercised his Constitutional right to petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus and the court is giving it thorough consideration. Your concern IMHO is with the use of military force (detention) against a citizen on US soil (I assume you have no problem with someone captured on a battlefield, like Hamdi, being held as a POW.)
Sorry, I do not have a problem with someone who has been demonstrated to be an enemy agent to be tried through military tribunal. However, I do not think it is in the best interests of this country for the Justice Department to unilaterially declare these powers without Congressional approval and serious judicial review. I do not think the Bush Administration will abuse these powers significantly - however, I shudder at this precedent being handed to President Hillary Clinton if she ever were elected.
"Tacit admision" and "morally equivalent": that's not good logic- that's reaching for what you want to believe.