I wouldn’t say the Padilla case is clearly criminal. That is, it isn’t exclusively criminal, because the War on Terror has recontextualized that specific possible case of treason.

I don’t see it that way at all. He’s an American citizen captured on American soil accused of breaking an American law. To argue that the Constitution doesn’t apply to him is to argue that it doesn’t apply to any of us.

Would the war on terror be allowed to include a high school kid who’s experimenting with the Anarchist Cookbook? Or an NRA member who stockpiles weapons? Or a dumbass who calls in a bomb threat because they don’t wanna go to work that day?

The biggest irony here is that 9/11 was the date chosen because it coincided with the sentencing date of the guys who were tried for the first World Trade Center bombing. It would be sad to think that 9/11 is also the last time anyone accused of terrorism was allowed to defend themselves.

Presidents have a history of taking more power during wartime than they normally would have, and when no one questions those assumptions of power, then precedents get set. This case might set some kind of limits on the Presidents’ war power, or it might leave the President’s wartime powers as wide as they already are. Either way, it would be good to have some kind of definition.

I wouldn’t say the Padilla case is clearly criminal. That is, it isn’t exclusively criminal, because the War on Terror has recontextualized that specific possible case of treason.

Well Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi are US citizens, so they shouldn’t have to proved innocent of anything. They have to be proven guilty.

The judge in my jury duty went to painstaking detail to make sure every juror understood this point. At no point in a criminal case is the innocence of a defendant ever in question. The burden of proof is on the state alone.

The problem with the War on Terror is that it’s a war in the abstract sense that can incorporate war in the concrete sense.

Good point. The “war on terrorism” is a rhetorical device used to describe the various efforts to stop terrorism. This includes homeland security, military might, and law enforcement. But if Bush is trying to stretch the use of the word “war” to encompass all of these things then something is seriously wrong.

While I can understand an argument that Hamdi is a POW (which, as Andrew pointed out, is different than an “enemy combatant”), the Jose Padilla case is clearly a criminal matter and should be dealt with accordingly. Hell, he was “captured” in New York.

I wonder if people would feel the same way about rhetorical wars being treated like real ones if it was drug addicts being thrown into Cuban “happy camps” and being denied of their constitutional rights because they might be able to provide information about their dealer. After all, in the “War on Drugs” you’re either with us or against us.

About the detainees and the constitutionality of holding them, that’s for the Supreme Court to decide, isn’t it? I mean, are the detainees US Citizens who have been proven innocent of engaging in treason?