you can not hold a citizen of the US for three years without charges. that was the point of the lawsuit in the first place. charging him for a crime is fine, that is not what’s at issue here. you can not just hold some one until the lawsuit gets the the supreme court, decide you’ll lose and switch the charges, regardless of what an EVIL individual you are. I think you’d feel differently if it was a friend or family member of yours being held. this group is testing the waters right now to see what they can will be allowed to get away with.

Of course he has rights. What right is being denied him at this time?

If the government drops the civil charges and decides he’s an enemy combatant again, now that would be underhanded. However, that possibility was also addressed in the opinion.

Is it saying that it is OK for the federal gov’t to hold an american citizen for 3yrs without charge and limitations to lawyer, so long as they deem them a terrorist- or enemy combatant, and then at the last minute charge him with a civil crime. Doesn’t this smell of unconstitutional? I don’t care what you think of padilla, and that it would never happen to a white christian conservative hillbilly in the michigan millitia (or should it?). This is America and even criminals and terrorists have rights under the constitution if they are citizens.

I think the court did the only sane thing they could do with this. Kennedy laid it out pretty well in his opinion. It would have been a waste of everyone’s time for the court to take this one now.