OK, I just skimmed through this stuff very quickly. A few observations:
1. The facts are a little bit different than I thought. Padilla was not just hanging out at home -- he traveled abroad to Egypt, Afghanistan and a few other places. He was arrested here, but at the airport when he got home. That's an important distinction. Dude appears to have been coming home to attack his fellow countrymen.
2. There appear to be some cases that help the government quite a bit. I have not read them, but they sound good in Olson's brief.
3. There appears to be a strong case for finding Padilla to be an enemy combatant. He traveled abroad, conspired and worked with al Qaida, then came home apparently to plan and implement attacks. In times of war, civil rights are reduced -- plenty of law on that subject. Given what appears to be a strong national interest here, Padilla's rights should be limited.
4. With the above being said, I still think that U.S. citizens should have some minimal level of due process. Change my TR hypothetical. He went on vacation in Turkey. He likes the coffee. Didn't meet with any terrorists. But he got framed, and he gets arrested at the airport on the way home. He's innocent. He needs some protection, even in time of war. I don't know what the military tribunals provide in this regard, but I think U.S. citizens should get more due process than foreigners, even if it is minimal.
5. The right to counsel issue is significantly affected by intelligence concerns. The national interest has to come first IMO.
OK, that was stream of consciousness. I reserve the right to refine my thinking later.
