Padilla, and the Supreme Court Options

[*CrackedRearView*]

As some of you might know, the Supreme Court recently rejected an appeal by Jose Padilla; here's a little history lesson.

Jose Padilla is a former Chicago gangster who was arrested in early 2002 following a trip to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He was taken into custody under the suspicion that he was conspiring to detonate a "dirty bomb" in the USA. Consequently, President Bush classified him as an "enemy combatant" and he was henceforth sent to Guantanamo Bay naval prison in Cuba. For the three and a half years following his incarceration, Padilla sat in prison without being charged, without counsel, and without a clue why he was officially there. Oh, and to make matters worse, Padilla is a U.S. citizen!

Now, Padilla is being tried in Florida for charges of aiding terrorist cells and sending money and support to Islamic extremists around the globe. It appears this is the reason that the Supreme Court did not grant him a writ of certiorari. This is unfortunate, because as it stands now, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer are (of course) poised to vote in favor of Padilla's civil liberties. In a more curious alliance, however, John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, and new Chief Justice John Roberts have allied in order to ensure that Mr. Padilla receives all his "traditional criminal rights". So, it appears to me that if the case did finally hit the Supreme Court, a 6-3 ruling would result (with Alito, Scalia, and Thomas on the right side of the spectrum).

For now, the Bush administration has some breathing room. They will eventually have to answer for the enemy combatant classification.

Okay, so now the debate.

Should the Supreme Court have granted a cert to Mr. Padilla? Why or why not? Was the Bush administration justified in Padilla's detention, why or why not?