It seemed like he was held a long time with no charges, and no access to an attorney while the Feds tried to see if he could be tried as an enemy combatant.
For the last time (I hope) please get your (meaning the universal you) facts straight:
Padilla was picked up May 8th, 2002 on a material witness warrant. By May 22nd...a mere two weeks later, by appointed counsel, he moved to VACATE that warrant, thereby starting the series of events that went up and down to the Supreme Court...
Even when the President directed that he be held as an enemy combatant (june 9th 2002) and he was taken into custody his atty, as his next friend (ex.rel.), filed a Habeaus petition TWO DAYS LATER...
which petition went up and down the Court system until finally he was tried and convicted...
So the net BS about him not having an attorney is a lie. The net BS about him being held and deprived of his legal rights was a lie. So the impression left that here was some poor soul held incommunicado while nobody did anyhting was a lie!!! He was represented by counsel from virtually the time he went into custody. At anytime the Court, on the application of his attorney, could have ordered him produced, could have ordered him transferred (which in fact the 2nd Cir did)...
And here is what the Supreme Court said....
"Padilla's argument reduces to a request for a new exception to the immediate custodian rule based upon the "unique facts" of this case. While Padilla's detention is undeniably unique in many respects, it is at bottom a simple challenge to physical custody imposed by the Executive--the traditional core of the Great Writ.
There is no indication that there was any attempt to manipulate behind Padilla's transfer--he was taken to the same facility where other al Qaeda members were already being held, and the Government did not attempt to hide from Padilla's lawyer where it had taken him. Infra, at 20-21 and n. 17; post, at 5 (Kennedy, J., concurring). His detention is thus not unique in any way that would provide arguable basis for a departure from the immediate custodian rule. Accordingly, we hold that Commander Marr, not Secretary Rumsfeld, is Padilla's custodian and the proper respondent to his habeas petition."
And I bolded the hot part for you.
Ya want to yammer about Padilla, OK, get your facts straight.
WildagaintheuniversalyouandhaveyouhuggedyourWaltherTPHtodayAlaska ™