Maybe I am missing something here but Padilla is a citizen with constitutional rights.
I don't like this notion that somehow it's ok to wage war and institute subterfuge if you're a citizen. I know that wasn't what you meant or implied but I've been hearing a lot about this lately. Prisoners of war (which I would consider him) are in a different category than ordinary criminal defendants. We've held prisoners of war for extended periods before.
It would be a much simpler matter if we just tried him for treason and hanged him, like we used to do. But the T word is never mentioned. Probably too draconian for these "enlightened" times.
Treason used to mean the death penalty, too.
Maybe the government has a weak case against him?
It appears that a 6-3 majority would've taken the case if it were not mooted by the transfer of jurisdiction. As it were, three justices would've taken the case anyhow, I guess to rule on principle; three justices would take the case if it were not moot, or if it becomes 'unmooted' again; and three justices would evidently deny cert regardless (but it's unclear, since they didn't write an opinion).
Nope, not a Prisoner of War. In order to be a POW you have to have Identification with the army of your country (dog tags) and a uniform. So Paddilla doesn't get this status nor what is provided under the Geneva Accords.
But the T word is never mentioned. Probably too draconian for these "enlightened" times.
Oh, I forgot to mention the words "Aiding and abetting the enemy" and oh, let's not forget he was intercepted with enemy instruction manuals. IMHO, I think the term "Traitor" is entirely appropriate here and our "enlightenment" here is nothing but a mask for Political Correctness and the democratic party.