Poor Jose Padilla

Almost four years since John Ashcroft threw him and his rights into the brig, and the Supremes still won't give him a break--or even a hearing. Their copout today, according to the Washington Post, left it

an open question whether President Bush could legally detain a U.S. citizen in the United States as an enemy combatant in the future.

That is if you are ready to concede that we no longer have a constitution.

Billmon has more, and he analyzes the strange decision of Justice Stevens to vote with the wingnut majority.

I'm a bit at a loss to explain Stevens's volte-face on the most important civil liberties case in recent memory. It's definitely not the kind of thing I would want to be remembered for if I were a Supreme Court justice in the twilight of my career.

Perhaps John Paul decided that given the court's current composition, bringing Padilla up for a ruling on the merits was no longer such a good idea. Discretion can still be the better part of valour, and I can see the case for it here.

The Padilla case has been handled exactly how Saddam would have done it, how Stalin would have done it, how Charles Taylor would have done it. The Bushies and their idiot supporters must be very proud.