Is That Legal?

My understanding is that it also relies on ex parte Quirin (which I think was wrongly decided in the interests of political expediency). The current situation is clearly distinguishable (again, only my opinion) from Quirin, but the 4th Circuit was looking for reasons to uphold and not to overturn so Luttig made it work.

Where does Judge Luttig see any limitations to Executive power at all? As written, this decision allows the government to arrest any US citizen and hold them until the government chooses to assert that the war against Al Qaeda is over (if ever). There is no requirement to defend the accuracy of the claim as that would require a trial.
IMHO, the US could easily convict Padilla of a variety of serious charges up to and probably including treason. There is ample evidence available to do so. And if the evidence for a particular charge is too weak to stand, how can that same claim justify permanent detention as an enemy combatant? The only purpose served by taking the enemy combatant route is to establish a precedent to hold US citizens when the government doesn't have such evidence. And they're lucky enough to have Michael Luttig to wrap up their facsist little program in a (vaguely) legal sounding bow.

And with this opinion, has Judge Luttig just earned himself (from his esteemed Commander in Chief) the title of Justice, in order to see this same reasoning be applied in the SCOTUS?

It seems incredible, but no one, not the MSM, not the blogs, not the people I talk to, seems to realize how important this ruling is.

Its potential for evil seems limitless.

Looking forward to your comments on this next week.

I too am interested Eric's further comments on this.