Legal positions seem to be diametrically opposed as to whether the case ought to be tried in civil court or military court.
What is your opinion and what sources can you cite?
Originally, Jose Padilla's lawyers wanted him transferred to civilian authorities, because they believed he would get a fairer trial that way, seeing as the militar courts would not have nearly the same stringent requirements on evidence and proof of guilt, plus he would not be tried by a jury of his peers. The administration fought against it for a long time, but suddenly wanted him transferred immediately to civil court after being indicted on charges completely unrelated to either terrorism or a dirty bomb. Now the lawyers want him to stay in military custody until the Supreme Court hears whether or not the president has the authority to hold U.S. citizens indefinitely by claiming they are "enemy combatants." Most believe that the administration wanted to get him in civilian court so that the Supreme Court would no longer have standing to hear the case.
I personally think that it is ridiculous for the president to unilaterally decide that U.S. citizens can be held indefinitely. It goes against the very intent of the fifth and sixth amendments. The fifth amendment states, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger..."
The case had nothing to do with land or naval forces or the militia, so why should he be arrested without a grand jury hearing? Further, the sixth amendment states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." How can this possibly be said to not apply? Is he not a citizen? Does the constitution not apply to him? It makes no sense to me. He may have committed treason (which is a reason to revoke his citizenship), but he has to be convicted by a court of law BEFORE we start treating him like a non-citizen.