O.K. Thanks, but you have to translate the legalese. 
I don't see any reference to Padilla. How does the following language apply to Padilla? "November 26, 1997, as if enacted immediately after the amendments made by section 583 of Public Law 105-118 (as amended by section 4002(e)(7) of Public Law 107-273)." The way I read this is it applies to all aliens designated as enemy combatants as of 26 Nov. 97.
Was Padilla ever charged under the MCA?
Nothing would prevent an American citizen wrongfully deemed an alien enemy combatant under the MCA from filing something in federal court. I would be shocked if a federal judge refused to hear whatever petition was filed.
I haven't looked at the legislative history of the law so I don't know what the underlying debate is about re retroactivation of the law. But the '97 retro date is in reference to the provisions re torture while the rest of the bill is retro to any person detained since 9/11/2001. If I were to guess, I would have guessed that the Clinton administration was authorizing rendition or torture and wanted his ass covered by the law. But that's a guess.
Padilla was arrested in 2002. The law doesn't have to reference Padilla by name. All it has to do is grant the president authority to detain suspects as 'illegal enemy combatants' and that would comprehend Padilla's specific case.
There're also arguments I read that brought back to mind the idea of fundamental rights from our constitution. Fundamental rights apply to non-citizens as well as citizens. So non-citizen aliens enjoy the same constitutional protection as you and I do when it comes to habeus corpus.
But that's another argument and frankly, I have a headache at the moment.
Where's my damn ibuprofen?
