For the first time, they are challenging the executive in an area where the president had complete control.

I want to present what I consider to be the applicable law.

It's like the government is playing games. The defense could raise these issues. The government is going to have to explain why they aren't going after much stronger charges.

It's the same thing as a bunch of cops watching. It may be intimidating, but it's nothing illegal.

You're going to be hard pressed to find somebody who hasn't heard the name Padilla and read somewhere that he was the supposed dirty bomber. Padilla is the government's worst nightmare as far as litigation.

The targeting process is extremely complex. Commanders do not just bomb targets willy-nilly.

To have the court step in and say we want to review the president's decisions as he's acting as commander in chief, that's significant.

This was definitely a statement of protest. It is unusual because it signifies that at least one member of the court believes that the president has exceeded his legal authority.

When you are dealing with these embedded media, you have to wonder how much the U.S. government must try to control them.

I think the court is going to have to take it. This is a vital case on the principle of an American citizen captured in the United States and what constitutional rights does he have.