So you're saying that you can't imagine a case where this would be true? It simply doesn't exist? Like I said, I doubt anyone knows what they have (or don't) on Padilla -- so I don't think it's appropriate to consider this issue just by saying, as the Washington Post does, "Indict him" ...
The go on to say "There may be times when circumstances require the detention of an American citizen fighting for the other side who, for some reason, cannot be tried in civilian courts. But ..." and "Instead of trying its luck before the Supreme Court, the administration ought to seek congressional legislation to regulate such cases. In the immediate term ..."
It's those two issues I'm more interested in here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090901807.html