The Justice Department's decision to take over the case of alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla marked a dramatic turn for the  once "very scary" (in the words of former AG John Ashcroft) American citizen.  The timing came just a few days before the U.S. would have to file a brief before the Supreme Court regarding whether they should hear Padilla's claims regarding his unlawful/enemy combatant status, so it now appears that the U.S. legal argument will be "its moot, he's back in U.S. criminal custody, stand down Court and let us charge him with some conspiracy crimes and never have you (Court) address the issue of whether the government can hold a U.S. citizen for a few years, call him some ugly names, don't let him see lawyers, and hold him in military custody though he was captured in Chicago."  Ok, they won't say it that way, it will be all nice and legalese, but that's where the U.S. seems to be heading.  Or maybe there's more. . .  

It's not safe to speculate on such matters, as the Justice's legal strategy in the terrorism cases has been anything but transparaent or predictable.  But, there may be another purpose here, and for those of us who have followed these cases, I'd put some money on it.

The U.S. wants this case to go away, and the best way to make it go away is for Padilla to go away.  In the case of Hamdi, the U.S. citizen found fighting (allegedly) in Afghanistan, the U.S. told him, basically, "look, renounce your citizenship, go to Saudi Arabia, and we'll pretend like this whole affair didn't happen."  This, of course, was after the Supreme Court told the U.S. that it couldn't detain Hamdi indefinitely, that some process was due to him, given he had been held for several years.  So, Hamdi is now in Saudi Arabia, and the conditions of his "renunciation" of citizenship is that he will not speak to the press or anyone about the "conditions of his confinement."  An aside, here: it always struck me as funny, if that's the right word, that a guy the U.S. alleged to be terribly dangerous would be allowed to return to Saudi Arabia, a country not known for its control over terrorist planning (case in point: 9/11).  

So, my thought is this:  the U.S. will offer Padilla a plea.  I don't know his attorneys, I don't know if he wants to fight this (and it isn't clear to me whether the Supreme Court would take his case still, though his lawyers wish it so under the theory of "capable of repetition yet evading review"), but it seems to me that the U.S. is gearing up for another "let's make a deal."  In the criminal court, his "deal" would be binding, perhaps he'll plea to lesser charges like many other terror cases, and the U.S. is likely to put conditions on its plea -- don't talk about the conditions of your confinement.  Now, I don't know if its at all clear whether that would be legal, but I'm guessing that last week's move by the U.S. wasn't just about the Court, it was about Padilla.

One final thought:  if that's true, my fear is that, once again, the Administration and its proponents will find "proof" that the criminal justice system doesn't work in these cases.  They'll twist this case, in the same way they have twisted the Z. Moussaoui case (the alleged 20th hijacker, who is still awaiting trial, but who would have pled to a life behind bars if only the Administration wasn't so hell-bent on the death penalty).  There seems to me to be a rational discussion and debate for when and if the criminal justice system is appropriate.  Perhaps if we find bin Laden, for example. But, for Padilla, the case always seemed suspect.  And, now, the U.S. may just try to be wishing it away.