ACTUALLY, THEY SHOULD BE CALLED "PADILLA" RIGHTS

I think Charles Krauthammer gets it just about right on the issue of rights for U.S. citizens deemed "enemy combatants."

The Hamdi case suggests a benchmark: as much as is necessary to successfully operate in the field. Hamdi, after all, was not picked up in a midnight raid in Louisiana for no discernible reason. He was captured in Afghanistan carrying a rifle for the Taliban. His designation is tautological. What do you call an armed enemy in a combat zone if not "enemy combatant"?

In such a case, no more judicial review should be required than what the government has already provided in the Hamdi case: a short statement setting out the circumstances of his capture. You should get labeled an enemy combatant and forfeit the normal legal protections depending on the circumstances of your apprehension. Fighting with the enemy in a combat zone is a pretty good threshold.

On the other hand, those who support the government's tough treatment of Hamdi should acknowledge a different standard for a citizen apprehended unarmed in the United States. In that case, legal protections should apply and the burden of proof should be on the military to prove combatant status. That means granting the defendant the right to a lawyer and requiring evidence justifying the detention, presented to a court.

With this sensible distinction in mind, the troubling case is not that of Lindh or Hamzi, put Padilla the alleged "dirty bomber" picked up a Chicago airport. In a case like that, the burden has to be on the government to prove combatant status. The way to effectively fight a war without sacrificing civil liberties is to put up sensible, effective firewalls to ensure that the unique circumstances of war can not be abused in other contexts. The one Krauthammer proposes is an essential one.