The lawyers for "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla filed pleadings yesterday arguing the Government's continued detention of Padilla in the absence of criminal charges is an "unprecedented expansion of executive authority."

"They added, "The president's detention of Padilla cannot be condoned as an exercise of the president's military power in the interest of national security."

"A lawyer represented Mr. Padilla, a former Chicago gang member who is also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir, before Mr. Bush's declaration; none have been able to meet with him since then. His lawyers said that neither the Constitution nor the Congress has authorized such a detention and that denying Mr. Padilla access to a lawyer has "frustrated any attempt of meaningful judicial review."

Padilla is an American citizen. He was arrested at the Chicago airport in May. He has been in held in a navy brig in South Carolina since June when President Bush declared him an "enemy combatant"-- without any criminal charges, without access to his lawyer, and without any judicial review of his detention. Mr. Padilla is entitled to due process and he isn't getting it.

The Administration's treatment of suspects since September 11 has no consistency. They make up the rules as they go along. Padilla and Yaser Hamdi are citizens who are detained without rights as "enemy combatants." John Walker Lindh, the Buffalo Six, the Detroit Four, James Ujaama, Zacarias Moussaoui and accused "shoe-bomber" Richard Reid have been processed in the federal criminal courts and are receiving the due process and other rights required by our system of justice.

We fail to see any rational distinction between Padilla and Hamdi and the others. We commend the Government for charging the others in federal courts, and think it should reconsider its unjust and unequal treatment of Padilla and Hamdi.

We hope Judge Michael B. Mukasey of United States District Court in Manhattan reviews the legality of Mr. Padilla's detention and orders his release. If Padilla didn't commit a criminal act, there isn't any reason to hold him, other than to interrogate him. If he hasn't succombed to the military's interrogation techniques by now, it's unlikely he is going to. And if the military has already picked his brain and still have no evidence he committed a crime, they should let him go.