NEW YORK - A federal judge ruled yesterday that an American being held in a Navy brig as a suspected terrorist should be allowed to talk to his lawyers.

But the judge also reaffirmed the government's broad authority to detain people it regards as "enemy combatants," even if they are U.S. citizens.

In ruling that the suspect, Jose Padilla, can consult with his lawyers, Judge Michael B. Mukasey of U.S. District Court in Manhattan rejected the government's argument that Padilla might use them as a conduit to relay signals to enemies of the United States.

Mukasey said he was confident that Padilla, who is being held in Charleston, S.C., could meet with his counsel under conditions that would virtually negate the possibility of his communicating with criminals by code or other subterfuge.

Besides, the judge said, he believes Padilla's lawyers are honest as well as highly competent.

"There is nothing in their past conduct to suggest that they would be inclined to act as conduits for their client, even if he wanted them to do so," he wrote.

More debate likely

Yesterday's decision, while significant, is almost certainly not the last word in the case, given the importance of the issues and the unusual facts that gave rise to them.

Padilla is an American citizen who was declared an enemy combatant by President Bush in June, a month after his arrest, and has been held in military custody with no contact with his lawyers.

Born in New York City, Padilla was convicted of murder as a teen-ager in Chicago. Released after he turned 18, Padilla moved to Florida, where he was convicted on a weapons charge in 1991.

Then, the government says, he moved to Egypt, took the name Abdullah al-Muhajir and traveled to Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, getting acquainted with terrorists and suggesting he might be able to steal radioactive material for a bomb.

The federal government has accused him of plotting with terrorists to detonate a radioactive, or "dirty," bomb in the United States.

As Mukasey noted in his 102-page decision, holding American citizens in custody for long periods without access to legal advice might be unusual, but there is ample precedent for it, particularly in wartime. He said the United States has been in a "war," whether declared or not, since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"The president is authorized under the Constitution and by law to direct the military to detain enemy combatants in the circumstances present here," Mukasey held, rejecting arguments by Padilla's lawyers that his detention is illegal in and of itself. Whether the detention is in fact illegal is an issue to be decided later, the judge said.

Both sides pleased

Both sides claimed a measure of victory. "It's clear that the court has recognized the right to counsel, and I think it's significant for Padilla and it's significant for all citizens," said one of Padilla's lawyers, Donna R. Newman of Manhattan.

The Justice Department said it was pleased that the judge recognized "the president's long-established authority to detain enemy combatants."

"In times of war, the president must be able to protect our nation from those who join with our enemies to harm innocent Americans," said Barbara Comstock, the department's chief spokeswoman.

The judge scheduled a conference for Dec. 30 to determine under what conditions Padilla can talk to his lawyers.

In acknowledging governmental powers, Mukasey wrote that the president "has both constitutional and statutory authority to exercise the powers of commander in chief, including the power to detain unlawful combatants, and it matters not that Padilla is a United States citizen captured on United States soil."

Mukasey's opinion served as a reminder that some bedrock U.S. constitutional rights of a defendant - to consult with a lawyer, to be advised of the charges against him, to have a speedy and public trial - do not automatically apply in cases like Padilla's.

Those rights, embodied in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, generally apply to civilians accused of crimes and subject to trial in civilian courts.

But, the judge noted, "Padilla is in the custody of the Department of Defense; there is no 'criminal proceeding' in which Padilla is detained; therefore, the Sixth Amendment does not speak to Padilla's situation."