Padilla is competent to stand trial on terrorism support charges, rejecting arguments that he was severely damaged by 3 1/2 years of interrogation and isolation in a military brig

her decision on competency should not be read as a ruling on those claims [and goes on to say] "That discussion is for another day,"

"This defendant clearly has the capacity to assist his attorneys,"

It appears to me that she has in some and perhaps more than one sense made a "ruling on those claims"  since the claims are made to support defense contentions that he is incapable.

Is she not by rejecting them "ruling" on them?

And what kind of definition of "capacity to assist" is being used here? If one of his lawyers drops a pencil and Padilla is capable of picking it up and handing it back to his lawyer that would  demonstrate some "capacity to assist" of course, but would be no indication that he understands what is happening to him in the course of the trial or how the trial has become one of the things "happening" to him, or what the ramifications of his actions or statements during the trial would be.

It seems to me that Cooke is covering her own ass here. By avoiding putting herself in a position of having ruled in favor of the defense she has ruled in favor of the prosecution yet is trying to confuse that point and deny having done so.

This is a case of everyone running for cover at not only Padilla's expense, but at the expense of anyone who ever expects and has the right to fair and honest treatment with integrity by the justice system.