by TChris

The United States Supreme Court announced today that it will decide whether American citizens arrested on American soil can be detained indefinitely as "enemy combatants" without access to lawyers or courts. The issue arises in the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested nearly two years ago for allegedly participating in a plot to detonate a "dirty bomb" in the United States.

Not surprisingly, Attorney General John Ashcroft takes the position that the power to designate someone as an "enemy combatant" and to hold that person indefinitely, without the right to seek release in court or even to obtain legal representation, "is a vital part of the war on terrorism." Others quite properly view such action as a war on the Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law and contains no express exception for persons viewed as a threat by a presidential administration.

"Because the president said `I think you're a bad man,' he's been in jail for two years," said Andrew Patel, one of Padilla's attorneys. "He hasn't had a chance to defend himself. That's not the way we do things in this country, when we're at war or when we're at peace."

The Court will also decide whether an American citizen captured in Afghanistan can be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant. The cases dovetail with another another case the Supreme Court recently accepted, in which it will decide whether foreign-born terror suspects may be held indefinitely at the military's prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Court's willingness to decide these troubling issues may signal an unwillingness to accept the administration's cavalier disregard of the Constitution.