by TChris

The Supreme Court heard argument today about the administration's authority to detain without counsel or trial American citizens accused of being enemy combatants. You can listen to the arguments here (Hamdi) and here (Padilla).

From the argument by Jennifer Martinez on behalf of Jose Padilla:

"We've had war on our soil before, and never before in our nation's history has this court granted the president a blank check to do whatever he wants to American citizens."

From the argument by Frank Dunham on behalf of Yaser Esam Hamdi:

"We have never authorized detention of a citizen in this country without giving him an opportunity to be heard, to say, 'Hey, I am an innocent person."

Justice O'Connor, often the swing vote, voices doubt about the Bush position:

"But have we ever had a situation like this where presumably this warlike status could last for 25 years, 50 years, whatever it is?"

Denying that courts should have any oversight authority over the executive's desire to do as it pleases with those it tags as enemy combatants, the government's lawyer assured the court that the president would always make appropriate decisions. Justice Ginsberg wondered whether it is wise to be so trusting as to give a president unlimited power. Cross your fingers that four of her colleagues see her point.