The High Court today heard oral argument regarding the government's detention of U.S. citizens suspected of collaborating with terrorists. The central question in this case is: does the policy of holding alleged terrorists--who are U.S. citizens--without access to a lawyer or other aspects of due process violate the Constitution?
In my Constitutional Law class, I argue that the Court consistently has sided with the government during wartime; civil rights and civil liberties have been trumped by national security concerns. (The habeus corpus cases during the Civil War, the treatment of anti-draft activists during WWI, and the notorious Korematsu case in WWII all illustate this point.) Usually the Court reverses itself later, however, when the national crisis has passed.
I'll be very interested to see how the Court handles this case, as the war on terror seems fundamentally different from the wars we've fought in history, in that it may NEVER end. This may lead the Court to break the pattern described above. We should know by June.
