  I know this is rather late in coming, but if anybody is interested, urlLink SCOTUSblog recently urlLink posted linking to the transcripts of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in urlLink Hamdi and urlLink Padilla . Read urlLink Ex Parte Quirin , 317 U.S. 1 (1942), if you haven't. Another "enemy combatants" case is urlLink Johnson v. Eisentrager , 339 U.S. 763 (1950), although I don't think it's discussed in oral arguments because it's easily distinguishable (non-citizens and admitted enemy combatants captured and tried in China after the war had ended).
It does have a nice discussion of a sort of sliding scale of rights for aliens in the U.S, though. Anyway, the reason I'm linking to all of this stuff, besides the fact that we spent a lot of time talking about it in my Con Law class, is that I think if the Court doesn't find for Padilla and Hamdi*, the masses might view it as unquestioning deference and allegiance to Bushzilla. It's not necessarily that-- there's at least some sort of precedent. Whether or not the Court chooses to distinguish the present cases from that precedent is another question. Enjoy the reading, it's back to the Comment for me. -- * My personal prediction is for Padilla and against Hamdi. 
