WASHINGTON, March 29: Several justices of the US Supreme Court appear deeply upset with the Bush administration’s claim that a new federal law bars them from ruling in cases against terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay.

At a hearing on Tuesday, some justices expressed open indignation against the government’s claim while others seemed deeply concerned that the Bush administration has gone too far in its plan for holding special trials for the prisoners.

The court heard arguments in a case testing the validity of the military tribunals set up to try accused terrorists being held at the US naval base in Cuba

At issue is whether the US president has the power, on his own, to set up military tribunals to try these prisoners on war crime charges, or whether the other two branches of government, the Congress and the courts, have a role to play.

The case involves Osama Bin Laden’s one-time driver, a Yemeni citizen named Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who is accused of transferring weapons from the Taliban to Al Qaeda.

Hamdan claims he was just a chauffeur. He says he was trying to return home in 2001 when he was captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and turned over to the US military for bounty.

Attorney Neal Katyal, who represents Hamdan, told justices that the military commissions established by the Pentagon on President Bush’s orders are flawed because they violate basic military-justice protections.

“This is a military commission that is literally unburdened by the laws, Constitution and treaties of the United States,” Katyal said.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy questioned Solicitor-General Paul Clement about the legal safeguards for the trials.

Justice Stephen Breyer also asked what would stop the president from holding the same type of trial in Toledo, Ohio, not just at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay.

Hamdan’s lawyers argue that the force authorization does not allow for trials outside the rules set down by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

They also argue that the military tribunals do not provide guidelines for battlefield trials and do not give the accused the right to legal representation, the right to be present during trial and to have the evidence tested by a lawyer.