Justice or just scary
Civil liberties curtailed in defense of freedom?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
by Pamela White
(letters@boulderweekly.com)

John Ashcroft ought to be ashamed.

Ashcroft is, for lack of a better word, our attorney general. On paper, he is charged with ensuring there is justice for all. Since Sept. 11, however, heıs been the man behind the sharpest curtailment of civil liberties since McCarthyism.

But donıt criticize him. Donıt suggest that the government is going too far in its zeal to squelch terrorism. And donıt question the bombing of Afghanistan.

If you do, you might as well join al-Qaeda.

Some U.S. senators made the mistake of thinking they could question Ashcroft. No doubt they thought free speech was still the law of the land. Some of them probably even thought they had a responsibility as elected officials to determine exactly what the judicial branch of the government was up to.

They got a tongue-lashing for their trouble. Ashcroft defended new law enforcement measures aggressively, and suggested anyone who questioned the governmentıs tactics was helping the enemy.

"Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our unity and diminish our resolve," Ashcroft said. "They give ammunition to Americaıs enemies and pause to Americaıs friends."

Whatıs an honest American to do? Say nothing, and the nationıs legal landscape could be altered in frightening ways. Question, speak out, and youıre accused of aiding the enemy.

This creates a real dilemma, because the losses to civil liberties under the woefully misnamed U.S. Patriot Act are potentially enormous. Here are the highlights:

Detention. Non-citizens used to have the same rights as citizens when it came to being locked up. The government had to charge them within 48 hours or release them. Now, the government can detain non-citizens for a week without charges or indefinitely if they perceive the person to be a threat to national security. Under the military tribunal order, any non-citizen can be detained indefinitely by the military.

Right to privacy. Before Sept. 11, law enforcement officials had to demonstrate probable cause in court to obtain a search warrant. They also had to notify suspects their property was being searched. Now, the standard for search warrants has been lowered, and suspects need not be notified. In addition, federal authorities have more power to monitor phone calls, e-mail and Internet use.

Military tribunals. The first bunch who set off a bomb at the World Trade Center received jury trials in civilian courts. The proceedings were public. Prosecutors were required to share damning evidence with the defendantsı attorneys, as they are in all criminal cases. The jury had to produce a unanimous verdict. Now, non-citizens can be tried before military tribunals presided over not by judges, but military officers. The proceedings can be secret, with prosecutors being allowed to keep evidence from the defendant. A vote of two-thirds of the officers will decide the defendantıs fate, both conviction and sentence.

Put it together: It is now possible for a person to be secretly surveiled, secretly imprisoned, secretly tried before a military tribunal with secret evidence, convicted and sentenced to die by a two-thirds vote and executed without the public knowing anything.

Imagine being that person‹behind bars with no one the wiser, facing charges based on unspecified evidence, enduring a secret trial in a military court, being convicted and sentenced to die although one third of the officers who heard your case believe you innocent. No recourse, no place to turn, no way out.

Truth, justice and freedom donıt flourish in darkness or secrecy, which is why our government‹at least on paper‹is required to keep its doors. The Patriot Act slams those doors closed for an unlucky few, some of whom might be innocent.

Thatıs serious enough in itself. More serious still is the possibility that these changes herald a profound change in the American legal system and the beginning of the end of civil liberties.

Some may argue that wartime requires sacrifice. Unlike World War II, however, this ill-defined War on Terrorism has no clear ending. During World War II, we knew the war would be over when Germany and Japan surrendered. But when will this war be over? When the Taliban have been obliterated? Washington has already made it clear that there are other potential targets‹Iraq and Somalia to name two of the more than 40 Bush is reportedly considering. If this war has no clear ending, the government can easily argue for the indefinite erosion of our civil rights.

Those who challenge the so-called Patriot Act and question the Bush Administrationıs hard-line tactics are doing no less than one would expect of people who value freedom. To challenge this erosion of our civil liberties isnıt an act of subversion, as Ashcroft would have us believe, but an act of patriotism.

Ashcroft should be ashamed to suggest otherwise. And he ought to slap his own face for implying that unity‹or uniformity‹is more important than justice.

In America, nothing should be more important than justice.