Almost casually, the United States is slipping into a major decision to trade freedom for security. An emergency presidential order has authorized secret, summary military trials for suspected terrorists. The attorney general is letting the FBI intercept telephone messages and mail between prisoners accused of terrorism and their attorneys. CIA agents have reportedly kidnapped suspected terrorists in Albania and shipped them off to Cairo for torture, trial and quick execution, as described at length in a Nov. 20 article in The Wall Street Journal.

Great decisions in the past have called for great national debates. The Founding Fathers argued the proper balance of centralized government vs. states’ rights in the widely circulated Federalist Papers. Thousands heard the pros and cons of slavery in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. And as the country plunged ever deeper into the Vietnam War, Americans heard both sides of the issue in televised hearings by Sen. William Fulbright’s Foreign Relations

Committee.

Surely the time has come for a great debate on how much of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, how much of our established criminal law procedures, how much of our two-centuries-old separation of powers, how much of our prized rule of law – how much of these fundamental principles should be suspended during the campaign against world terrorism.

There are no easy answers. The vicious attacks of Sept. 11, coming after several years of attacks on U.S. ships and military posts and embassies, have aroused most Americans to support drastic measures to root out the terrorist conspiracy and guard against future assaults. Many civil libertarians recognize that the unexpected new threats require fresh thinking but warn against sacrificing basic principles.

Congress must take on the job of leading a national debate so that the entire country can understand and participate in drawing a line between new government powers that may be justified and any overreach that may do more harm than good. So far, the Bush administration has bypassed both the legislative and judicial branches of government by springing executive orders on us without adequate debate and consultation.

A start at an overdue great national debate can come Dec. 6, when Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Orrin Hatch of Utah, the committee’s ranking Republican, have invited Attorney General John Ashcroft to answer questions at a public hearing. Mr. Ashcroft has agreed to testify, although replying that he can spare only a few hours to attend.

No one should consider that this congressional inquiry amounts to butting in on presidential prerogatives. While the president is empowered as commander-in-chief to conduct war, only Congress can declare war. Congress also is empowered, says the Constitution, to “make rules concerning captures on land and water,” to “define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations,” as well as to “constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.”

Mainers will rely on their two senators and congressional representatives to help chart a steady course that will protect the national security while preserving constitutional guarantees and keeping the public informed.