Constitution terrorized in anti-terror campaign

I am not surprised that John Ashcroft equates criticism of his agenda with aid and comfort to terrorists. I am appalled by the tepid response of most Democrats to his aggression. If grass-roots activists don’t resist, Americans may lose both their freedoms and their security.

It has never been more important to distinguish between rights and conveniences. Longer waits at airports to search luggage are an inconvenience but not an injustice. All of us are subject to such searches. No one has a right to carry weapons onto planes. Nonetheless, everyone – regardless of background or ideology – should have a right to privacy, fair trials and political speech.

Wiretapping has long been allowed under U.S. law, but only after a judge had confirmed reasonable grounds that a crime had been or was about to be committed. A few years ago, these requirements were loosened. A secret court was established for foreign terrorism that could approve wiretaps without requiring the government to show evidence of criminal conduct.

The new law broadens these provisions to allow wiretaps and secret searches of homes in criminal cases – not just to gather foreign intelligence. The law also allows roving wiretaps of any phones, computers or cellphones that might be used by a suspect. As Michael Rattner of the Center for Constitutional Rights puts it, “Thousands of conversations will be listened to or read that have nothing to do with the suspect or any crime.”

In addition, the new law permits mandatory and indefinite detention of aliens certified by the attorney general as “suspected terrorists.” As Rattner points out, these could include “aliens involved in barroom brawls or those who have provided only humanitarian assistance to organizations disfavored by the United States.” The president will allow government agents to listen in on suspects’ conversations with their attorneys and has authorized secret military tribunals to hear some of these cases.

I would not trust John Ashcroft – or any attorney general – with discretionary authority to detain aliens indefinitely or to spy on citizens based on tenuous affiliation with organizations he deems dangerous. The FBI has a sorry history of equating opposition to U.S. foreign policy with espionage. In actions reminiscent of Vietnam era surveillance, the FBI has threatened to force Women in Black, which protests violence in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, either to talk about their group or go to jail. As one member said, “If the FBI … will not distinguish between groups who collude in hatred and terrorism, and peace activists who struggle in the full light of day against all forms of terrorism we are in serious trouble.”

The Ashcroft agenda distracts Congress and the public from our “Intelligence Community’s” obvious failings. Cumbersome, ill-informed and turf-conscious bureaucracies misread the warnings they receive and fail to disseminate them to the proper authorities. By giving such bureaucracies the right to deny full and fair public trial we not only convict many innocent parties but also delude ourselves as to our successes in the fight against real terrorists.

The administration’s constitutional coup increases the likelihood of terrorism. Civil liberties are defined in a world fractured by ethnic injustice. Middle Eastern scholar Edward Said characterizes this world as one where “The greatest single fact of the last three decades has been human migration attendant upon war, colonialism and decolonization. Exiles, emigres, refugees, and expatriates must make do in new surroundings, and the creativity as well as sadness that can be seen in what they do is one of the experiences that has still to find its chroniclers.”

One defining aspects of this experience is U.S. “anti-terrorist” policy. Our war is already reminiscent of the worst moments in our heritage. Apparent ethnic background becomes immediate grounds for suspicion and, worse still, those treated as suspicious are denied minimal civil liberties. The Justice Department has imprisoned at least a thousand individuals, almost all of Middle Eastern origin. They have been detained for many days, generally without charges. Few have been shown to have any connection to the crime and most have been detained for nothing more serious than an expired visa.

The Bush administration tells us that this is an unconventional war that must be fought across borders. It seeks to assure the rest of the world that it is not a war against Islam. But indiscriminately jailing Middle Eastern males may make that a hard sell.

An effective anti- terrorism campaign – through collaborative international intelligence and law enforcement – is ill served by the blatant denial of civil liberties to populations marginalized here at home and under attack abroad. In the current climate, one would have to excuse both our allies as well as any man of Middle Eastern origins for reluctance to cooperate with U.S. authorities. And a political and legal climate that makes it hard to raise such concerns only adds to the dangers we face.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers wishing to contact him may e-mail messages to jbuell@prexar.com.