'Either you are with us or you're with the terrorists.' When President Bush spoke these words, he effectively issued an executive order: Stand behind his political leadership because failure to do so would be tantamount to treason. It's chilling to hear the worldwide representative of the United States utter a statement undermining the very foundations of our political democracy, namely the freedom to dissent.
Civil liberties in the United States were severely eroded even before the events of Sept. 11. Already only a low level of proof was required for government enforcement agents to conduct property searches and phone record seizures. With little debate, the U.S. Senate recently voted to allow government agents the authority to use the same low level of proof to justify monitoring the Web sites a person visits and reading their e-mail.
Even more disturbing, Attorney General John Ashcroft has asked Congress to grant him the power to detain without limit and deport without evidence any non-citizen living in the United States. This would include lawful permanent residents living in the United States; People who have contributed to the United States for years would be denied trials, juries and the ability to know the charges against them.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, Ashcroft's proposed legislation is unnecessary because the Immigration and Naturalization Service already has broad powers to detain and deport immigrants. The INS has the authority to use 'secret evidence' or classified information to deport suspected immigrants, a practice that the then-presidential candidate Bush denounced on the campaign trail.
Ashcroft wants to use these expanded powers against not only suspected terrorists, but also against anyone the Bush administration considers a risk to national security. One can imagine fairly easily how the meaning of that statement could change over time. There were many times during World War I and World War II when peace activists were labeled as seditious. Eugene Debs, presidential candidate for the Socialist Party, was one of those imprisoned for being a vocal opponent of World War I. However unlikely it seems that such oppression could occur in modern day America, the possibility always exists. One must remember that true freedom will only be maintained through an active, vigilant and dissident citizenry.
Even while pushing for speedy passage of legislation limiting civil liberties for decades, Ashcroft told House Judiciary Committee members that the administration's anti-terrorism package would not have prevented with any certainty the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Despite Ashcroft's urging for speedy passage, the House Judiciary Committee will not decide on the anti-terrorism bill until late next week due to several members' concerns about constitutional infringements. Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., clearly pointed out during the hearing that U. S. courts have already ruled indefinite detainment without trial to be unconstitutional.
Ashcroft's efforts have targeted civilian democratic freedoms instead of creating solutions that would have substantial and long-term effects in reducing global terrorism. Says Professor Richard Falk of Princeton University, 'This is the first war for which there is no military solution. And without a military solution our leaders lack the imagination to understand what is happening and what to do.'
The U. S. government, as the planet's No. 1 arms dealer, could make a major contribution to world peace and stability by halting weapons sales. It is now more dangerous to be a civilian in modern war than it is to be a soldier. In the 1980s, innocents accounted for 74 percent of conflict casualties. Certainly this will continue to be the norm in any U.S. military retaliation.
When dealing with the question of how to move forward, no one should be quick to eliminate American democracy's most basic principles. Take to heart the words of former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, 'There is no conflict between liberty and safety. We will have both or neither.'
