U.S. pushes freedom abroad, stifles it here
2003-03-25
U.S. pushes freedom abroad, stifles it here
LAZARUS AT LARGE
David Lazarus Tuesday, March 25, 2003
U.S. forces are closing in on Baghdad to bring freedom to the Iraqi
people. On the home front, federal authorities are expanding their
surveillance of U.S. citizens.
The White House decries treatment of U.S. soldiers captured in Iraq.
Yet Afghan fighters held by the United States are deliberately denied
protection under the Geneva Convention.
"It's a complete double standard," said Beth Givens, director of the
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a San Diego nonprofit organization. "How
can we preach democracy in Iraq while the government is doing all these
other things at home?"
This is what civil liberties advocates are asking as the war in Iraq intersects with America's war on terror.
"The policies are deeply contradictory," said Pamela Karlan, a
professor at Stanford Law School who specializes in constitutional law.
No one disputes that law enforcement authorities need to be fully
equipped to defend the flock from predators. The question critics are
asking is how many freedoms and legal protections should be sacrificed
in the name of national security.
"We're living in a whole new world," acknowledged Randall Scarlett, a
San Francisco attorney who focuses on civil rights cases. "But the
degradation of citizens' rights cannot in any way be considered a
healthy and decent thing to do to our democracy."
The latest apparent drop in that bucket is news that the U.S. Justice
Department has significantly increased use of emergency powers enabling
it to tap phones and seize personal records without a court's prior
approval.
Attorney General John Ashcroft has personally signed more than 170
"emergency foreign intelligence warrants" allowing wiretaps and
searches of people deemed threats to national security.
His use of this little-known measure is in fact three times greater
than that of all other U.S. attorneys general combined over the past 23
years.
"In the post-9/11 world, it shouldn't be a surprise that more emergency
warrants are being issued," said Mark Corallo, a Justice Department
spokesman in Washington. "The reason you're doing it is because you're
going after spies and terrorists."
That would be suspected spies and terrorists?
"Right."
Corallo also stressed that all the anti-terrorism moves have been
upheld in court, including in the U.S. Supreme Court, which on Monday
rejected -- albeit on procedural grounds -- a challenge to the
government's broader surveillance powers.
"This is all within the law," he said. "We're on solid legal ground and solid constitutional ground."
But Stanford's Karlan countered that the same was said when courts
upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and
loyalty oaths during the McCarthy era.
"The Justice Department may be succeeding in the short run," she said.
"It will be a different question when we look back 10 years from now
and ask whether the courts got it right."
Civil liberties advocates have been crying foul ever since passage of
the Patriot Act in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade
Center and Pentagon. It expanded the government's ability to conduct
surveillance and searches.
Meanwhile, they can't help but take note of President Bush's insistence
that captured U.S. soldiers in Iraq be treated in accordance with the
Geneva Convention, which requires that prisoners of war "must at all
times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or
intimidation."
However, the more than 600 prisoners captured by U.S. forces in
Afghanistan and held at a military facility in Cuba have been denied
POW status and are instead termed "unlawful combatants." They do not,
in turn, fall under the safeguards of the Geneva Convention.
"It's a stark example of doublespeak," said Ann Beeson, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union in New York.
"Protecting civil liberties in this country should serve as an example
to the rest of the world," she said. "The promise of democracy in Iraq
rings hollow if we're gutting our own core liberties at home."
What about national security?
"No one's saying you shouldn't vigorously go after terrorists," Beeson
replied. "But in a democracy, you comply with the Bill of Rights before
you do it."
E-mail David Lazarus at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
.