Well well, it looks like the Taliban are folding like a house of cards already. We should not declare victory yet, however. The so-called war on terrorism is far from over, if you believe the Bush administration. Ill-conceived discussion, whether serious or not, has suggested expanding military operations throughout the Middle East, most notably in Iraq.

Previous Opinion Column’s by Josh Leon:

November 28

The case of the missing $20,000

November 14

Make administrators park in overflow

November 7

Campus groups make Sept. 11 more bear-able

October 23

Cheers, President Gerth!

October 17

A cold warning in U.S. policy

October 10

How ’bout them Raiders?

October 3

Got a dollar? Give it to ASI

September 25

Is patriotism enough?

September 18

CSU: Confronting the tragedy

Osama bin Laden: american foriegn policy’s friend

September 13

Please be quiet, brutal machine gunners at work

September 7

Fried chicken stand, rude sheriffs take union by storm

That George W. Bush may have the power to conduct such an undertaking with little opposition in congress is disconcerting. For an example of the unchecked power Bush has been given, look no further than the laughable constitutional abuses that his administration has unleashed domestically, in the name of “national security.”

The Orwellian termed “USA Patriot Act” is a set of measures pitched by Attorney General John Ashcroft that is part of the federal government?s draconian plan to fight terrorism by racial profiling, violation of attorney-client privileges, unprecedented use of military tribunals on civilians and unwarranted detentions of suspects, even if they are held on charges completely unrelated to terrorism.

First, actions taken by the Justice Department are ethnocentric at best and racist at worst. So far, Ashcroft?s terror investigations have led to the arrest or detention of over 1,100 people, mostly of Middle Eastern or Arab descent. Just 10 to 15 have been charged with having any link to terrorist organizations. Almost half of the detainees are being held for violation of immigration laws. Others are being detained for minor offenses, which would never require arrests under normal circumstances, according to the ACLU. Also, federal agents have questioned 5,000 legal immigrants around the country based solely on their age, gender and country of origin (that is, immigrants from countries where Osama bin Laden and his followers have frequented).

These numbers are admittedly hazy. That?s because Ashcroft has refused to release basic information about the detainees. So much for public due process.

Any chance the prisoners have to defend themselves has also been stifled.

Those facing immigration charges are not given attorney rights, that is, unless they can afford an attorney. Thus far, many detainees have been given lists of pro bono attorneys, and just one phone call a week to contact them. Obviously, this will lead to hundreds of potential suspects being questioned without legal advice. Also, the Justice Department, with no judicial oversight, has unilaterally declared itself capable of monitoring attorney-client conversations if there is “reasonable suspicion” that attorney-client talk could “further facilitate acts of terrorism.” In a complaint sent to congress, the ACLU called the move “an unprecedented frontal assault on the attorney-client privilege and the right to counsel guaranteed by the constitution.”

Finally, Bush?s plan to use military tribunals may set a sad precedent in modern history. The Nation quotes Ashcroft as saying, “Foreign terrorists who commit war crimes against the United States are not entitled to and do not deserve the protections of the American Constitution.” This is an odd statement, considering there has been no formal declaration of war, no consent from Congress to conduct such tribunals, and all defendants are ostensibly innocent until proven guilty in the United States. But then, American values of fair and public trials apparently mean little to Bush and company. I draw this conclusion because military tribunals are neither public nor fair, at least by civilian standards. Only a 2/3 vote by a jury of military officers is needed for convictions and executions. Also, the military is under no obligation to make the trials fully public, and so-called “classified” evidence can be withheld. It should be noted that Bush?s military tribunal policy does not differentiate between suspects caught in the United States or in Afghan battlefields.

The failure to make the distinction between civilian and military suspects, and the denial of due process to immigrants is disturbing, especially after a Supreme Court ruling this year which stated that “the due process clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary or permanent.”

Civil courts are fully capable of trying terrorist suspects. The use of military courts is a means on the part of Bush and Ashcroft to circumvent the judicial branch. Similarly, Congress has been circumvented both at home and abroad over U.S. policy. Constitutional checks and balances should not be brushed aside in times of crisis. The United States is a republic governed by civilians; it?s time we act like it.

Joshua K. Leon is opinion editor of The State Hornet. He can be reached at [email protected] or by phone at 278-5590.