Civil liberties and the war on terror

In the aftermath of Sept.11, the government has been granted broad legal power and has enjoyed much public support for its efforts to prevent terrorist acts. The government's (and specifically the President's) ability to vigorously seek and prosecute prospective terrorists is a keystone of the "war on terror," and the importance of seeking out prospective terrorists living in the U.S. is, no doubt, extremely important. Unfortunately, some actions that have been taken in the name of "fighting terrorism" pose strong challenges to the Constitution and to our civil liberties. \nJust last Tuesday, a federal appellate court upheld a government action that poses a serious threat to the right of all people to have a fair and open trial. The court (the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia) ruled that the government can exclude the public (including the media) from deportation hearings of possible terrorists. In essence, the ruling means the government can conduct secret hearings when deciding to deport certain people.\nSpecifically, CNN reported, "the court gave deference to government attorneys over immigration judges in deciding which cases could be compromised by public scrutiny." Basically, the court's ruling (which, thankfully, can be appealed) will allow government lawyers to pick and choose whose deportation hearing will be public and whose will be private. Though this specter of private hearings may seem benign, the lack of public scrutiny provides no accountability for those who prosecute the cases and those who decide them. Unlike most court cases where public scrutiny helps ensure that the proceedings are fair, cases decided under a veil of secrecy could be unfair without the public finding out.\nThe government, for its part, has defended secret deportation trials on the grounds that national security could be compromised if the press were allowed to cover these hearings. Certainly, national security considerations should play a role in determining how public a hearing is, but when the person determining whether or not national security is at risk is a federal prosecutor, there are serious opportunities for abuse available. \nFurthermore, if this recent court ruling is taken into consideration with other actions such as military tribunals of suspected terrorists, a disturbing trend arises. Not only is the executive branch of government taking powers of questionable constitutionality, it is also infringing on people's rights. While the government argues it needs extra powers to prosecute terrorists in order to protect national security, it fails to mention that a perfectly innocent person could be persecuted by the government and denied, among other constitutional rights, the right to a fair hearing.\nSpeaking last year in the Senate, Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold said, "They (the Framers) wrote a Constitution of limited powers and an explicit Bill of Rights to protect liberty in times of war, as well as in times of peace." \nSen. Feingold makes this important point clearly and succinctly. The Constitution does not leave civil liberties up to the President's discretion. The nation's founders knew what could happen if an overzealous executive had unlimited powers. Rather, they set forth a system meant to keep the powers of the government in check. President Bush would be well advised to keep Constitutional protections in mind. If he does so, he will have achieved true greatness. He will have ensured civil liberties when the temptation to erode them is greatest.