The New Terrorism:

How the Bush Administration Limits Civil Liberties and Freedom

Over the last few months the Bush administration has declared war on the Constitution and on the Bill of Rights, usurping more power from the legislative and judicial branches in its never ending "War on Terrorism."

The administration, accompanied by complacent and corrupt Senators and Representatives (not to mention a sycophantic, unquestioning corporate media) has passed resolutions that significantly threaten the average American's ability to meaningfully protest policies espoused by the federal and state governments.

Bush signed into law the Patriot Act, which allocates federal agencies overarching surveillance and investigatory powers to wage a war on those elements of society (specifically grassroots organizations) that may stand in his way. Provisions of Bush's executive orders include proposals that would lower the law enforcement standard of probable cause for search and seizure to a much lower standard of reasonable suspicion.

The Bush administration has taken a strong step towards the creation of a reactionary police state that will remove one of the last elements of popular democracy from American culture, the element of protest and civil disobedience. As history has shown, when totalitarianism is introduced into society it is usually concealed through a symbol that most Americans share with sentimental value. In this case, the Bush administration has wrapped fascism in the American flag and used the tragic September attacks to push reactionary policies disguised by jingoist rhetoric.

The first part of Bush's attack on civil liberties, ironically named the "Patriot Act" establishes that immigrants who may be suspects of committing or aiding terrorism can be detained indefinitely without due process as accorded in the Constitution. The act reduces the role of a judge in providing that law enforcement surveillance be conducted responsibly under the proper legal jurisdiction. The Patriot Act sets lower standards for the police to obtain court orders allowing for searches of homes and offices. The act also allows law enforcement agencies to demand that internet and telephone service providers hand over pertinent personal information without the issuance of a court order if the FBI claims the records are related to an alleged terrorist investigation. Law enforcement can now, easier than ever before, tap your phone or monitor your computer, reading your e-mail before you even open it, without being required to inform you. Our country's politicians under the ruse of "National Security" deceptively support all this. The Bill even allows the government to view ones medical, educational, and financial records without the investigated individual's knowledge. No evidence of a crime need be presented either.

Attorney General John Ashcroft signed a decree that will allow the Justice Department to eliminate a defendant's access to competent legal representation and counsel. He did this by restricting attorney-client privileges for those accused of "terrorist acts". Any conversation can now be recorded and listened to, allowing the government to effectively counter any arguments a defense lawyer may present in court. No court order is required under this decree, either. Bush, through Executive Order, also allowed for the creation of military tribunals that will judge those non-citizens accused of conspiring to participate in terrorism. The military tribunals allow individuals to be accused with secret evidence, tried in secret courts, and convicted with only a two-thirds vote by a secret jury chosen by Bush and his administration.

Those arrested and tried do not even need to be informed of the charges brought against them under the new legislation. These kangaroo courts are undemocratic and allow for the private prosecution of individuals who may even be executed without the right of due process. An excellent article in the Progressive also pointed out that the Secretary of Defense "gets to appoint the military commissioners who will act as the judges; gets to establish "rules for the conduct of the proceedings" and to establish "qualifications of attorneys. The accused won't necessarily get to choose their own lawyers... and the rules of evidence are twisted to allow a presiding officer at the trial to admit evidence that ... could include hearsay or evidence that was acquired before defendants were read their rights."

In another heroic act of the administration, Bush amended the presidential records through an executive order to prevent the public from obtaining relevant documents relating to past and present presidential activities. Former and current presidents can now veto the release of specific presidential papers that may be embarrassing or incriminating. Bush's dismemberment of the Freedom of Information Act should go on record as one of his most odious achievements.

Before one can take a critical approach to the Bush administration's initiatives, it is first imperative to understand his definition of terrorism. In the USA Patriot Act, Section 802 defines domestic terrorism as when a person engages in activity "that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the U.S. or any state and appear to be intended: to intimidate or coerce a civilian population: to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion."

This definition is incredibly broad and could logically be applied (considering the FBI's record in the COINTELPRO years) to any nonviolent grassroots organization that seeks to influence the government and the people into taking an alternative view. During the civil rights movement of the 1960's this counterintelligence program was instituted under the jurisdiction of J. Edgar Hoover to "disrupt and neutralize" organizations that were perceived to threaten the status quo. The COINTELPRO project focused mostly on discrediting non-violent grassroots resistance groups aiming at progressive, democratic change. The Senate's Church Committee report found that the project specifically aimed to collect phone calls and mail of various activists, spread derogatory information, and exercise "disruptive tactics" to discredit and limit the accomplishments and capabilities of many progressive groups and individuals. According to Mary Stanton's account of the civil rights movement in her book, From Selma to Sorrow, "The Church Committee concluded that the FBI's COINTELPRO activities were "indisputably degrading to a free society.""

Looking back at history, law enforcement in the U.S. has often resulted to reactionary, unconstitutional, and fascist acts. The FBI could very easily target non-violent, progressive groups again with their newly enhanced powers to spy on and detain anyone. From their point of view, anyone can be arrested that "appears to have intentions to disrupt the current political system." Activists like Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, as well as groups like Greenpeace and Public Citizen may targeted simply for not following mainstream views and conventional perceptions of how American society should run.

Those who may support progressive activist groups are not immune from the administration's attacks either. The Attorney General and Secretary of State can label any group and those who support them as terrorists. Anyone who provides aid or assistance, for example, to a group like Greenpeace could feasibly be implicated as supporting a terrorist organization. This is not that far of a stretch considering Ashcroft's recent statement that those who "criticize the administration's new anti-terrorism laws are aiding terrorists."

It remains important to take a closer look at the ways in which the new laws violate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The new legislation violates at least four amendments of the Constitution, specifically the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth. The Patriot Act can restrict an individual's freedom of speech (in light of Ashcroft's recent statement) and the right of the citizenry to peaceable assembly. The administration can label any unpopular progressive group terrorists. The new laws also eliminate the requirement of probable cause concerning issues of search and seizure. Law enforcement has free reign to intrude on any citizen's personal business under the disguise of promoting "National Security."

The laws violate the right to a speedy and public trial and the guarantee of due process as well. The accused can sit in jail indefinitely for a period of years without formal indictment or prosecution.

The Bush administration does not understand that the Constitution is a fundamental part of American liberalism and should be protected at all costs. It is more important than Bush and all of his policies combined. The political rights that it entails represent universal standards that have rallied Americans behind the struggle for justice. The fact that they have been so recklessly trampled should at least alarm citizens and non-citizens to the repressive nature that usually accompanies wartime measures.

On a positive note, public opposition to the Patriot Act and Executive Orders seems to be growing. A Newsweek poll on Dec 10 stated that of those surveyed, "86% think the administration has gone too far in restricting civil liberties in its response to terrorism."

Conservative New York Times columnist William Safire has stated that Bush's plans display a "sudden seizure of power by the executive branch, bypassing all constitutional checks and balances." In addition, a Time-CBS Poll found that "Nearly two-thirds of the public said they were not willing to give the government the right to monitor the telephone calls and e-mail of ordinary Americans to reduce the threat of terrorism."

Our politicians have failed over the last six months promote the Constitutional rights of the citizenry over Bush's highly selective war on terrorism. If men fly planes into buildings, they are called terrorists (rightly so), but if the U.S. bombs Afghanistan and kills thousands of innocent civilians and forces Pakistan to cut off food shipments to the country, possibly starving millions, this is not referred to as terrorism. It is referred to, cynically, as spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world.

Bush's definition of terrorism conveniently refrains from recognizing state terrorism: in this case the Bush's administration's terrorist attacks on Afghanistan. It would seem that with the administrations selective enforcement of the "war on terror," there would be a moderate amount of people critical to his policies. But the only vote cast against the Patriot Act in the Senate was by Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Democratic politicians like Tom Daschle did not have the courage to stand up for the Constitution. In his own words, "Congress was able to find what I think is the appropriate balance between protecting civil liberties, privacy, and ensuring that law enforcement has the tools to do what it must." Only a handful of representatives in the House voted against the Patriot Act as well. And what is even worse is that many members of Congress did not even adequately read through the Patriot Act when they agreed to support it. It is a shame that so few politicians are ready to take a stand in protecting a principle that is a fundamental component of American democracy.

Dick Cheney has said that terrorists "don't deserve the same guarantees and safeguards that would be used for an American citizen." Ashcroft has voiced a similar belief that "terrorists do not deserve the protections of the American Constitution." If the stakes were not so high, it would seem almost comical how both of these men assume they possess the omnipotence necessary to decide who is and is not a terrorist. Democracy for them means total subordination to often fascist principles of the post 9/11 period. Total complacence by the citizenry is necessary in order to promote the "National Security" of the United States. And if this means trampling the rights allocated under the Constitution, then so be it.

The worst part about the administration's assault on civil liberties is that they do not even promise that these new measures will effectively counter terrorism. Testifying in front of the House Judiciary Committee, John Ashcroft explained, "I cannot say to you if we had enacted these [changes] in August, we would have curtailed the activities in September, nor can I assure the committee that we won't have terrorist acts in the future."

So why should Americans grant Ashcroft sweeping powers to implement policies that he admits himself will not stop terrorism? The truth of the matter is simply that no one can stop terrorism. If someone wants to strap bombs to their chest and blow up him or herself in an urban area, blow up another building, or use chemical weapons on people, the Bush administration can do next to nothing about it.

The signs of a police state are beginning to materialize in this country. Thankfully, something can be done to avoid this. I advise anyone interested in protecting their Constitutional rights to write their Senators and Representatives and question why they would support such a harsh, unconstitutional bill. You can also vote out any elected official who supported this legislation. The ACLU could use everyone's support in its battle against the administration as well.

As the Nation has pointed out, "Bush is squandering his chance to be a national unity President in order to pursue a conservative agenda out of step with the nation's needs and the people's expectations." It is up to the majority of common Americans to resist his agenda and those of anyone else interested in curtailing our Constitutional rights.