Civil Liberties Op-Ed:

Ashcroft Doesn’t Understand the Need for Free Speech

I believe that freedom of speech should not be so abused by some that it is not exercised by others because of fear of smear . . .I believe . . . we must not become a nation of mental mutes blindly following demagogues. I believe that we should never become mental mutes with our voices silenced because of fear of criticism of what we might say.

--U.S. Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME)

Recently, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft chided civil libertarians before the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve," he said. "They give ammunition to America's enemies..."

Reality check. Americans who disagree with government don't deserve a smear. The attorney general should use his authority to find truth and fight injustice. He should be humbled by his power. Instead, Ashcroft seems intoxicated by it.

Disagreeing with an attorney general exercising unprecedented power doesn't make an American unpatriotic. The Founding Fathers and Mothers would expect nothing less of today's citizens. Questioning and challenging authority is the basis of the American Revolution. Thomas Paine's rebellious philosophy is the soul of America.

In 1950, Margaret Chase Smith offered a speech called Declaration of Conscience on the floor of the U.S. Senate, "Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who . . . ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism Äî the right to criticize; the right to hold unpopular beliefs; the right to protest; the right of independent thought."

According to President Jimmy Carter, "I believe that we might be partly laying the groundwork to undo what will be an inevitable military victory if we subvert the principles that the United States has always espoused for justice." Is Carter "aiding terrorists" because he questions how military tribunals will be used?

Former FBI officials have criticized "dragnet investigations" involving 5,000 people of Arab heritage. According to former FBI executive assistant director Oliver Revell, Ashcroft's approach is not effective and "really guts the values of our society, which you cannot allow the terrorists to do." Police departments in Texas, Oregon, Michigan, and California have objected to the tactics. Is Revell, his FBI colleagues, and police officers "aiding terrorists?"

U.S. Senator Susan Collins called Ashcroft's order allowing investigators to eavesdrop on lawyer-client conversations "wrong." Is this Republican helping terrorists?

Sheepish Americans who don't think, question, and challenge do a disservice to their country. If blind trust of government is what they want then why not abolish due process and criminal procedure? Why do police departments follow a protocol that includes reading Miranda Rights? Abolish the Miranda warning. Why do police need a reason to pull over a vehicle? Let them indiscriminately pull anyone over.

Ashcroft misses the point. The issue has nothing to do with protecting the civil liberties of suspected terrorists. But it has everything to do with the very essence of civil liberties that impact everyone. Civil liberties don't come in categories with some more important than others. Compromising the liberties of one person doesn't safeguard those of good citizens. It's remarkable that Republicans, especially Conservatives, distrust government with tax policy, but oddly trust it with their freedoms.

The attorney general's passion to protect the United States should be applauded. But there is a fine line between passion and overzealous tactics that jeopardize America's free society.

No one questions that unconventional approaches are needed to win the war on terrorism. But Ashcroft's belief that the Bush Administration shouldn't be questioned is arrogant, dangerous, and contrary to the lessons of history. Ashcroft's response to critics should be, like any skilled lawyer, to make his case with facts. Instead he points a finger and implies someone is un-American because of disagreement. Labels and rhetoric will not defeat terrorism.

Officials in a democratic society with extraordinary power should expect scrutiny. Citizens have a duty to ask sanctimonious potentates tough questions. Otherwise these citizens endanger the liberty they hope to enjoy. Question authority. Challenge it if appropriate.