Ashcroft proving a liability

By DAN K. THOMASSON
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON (SHN) - More and more, one gets the impression that Attorney General John Ashcroft's preferred method of fighting terrorism would be to suspend the Bill of Rights. His recent nationwide stumping in defense of the Patriot Act did nothing to dispel that notion. In fact, it seems to have increased the nervousness among a growing number of fellow Republicans who see it as a crisis-adopted assault on civil liberties and a political liability - along with the former Missouri senator himself.

In an increasing litany of actions - many of them carried out by the FBI whose director appears to share the view that any crime, no matter how insignificant, can be attributed to organized terrorism and is, therefore, subject to application of the act and the purview of the bureau - it has become clear that the attorney general has a problem, not only with constitutionally protected rights but also with sharing authority within the government.

Since when, for instance, has it been permissible for the government to deprive a man of his livelihood, invade his privacy and that of his friends, follow him day and night, "toss" his apartment twice and harass his girlfriend - all in public and without producing a shred of evidence of wrongdoing or without making a formal charge or even having the courage to call him a suspect? Since when has it become proper in this country to hide behind a specious term like "a person of interest" when even the most unschooled in legal nuances realizes that this is just a euphemism for, "We know he is guilty but we can't prove it"?

But that is exactly what Ashcroft and the FBI have been doing to Dr. Steven Hatfill since early in its frustrated investigation of the anthrax attack - a crime the bureau has failed to solve despite expending millions and millions of dollars and thousands and thousands of man-hours, leading one to believe that the current bureau would have trouble catching a cold, let alone a deadly virus. Is it any wonder Hatfill has sued?

And since when can the attorney general throw the book - 15 felony counts - at a distinguished researcher in bio-terrorism, Thomas C. Butler, for lying about some plague samples and inadvertently causing a terrorist scare last January. The samples he claimed were lost actually had been destroyed. The aggressive charges, clearly designed to send a warning to others, have prompted the usually docile scientific community to protest that Butler's research is highly important to the war on terrorism and that he had no criminal intent.

The answer to "since when?" seems to be since Ashcroft convinced his former colleagues in the Senate that despite his religious beliefs that were couched in 19th century Southern fundamentalism and his puritanical view of life in general, he should be confirmed as the nation's chief law officer. One wag cracked at the time that Ashcroft wanted the job because heading the Salem tribunal that ruled on witches was no longer an option.

That may be considered a terribly harsh assessment of a man who has been faced with an admittedly difficult task of warding off further terrorist attacks while preserving our basic freedoms. However, it is one that many jurisdictions are making as they propose to soften the impact of a law that an increasing number of Republican, as well as Democratic members of Congress, now believe was too hastily adopted in the aftermath of 9-11.

The overreaction in pursuit of those we believe are ready to inflict further damage on our way of life is understandable. Cooler heads, however, must prevail and that requires someone at the top who understands that zealotry may be our worst enemy.

That person has to be the president of the United States if not his attorney general. George W. Bush ultimately may find that Ashcroft is a political liability. The attorney general's less-than-cordial reception by those in the West during his one-man save-the-Patriot Act show may be an indication of slipping support that the president can ill afford.

The heavily Republican state of Idaho, for instance, has been particularly critical of the attorney general and his efforts to win even more power. U.S. Rep. C. L. Otter, R-Idaho, is a key figure in the efforts to curtail the Patriot Act. Also there were poll results released last week showing Ashcroft's approval rating slipping below 50 percent. That plus the fact the attorney general has become a key target for Democrats seeking their party's presidential nomination makes Ashcroft's tenure in the job less certain than it once was.

http://www.newsobserver.com/24hour/opinions/story/985522p-6919838c.html