“To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists – for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends.”

– Attorney General John Ashcroft

The most disturbing element of the Attorney General’s comments last week was that these were not impromptu remarks to a long-haired, radical protester but well-rehearsed testimony to the Senate, which had asked him to explain the constitutionality of a few of his police state tactics.

Let’s examine what our chief law enforcement officer is saying here. If the “phantoms of lost liberty” Mr. Ashcroft speaks of include indefinitely detaining individuals on the very suspicion of terrorist involvement (see: skin color) and trying them in secret absent of counsel, then perhaps Mr. Ashcroft would do well to re-read the Sixth Amendment, which reads:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

Nowhere in the text of the amendment does it state that this applies only to U.S. citizens – in fact countless judicial precedents have upheld the notion that constitutional freedoms apply to everyone who is legally in this country. Thus, to deny suspects of terrorism who are legal residents of the United States access to both counsel and a public trial is a clear “loss of liberty” – Mr. Ashcroft’s actions leave little room for debate in light of the Constitution.

All of this represents a larger, more disturbing trend – Mr. Ashcroft’s direct assault on those who choose to defend the principles of our constitutional republic – he goes little shy of outright accusing these people of treason. For the sake of debate, let’s define treason – dictionary.com defines it as: “Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.”

Defending our constitutionally-protected liberties hardly seems like a betrayal of our nation, but rather the opposite is to be true. Those who would subvert our laws in order to gain a temporary advantage over terrorists and reshape our democracy into a police state are the real traitors; those who would set fire to our Constitution in a perverse display of Pyrrhic victory are by far the greatest immediate threat to our nation.

With respect to “giving ammunition to America’s enemies,” in The World According to the Bush Administration, terrorist-harboring nations hate us because of the freedoms we permit and the principles of the rule of law. Can someone please explain how eliminating our freedoms and turning America into a 50-state penitentiary would somehow give our enemies “ammunition” by their logic? Thus, it seems that the only way that civil libertarians might contribute to terrorist rage is that they fight to protect our freedoms – all this is somehow a greater offense than a hedgemonic foreign policy and a history of installing puppet governments.

Mr. Ashcroft further claims that the defense of our guaranteed liberties from the direct threat he has posed is giving “pause to America’s friends”; yet if he had read any paper outside of the Washington Times, he’d know different. International papers everywhere are stunned at the sweeping and unchecked police powers Mr. Ashcroft and his counterparts abroad are demanding, not the protests against such. One of the only common defenses of Mr. Ashcroft’s constitutional abrogations has been the oft-quoted saying of demagogues and tyrants alike – “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” They’re right in one sense – life without constitutionally-binding checks on governmental power would be a suicide pact.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what these pundits propose, forsaking the inviolate principles of explicitly limited government in favor of some temporal reprieve from the fear of terror. However, life in a 10-by-10 concrete cell may be safe, but certainly not free.

Perhaps the only other even modestly credible argument defenders of Mr. Ashcroft have proposed is Mr. Bush’s astronomical approval rating. Unfortunately, this rhetoric neglects the fact that are a nation of laws, not men. Our nation is governed not by the latest Gallup poll but rather by the supreme law of the land – the Constitution.

It is clear Attorney General Ashcroft has but one demand – the brutal and violent sacrifice of our most cherished liberties on the Altar of Safety, preferably sooner than later. As Bush proclaimed, “you’re either with us or against us.”

Ashcroft has already thrown down the gauntlet – the only question that now remains is which side will you be on. Those that demand the perverse sacrifice of freedom for temporal safety, or those who will defend the constitutional principles of this great republic?

Steve Skutnik is a senior in physics from Palm Harbor, Fla.