U.S. hypocritical in its actions at home

Zaffar is a third-year cognitive science and political science
student.

By Ehsan Zaffar

The United States is a country of almost constant evolution. Its
history teaches important lessons about injustice, civil liberty
and equality. Ask any law professor and they will tell you that the
system of laws in this nation is theoretically based on transparent
accountability. The system of checks and balances itself is a
natural outgrowth of this phenomenon.

Anti-terrorism laws passed by this administration are completely
contrary to this belief. Far beyond just classifying troop
movements, we are now wiretapping conversations between clients and
their attorneys. According to the American Civil Liberties
Union, everyone previously had the right to know when sensitive
information about them was going to be collected ““ now we do
not.

Information that was once within the realm of public access has
started to be removed. Web sites such as those of the FBI and the
Federal Aviation Administration have taken down pages regarding
accidents and incidents with chemicals at many worksites, important
information the public has a right to know.

The list goes on. Legal standards for search and seizure,
granting access to warrants, have been reduced. Wiretapping and
other surveillance has been expanded to encompass a huge swath of
situations. Judicial review of such actions has been reduced. And,
most importantly, these laws apply to everyone, citizens and
non-citizens alike.

The Bush Administration refuses to release information about the
more than 500 detainees already in our jails, held as suspects
related to the attacks on Sept. 11. After repeated requests under
the Freedom of Information Act and numerous lawsuits, the Attorney
General refuses to allay the fears of civil liberties injustices,
especially for these detainees, the vast majority of whom are being
held on charges unrelated to the Sept. 11 attacks.

And so the courts are slowly fading in power, in some cases
replaced by military tribunals. They are being treated as an
obstacle, not a means by which to ensure a fair and equitable
system of justice. It strikes me as ironic that while U.S. bombs
the already ravaged nation of Afghanistan abroad, the government
here continues to curtail the same laws for which this bombing
continues. While we criticize governments on their harsh policies
of human rights abuses and inequitable justice, we continue to do
the same at home.

We are holding citizens and non-citizens alike on allegations
for which the evidence is hidden. We completely disregard such
things as an impartial jury, and an impartial court as we rush
headlong to satiate the appetite of the American people.

When we finally begin to try the members of al-Qaeda or the
hundreds of innocents already in jail, what will we show them but a
skewed system of justice, mangled by our own fears, self doubts and
insecurity? We will show them that the Constitution we so highly
value holds little worth because when needed, it can easily be
looked past and pushed aside under the veil of national security.
Who determines national security? Is there a system of checks and
balances present through an unbiased party? If so, I have not seen
it.

Let me tell you what I think would be laudable instead. When and
if we find the perpetrators of this crime alive, we should appoint
them the same privileges of jury and trial which are allowed to all
citizens and non-citizens. If we wish to show the world the worth
of this nation, then instead of military tribunals, we should do
our best to appoint them as impartial a court and jury as possible,
whether that means an international court or one here in the United
States.

We appointed Timothy McVeigh the same rights and privileges
everyone expects to receive. He also leveled a building, a federal
one, a monument, and shocked the nation. He also murdered
innocents. Yet he was not tried by a military tribunal. Why
not? Does the magnitude of the crime now determine the system of
justice? Do the number of lives lost or the amount of suffering
perceived determine how we react? Absolutely not. Yet that is what
I see happening. If we continue applying standards of crime to the
system of justice administered then we have no right to criticize
other nations for what we ourselves are guilty of.

We must strive to maintain and avoid unnecessary modifications
of the law based on sudden events such as the bombing on Sept. 11.
Curtailing guaranteed privileges through shock, fear or a perceived
inadequacy in the court systems does not help. In the end this
leads only to the fading away of the same transparent
accountability on which the laws of this nation are theoretically
based.

A nation’s qualities are judged best during times of
duress, and if they then falter or fail, then its laws are nothing
but hollow words at best.