n ugly theory popped up in the nation's capital several weeks
ago. The Bush administration would wait until war began, and worry
gripped the homeland, to ram a staggering package of domestic
security measures through a Congress silenced by fears of seeming
unpatriotic. Such measures would radically expand the executive
branch powers already inflated by the 2001 USA Patriot Act.
On Friday—as the U.S. began suffering combat fatalities,
and the terror alert on whitehouse.gov glared orange
for "high"—Justice Department spokesperson Mark Corallo confirmed
to the Voice that such measures were coming soon. Exact
details are confined to "internal deliberations," he said, but
the proposals "will be filling in the holes" of the Patriot Act,
"refining things that will enable us to do our job."
But a new, comprehensive review of Bush's growing
presidential power hardly reveals any "holes." Rather—using court
positions, internal policy changes, and secret decisions as bricks—the
administration has built the executive branch into a fortress,
nearly invulnerable to the checks of the judiciary and Congress.
Most alarming, according to the watchdog authors of the 96-page
report,
"Imbalance of Powers," the complexity of this historic expansion
continues to mask its true proportions.
"You have to connect the dots," said Elisa Massimino,
Washington, D.C., director of the Lawyers Committee for Human
Rights (LCHR), a 25-year nonprofit defender of civil liberties
and humane policy. LCHR analyzed hundreds of pages of legislation,
policy directives, and congressional records, plus a spate of
major court cases such as the suit challenging the indefinite
detention, without representation, of accused American "dirty
bomber" Jose Padilla. The big picture shows an "executive branch
amassing so much more power," said Massimino, even in the past
six months alone. But since many developments have occurred "under
the radar," she said, few members of Congress, let alone of the
public, could easily map out such a blueprint on their own.
Briefly, the dots connect like this:
The administration's refusal to release Patriot
Act-related records to Congress, the refusal to release the names
of detainees and open their court hearings to the public, and
the Freedom of Information Act exemptions under the Homeland Security
Act add up to a secretive government, acting outside the scrutiny
of the public and its representatives.
The development of the Total Information Awareness
program, the mining of individuals' shopping and library records,
and the melding of spy and arrest functions add up to government
invasion of privacy and restriction of expression.
The indefinite detention of U.S. citizens deemed
by Bush to be "enemy combatants," the secret detention and deportation
of immigrants not charged with a crime, and the tracking and questioning
of nationals from particular countries add up to unilateral executive
power to deprive people of their physical liberty.
Even with the existing behemoth, Massimino said,
a "quantum leap" in executive branch authority is possible. She
referred to the recently leaked Justice Department draft bill,
the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, commonly known
as Patriot Act II. "It would make over 100 changes to existing
law," she said. But as recently as March 4, Attorney General John
Ashcroft was being coy about it, refusing to discuss any of the
86-page draft at a Senate hearing.
Among the more extreme powers Patriot
Act II would grant the executive branch: The ability to strip
citizenship from an American who supports a group the feds label
as terrorist. Secret arrests—the government could avoid revealing
the location of, charges against, and evidence on someone it was
holding. Far looser checks on search-and-seizure activities of
law enforcement. And a DNA database for people deemed to be terrorist
suspects.
Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin was among
the first constitutional experts to condemn Patriot Act II as
"a new assault on our civil liberties." Last week he told the
Voice, "What we're really worried about here is something
being proposed while all eyes are on Iraq. People are whipped
up into a frenzy. The executive will propose what, at a certain
time, it thinks it can get away with." That, he said, could be
the draft bill "in its most virulent form."
Before the war began, there were signs that Congress
might fight future presidential power-hogging and bring more heft
to the legislative branch. Some Democrats excoriated Ashcroft
for his furtiveness on Patriot Act II. Some Republicans were talking
about subpoenaing records that the Justice Department refused
to release on its use of Patriot Act I powers.
Yet wartime has traditionally meant deferring to
the executive. The entire post-September 11 period may have seemed
like one big state of war, with the Justice Department successfully
skirting Congress and pushing every constitutional challenge to
higher, more administration-friendly courts. But given the actual
war in Iraq, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said last week,
Americans can expect that "protections [of their individual rights]
will be ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum."
Ashcroft deflected angry Senate queries on Patriot
Act II, saying "it would be the height of absurdity" to imagine
the administration's hustling through a law without congressional
review. Yet on October 25, 2001, 98 out of 99 voting senators
hurriedly passed the 342-page Patriot Act I—without any public
debate and before most of them had read it. The White House made
clear their votes would be spun as a test of their patriotism.
Votes on Patriot Act II could also be a test—of who has the patriotism
to right democracy's severely lopsided structure of checks and
balances.

Read more of the
Voice's coverage of
the attack
on civil liberties in post-September 11 America.