In the locker room, two women are discussing the war against terrorism. They agree that Attorney General John Ashcroft is right not to reveal information about the 1,000-plus people detained since September 11. The trouble is, "we're too soft" on the detainees, one opines.
"No, the trouble is that a lot of people detained are innocent," I interjectunwisely, explaining that only a small number of people summarily imprisoned arereported to have any connection to terrorism. The women here are unimpressed. Onesuggests that being imprisoned for a few months is not so terrible, even ifyou're innocent. Immigrants should expect as much in times like these, says theother, stressing that she's not anti-immigrant. Her own family came to the UnitedStates from Ireland, a few generations ago.
I don't imagine that either of these women would march off to prison in aspurt of misplaced patriotism if the attorney general came breaking down theirdoor. But they're clearly willing to sacrifice others' right not to be unfairlyand unnecessarily detained. Think about the "widows," one said, with more passionthan logic. When I asked how the widows might be helped by imprisoning innocentpeople or people guilty only of minor offenses who pose no threat to society, shescowled and left the room.
Conversations like these obviously reflect prevailing anger and fear, butpublic disdain for other people's liberties is neither a new phenomenon nor oneassociated primarily with wartime. A survey of Americans conducted in the early1980s found only minority support for free speech: Seventy-one percent of peoplesurveyed said that they would deny atheists the right to air their views in apublic auditorium; nearly 60 percent would deny the same right to gay-rightsactivists and people intent on denouncing the government. A mere plurality, 41percent, believed that people advocating "unpopular causes" should have the rightto conduct mass protests.
So civil libertarians should not have been surprised by recent evidence ofoverwhelming public support for a repressive domestic war against terrorism.According to an NPR-Kaiser-Kennedy School poll conducted in early November, morethan 60 percent of Americans surveyed support the use of military tribunals fornoncitizens suspected of terrorism, and 68 percent favor government eavesdroppingon conversations between terrorist suspects and their lawyers. Concern aboutabuse of new law-enforcement powers is strong but abstract--and confused:Sixty-five percent of respondents believe that broad new powers of law enforcementwould be used against the innocent, and 58 percent expect to give up some oftheir own rights in order to fight terrorism; but only 32 percent feel threatenedby new antiterrorism legislation.
The rights of citizens suspected of nothing worse than disagreeing with theirgovernment also are regarded with hostility: More than 60 percent of thosesurveyed agree that someone who attributes terrorist activity to Americanbehavior abroad should not be allowed to work in the government or teach in thepublic schools. (Can loyalty oaths be far behind?) Forty percent favor censorshipof news reports about antiwar protests. (If the war is wrongly conceived or badlyconducted, they apparently don't want to know about it.) More than a third favorcensorship of stories criticizing the president's conduct of the war. (Editors atThe Weekly Standard had better watch what they say.)
In part, responses like these reflect understandable publicignorance about administration policies. I doubt that many people realize that inassuming unilateral power to monitor conversations between prisoners and theirlawyers, the attorney general is usurping power previously exercised by thecourts. Before September 11, federal agents could eavesdrop on prisoner-attorneyconversations if they obtained a court order to do so. I also doubt that manypeople comprehend the broad scope of the president's executive order establishingmilitary tribunals, especially since the administration has been extremelydisingenuous in describing it. As Anthony Lewis observed in The New YorkTimes, the president's counsel, Alberto Gonzales, wrongly suggested that the order allows for civilian review of tribunal proceedings, that only active members and supporters of terrorist groups could be subjected to the tribunals, and that they would operate like courts-martial, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (In fact, courts-martial afford more rights to the accused.)
But the NPR-Kaiser-Kennedy School poll also indicates the public'swillingness to embrace ignorance. The desire to repress criticism of thepresident, the war effort, and American policies abroad reflects people's impulseto hear only what they need to believe. "Why do they hate us?" we asked afterSeptember 11; but it's clear that there are some answers the majority simplyisn't willing to hear. There are some illusions of presidential infallibilitythat many can't bear to see shattered.
Unfortunately, presidents and their appointees do make mistakes, which weignore at our peril: Some former FBI officials have expressed concern that theadministration's detention policies are hampering intelligence efforts, leavingus more vulnerable to future attacks. Presidents and attorneys general needdesperately to be second-guessed, as conservative critics of the Clintonadministration might agree. After all, if political leaders were alwayshonorable, responsible, highly competent, and right, we would have had betterairport security, better intelligence, and a better public-health system longbefore September 11 exposed our weaknesses. So you don't have to care about civilliberties to worry about suppression of unpopular views during an extremelycomplicated, volatile, and unpredictable war. You only have to care aboutsecurity and success in the fight against terrorism.
