It
is safe to say Portland attorney Charles Hinkle takes a dim view of the civil liberties
lost in America under the name of national security. One would also be safe in saying he
lays the blame for those losses at the feet of the administration of President George W.
Bush.
Hinkle appeared before the Newberg City Club Tuesday afternoon in a program
titled, “Is National Security a Threat To Your Civil Rights?”
In Hinkle’s opinion? Yes.
The former professor of constitutional law and First Amendment issues at
Lewis & Clark College painted a picture of secrecy that has evolved from
Congress’ passage of the Patriot Act in 2001 on the heels of the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks on the United States.
He expanded on certain tenets of the Patriot Act, including the “sneak
and peek” provision that allows intelligence agencies, most often the FBI, under the
guise of ferreting out terrorists, to enter someone’s home without their consent or
knowledge. Hinkle explained that the Patriot Act doesn’t require a judge to issue a
search warrant or that the FBI notify the homeowner his or her home has been entered and
searched, even if that homeowner is not directly suspected of being a threat to national
security.
The sneak and peek component of the act was exemplified in May 2004 in the
case of Brandon Mayfield, a Portland attorney arrested by the FBI in connection with the
March 11, 2004, bombings of trains in Madrid, Spain. The FBI detained Mayfield, a
converted Muslim, as a material witness after a partial fingerprint identified as his was
found on materials near the bomb site.
Mayfield revealed after a Portland judge ordered his release that the FBI had searched his
home without his knowledge, a search made possible by the Patriot Act.
Hinkle also railed against a provision in the Patriot Act that allows foreign
nationals visiting the United States to be detained indefinitely in America and at
American military bases abroad without the basic legal rights afforded to citizens. He
cited the 1,100 people arrested in the United States since Sept. 11, people who have not
had access to legal representation or the courts. In essence, Hinkle said, it’s as if
the detainees vanished.
“We know none of these things because the government hasn’t
released any of (the information),” he said.
Hinkle elaborated on secret lists of detainees, secret courts convened to
adjudicate detainees, and documents kept hidden from the eyes of the public. He questioned
an executive order given by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft that allows law
enforcement agencies to listen in on conversations between attorneys and their clients,
formerly illegal under the constitution.
“These things are part of the Bush administration’s response to
9-11 ...,” Hinkle said.
Hinkle’s examples of actions taken by the Bush administration in the
interest of national security trickled down to a single set of determinations: abuses of
power were eroding individual’s civil rights and the constitution was being trod
upon.
But it wasn’t the first time, he said, saying that America was formed
and the constitution written in response to the abuses of power by the British government
hundreds of years ago.
“Our constitution didn’t hatch out of an egg one day,” he
said. “It was written in response (to a government acting maliciously and
arbitrarily).”
What’s also concerning and ironic, Hinkle said, is that the American
government’s actions are the same the State Department condemned other countries for
in past years — basically the denial of basic rights and freedoms.
Recently, that manifested itself in the Bush administration’s insistence
that detainees be tried by military tribunals rather than civilian courts, arguing that as
foreign citizens they should have no access to the courts or due process. Hinkle warned,
however, that in taking that stance the American government can no longer object to other
countries prosecuting citizens via military tribunals.
Hinkle said an indication that the administration’s stance may crumble
came in 2003 when a federal court ordered that Jose Padilla, the only U.S. citizen
arrested as a suspected member of the Al Qaida organization, be afforded the basic rights
of anyone accused of a crime in the U.S.: access to charges against him, the right to face
his accusers and the right to have his case heard before a civilian court judge.
The Bush administration is fighting the court’s conclusion, arguing that
Padilla is an enemy combatant and as such is not entitled to the typical privileges of a
U.S. citizen.
Finally, Hinkle charged those attending the City Club forum that they and
other other American citizens need to decide whether this is the way they want the
government to comport itself when it comes to fighting terrorism. Stay informed, demand
accountability and “remember that the whole point of this American experiment is to
insure liberty,” he concluded.
|
