By Rashad Hussain via e-mail
When the boy who cried wolf was finally assaulted, no one listened. After being discredited by previous hoaxes, he was defenseless when attacked. Conversely, had he been overcautious and never called for help, his death may have been met with greater sadness, yet would have been an inevitable result of his failure to speak out. For fear of being labeled unpatriotic, American Muslims seem to have chosen the latter approach while observing the erosion of their liberties.
With the ink from the broad, far-reaching anti-terrorism PATRIOT USA Act not yet dry, the Bush Administration has demonstrated a clear disregard for the constitution by enacting measures that are more characteristic of a military dictatorship than a democracy. While attempting to defend the nation from threats abroad, it has chosen to attack the constitution and the principles on which this nation was founded.
The same candidate who spoke out against secret evidence now favors monitoring attorney-client conversations, extended delays for visa applicants from Muslim countries, the interrogation of thousands of Arab and Muslim students, and now, secret military tribunals to try those he has “reason to believe” are associated with terrorism.
Aside from civil rights concerns, these moves undermine the legitimacy of our legislative and legal systems. Since when in America has it been acceptable to suspend the writ of habeus corpus, hold secret trials with secret evidence, no guaranteed right to counsel, no guarantee of a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard, and no unanimous verdict requirement in order to secure an accurate decision? Why was it necessary for the executive branch to leave Congress out of the processes that lead to these decisions? Why does the attorney general want to corral anyone he has “reason to believe” - a weak legal standard that can be met by mere speculation - is associated with terrorism?
Horror stories of individuals being detained and secretly moved around the country have already surfaced. Women and children unable to find their husbands and fathers remain in the dark regarding their whereabouts. Seven detainees who maintain their innocence have been on a hunger strike in their New Jersey jail cells. Yet many Americans - including Arabs and Muslims - continue to argue that encroachments on liberty can be accepted due to the nature of the current crisis.
We cannot dismiss these measures as mere inconveniences. As American Muslims who will continue to be disproportionately targeted by new law enforcement tools, we must resist calls to lay down in front of the oncoming truck of civil rights abuses. We must resist the urge to acquiesce to measures simply because they are called necessary components of a war against terror. Political scientists throughout history have contemplated whether democracies can endure instability without compromising freedom. Times of national crisis have historically proven to be the moments when civil rights are most vulnerable. During World War II, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans, and during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus.
We owe it to our vulnerable brothers and sisters who may not be able to afford or articulate effective defenses, that during the war on terror, they do not become the latest victims of Gestapo-like tactics. Our political leaders owe it to America to retract these measures to ensure that we do not compromise the very principles that we find ourselves so vigorously defending after September 11. If we fail to cry wolf now, we will be devoured alive by a system increasingly inclined to attack the fundamental freedoms of those it finds to even resemble its new enemy.