A lot of things around national security issues have happened very quickly in the last few weeks.

They have come as a wave of concern was growing about the direction the Obama administration was headed concerning practices left over from the Bush administration.

The concerns developed after:
• Reports that Obama was considering revising and reviving the Military Commissions.
• A proposal to structure a new form of indefinite detention without charge or trial was brought up.
• The lock-jaw doctrine of state secrets was defended by the Obama Department of Justice in several ongoing court cases.
• The administration announced that photos of prisoner abuse would not be released — contrary to a court ruling in a case brought by the ACLU.

Things began to feel like Bush redux.

But in late June and early July a string of stories appeared. We were all reminded of the Bush administration’s abuse of power and disregard for the rule of law:
• Stories about yet another secret surveillance program of the Bush administration that not even the Congress knew about. VP Dick Cheney had ordered the CIA not to brief congressional members about it. No oversight, in other words.
• Stories that a secret report by the CIA’s Office of Inspector General had prompted Attorney General Eric Holder to consider appointing a special prosecutor to look into torture under the Bush administration, and potentially press charges. This was a report the ACLU had sued to obtain, by the way, under a Freedom of Information Act request.
• And stories about the effectiveness of the Bush-era surveillance programs. It strongly suggested that the trade of liberty for security that the Bush administration had insisted on hadn’t been worth it.

The crossroads we’re at now goes to a central concern the founders had when they created our government in the Constitution. The founders worried that government, by its nature, always seeks more power. And when it receives more power, rarely does it ever relinquish it, even when abuse of the power can be shown.

The Obama administration faces this question: Whether the administration will accept the power as its own on some pretext of necessity to protect the national interest; or, if it will assert the rule of law, acknowledge the abuse is unacceptable, and deliver justice.

The ACLU re-asserts its strong opposition to:
• Indefinite detention without charge or trial.
• Torture.
• Military commissions.

We are strongly opposed to indefinite detention without charge or trial. The Obama administration has floated a proposal to create this new form of detention. It is no different than the Bush administration’s detention of so-called “enemy combatants.” It violates the essence of American due process and the rule of law.

We are strongly opposed to torture. Torture is illegal and unconstitutional. Those who ordered torture in the name of the United States should be punished, no matter how high an office they hold or held in government. Quite simply, no one in America is above the law. Abuses are much more likely to be repeated by future administrations if crimes have been committed but not prosecuted.

We are strongly opposed to the revamping and revitalization of military commissions. Our federal courts, not military commissions, were set up to deliver justice. Federal courts have been used to successfully convict terrorist suspects, including the 20th 9/11 hijacker. In all, 150 terrorist convictions have come through federal courts. Federal courts represent the very values we are defending — the rule of law and equal justice. Military commissions allow evidence gathered through torture and hearsay. That’s not justice.

Civil liberties advocates, it is said, have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies — only permanent principles.

One hopes that as we move forward, principles gain an ascendancy that reverses their virtual abandonment during a difficult period in our history — a period whose abuses we are still struggling to deal with.

Tags: government accountability, national security, rule of law, torture