[Peace-discuss] How The War On Terrorism Has Gone Way Too Far

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Disturbing example from the Chicago Tribune.  --CGE]
  
   How The War On Terrorism Has Gone Way Too Far
   by Carol Marin
 
Matthew Hale sits in solitary confinement in a holding cell on
the 11th floor of the Metropolitan Correctional Center in
Chicago. At 31, he is a despicable soul. And yet today I write
on behalf of Hale. How is that possible?

Because the war on terrorism has gone too far in chewing up
the U.S. Constitution and as contemptible as Hale is, his case
helps make that observation clear.

A self-proclaimed white supremacist and Pontifex Maximus of
the World Church of the Creator in East Peoria, Hale preaches
a venomous gospel that declares open season on Jews and people
of color.

He is a hater, a race baiter.

Worst of all, in 1999 his teachings helped inspire one of his
followers, Benjamin Smith, to go on a hunting expedition,
targeting Orthodox Jews, blacks and Asians. When he was done,
basketball coach Ricky Byrdsong had been gunned down in
Skokie, Won-Joon Yoon, a 26-year-old doctoral student, was
dead in Indiana and nine others were wounded in Chicago. In
the end, Smith died too by his own hand rather than be taken
by police who had him surrounded.

If Hale didn't force Smith to do what he did, does anyone
doubt Hale's indecent diatribes helped pull the trigger
against decent, innocent people?

On Jan. 9, federal agents arrested and charged Hale with
plotting to kill U.S. District Court Judge Joan Humphrey
Lefkow. There are secretly recorded conversations between Hale
and a federal government informant in which Hale describes
Lefkow as a "probable Jew" and a "corrupt judge." Hale says he
never asked anyone to kill her.

Here's where the war on terrorism comes in.

Horrifying as an alleged plot to kill a federal judge might
be, the government is not charging Hale with terrorism. What
it is doing is using the war on terrorism to cut away some of
those inconvenient little constitutional rights you and I and
even Matt Hale are entitled to.

When lawyers Thomas A. Durkin and Patrick W. Blegen were hired
by Hale's parents to defend him, Hale's lawyers expected to be
able to talk to their client. They didn't expect to get a
memorandum signed by U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft. That
document is 14 pages and outlines severe restrictions called
Special Administrative Measures (SAMS), not just on Hale but
on them too. Not to mention media restrictions as well.

What did Ashcroft say? I wish I knew. The SAMS memo said the
government, is "sensitive," so it has been sealed. That's not all.

U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald, in a letter to Durkin and
Blegen, said that unless they signed a document promising to
abide by the SAMS memo, they would not be permitted the
privileged conversations attorneys have with their clients.

In other words, Hale's attorneys couldn't talk to their client
to prepare his defense unless they promised to abide by
government demands they considered to be indefensible. Things,
they said, like not being able to tell anyone what Hale says
unless it is specifically for his defense, not being able to
communicate to Hale anything the government deems
"inflammatory," not being able to communicate Hale's point of
view to the press.

They refused to sign.

SAMS have been around since 1996. Fitzgerald used the measures
when he was in New York as a way of stopping terrorism
suspects from sending "coded" messages to their disciples.

The measures have been used against convicted street gang
members to prevent them from ordering hits from their prison
cells.

Nobody, however, can point to SAMS being used against a
pre-trial detainee in a non-terrorism case where a person is
still presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Until now.

SAMS, functionally, is a chilling message to lawyers who
defend unpopular clients.

Consider what's happening in New York right now. Radical
attorney Lynne Stewart was the court-appointed lawyer for
Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted in the 1993 bombing of the
World Trade Center. Unlike Hale's attorneys, she signed the
SAMS loyalty oath, which the government, in turn, used to
indict her claiming she violated its secret terms, therefore
aiding and abetting terrorism.

The truth is the government doesn't need to pull new,
Draconian measures out of a constitutional cocked hat to
indict lawyers who break the law. Existing laws do that already.

U.S. District Court Judge James T. Moody must think so too.
He's ruled Durkin and Blegen don't have to sign SAMS.

Signing oaths.

Sealing documents.

The late Wisconsin Sen. Joseph McCarthy comes to mind.

Just this week, 50-year-old transcripts of McCarthy's
closed-door sessions were opened. He capitalized on the
public's fear of the Cold War and communism to cow U.S.
citizens into ratting on suspected members of the Communist
Party, USA.

If Hale did in fact plot to kill a federal judge, it is
undeniably an assault on the judicial system.

But cynically using the war on terrorism to compromise the
Constitution is as well.

E-mail: MarinCorpProductions at yahoo.com

Copyright (c) 2003, Chicago Tribune