DON'T TREAD ON ME Is the war on terror really a war on rights? The Declaration of Independence heralded the values of freedom, justice and equality in a country whose government was accountable to the people. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights enshrined these and other principles, which became the hallmark of this country. We extolled the virtues of our legal system and held it as a model to others. Across 200 years, the progress has been steady in affirming constitutional rights and embedding the rule of law in our society. Among the memorable road hazards of that historic trip are: Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-Americans, Sen. Joseph McCarthy's witch hunt for Communists or their sympathizers among Americans of all walks of life but particularly among intellectuals and the movie industry. But the nation has never before seen a more systematic erosion of civil rights than after 9/11. This has taken the form of undermining the legal system, coupled with egregious governmental abuses of power, all in the name of combating terrorism. The targets of these measures have been Arabs and Muslims, but the effects extend to everyone. The erosion actually started in 1996 with anti-terrorism and immigration legislation. Permanent residents who were recognized by the Constitution's equal-protection clause as having most of the rights enjoyed by citizens were stripped of them. Non-citizens could be arrested and deported on "secret evidence," which revoked the constitutional right to confront and cross-examine evidence presented against them. This was precisely the practice used by dictatorial regimes the U.S. has repeatedly denounced since the Cold War. After Sept. 11, 2001, the administration embarked on a series of measures that started with a wave of arrests of aliens whose status was irregular. But the administration's campaign only focused on people of Arab origin and others who were Muslims. Their numbers were not confirmed, their status undisclosed, and their cases' outcomes have not been revealed. The Justice Department's inspector general reported that many cases were unjustified and many individuals were harshly treated, something heretofore deemed shocking by our legal standards. Two years later the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a 2-1 decision, reversed an earlier federal court ruling ordering the government to release the names of hundreds of people detained after Sept. 11. One of the concurring judges wrote that "America faces an enemy just as real as its former Cold War Foes, with capabilities beyond the capacity of the judiciary to explore." Judge refuses to cave in The government contended that the disclosure of even one name would compromise national security. In a courageous dissent, however, Judge David Tatel wrote that the majority's "uncritical deference" to the government's vague assertions not only contravened the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act but prevented the American people from discovering whether the present administration "is violating the constitutional rights of hundreds of persons whom it has detained in connection with the terrorism investigation." The war in Afghanistan brought about another type of violation, the placing of enemy war prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Their detention without due process is in clear violation of our international legal obligation under the Third Geneva Convention. The convention requires the U.S. to properly adjudicate their status as prisoners of war and to treat them well. It also provides for their release after the conflict ends. The conflict is over, but they are still detained. Moreover, they were treated in a manner that may fall in the category of torture: sensory deprivation, prolonged hooding and solitary confinement, degrading and humiliating treatment. All of that was glossed over and no one from the U.S. media or human rights organizations was allowed to go inside, view the conditions of detention and talk to the detainees. Among the detainees are people ages 15 to 95, including some who were sick. Secretly, some of them were released to avoid embarrassment, and soon the remaining ones will be released or tried by military commission before which their rights to a fair and impartial defense will not be guaranteed. U.S. courts have shockingly refused to review this situation on the fictitious grounds that Guantanamo Bay, a territory leased from Cuba by the U.S., is not part of the U.S. Our courts found that they are not competent to examine what our troops are doing to their prisoners. That is simply absurd, and judges with moral courage must reverse this position. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/perspective/chi-0308240431aug24,1,3363007.story?coll=chi-newsopinionperspective-hed