ASHCROFT FINALLY LEARNS HIS POWER ISN'T LIMITED

In 1994 and again in 1997, the people of Oregon voted to allow the
terminally ill to use doctor-assisted suicide as a way to avoid a painful,
lingering death. The second time, the measure passed overwhelmingly, with
60 percent of the vote.

The right of Oregon voters to make that decision has also been confirmed by
the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously in the state's favor in 1997.

Yet one man, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, disagrees.

And because Ashcroft believes that his personal opinions are also the
opinions of God, he has felt it necessary to try to circumvent both the
Supreme Court and the voters of Oregon. On Nov. 6, he announced that any
physician who prescribed lethal drugs under the Oregon law would be
prosecuted as if he were a drug pusher.

Last week, however, a federal judge foiled Ashcroft's grab at power. U.S.
District Court Judge Robert Jones ruled that the attorney general --- "an
appointed executive whose tenure depends entirely on whatever
administration occupies the White House" --- has no authority to impose his
personal belief on the people of Oregon or any other state.

Ashcroft's dictatorial impulses have also been on display in the continuing
debate over military tribunals. Under the initial plan, drafted with strong
input from Ashcroft, trials of suspected terrorists were to be conducted
secretly; suspects would not be allowed to choose their own attorneys; a
suspect could be convicted and executed based on a two-thirds vote of a
jury of military officers; and prosecutors would not have to prove their
case beyond a reasonable doubt.

When such provisions stirred strong protests from conservatives as well as
liberals, Ashcroft responded in characteristic fashion. Anybody who
disagreed with him, he told Congress, was aiding terrorists.

In the months since then, however, open debate and criticism have proved
their value. The Bush administration has been forced to concede that the
"terrorist sympathizers" were correct, and the rules governing military
tribunals have been improved significantly. A unanimous verdict is now
required before imposing the death penalty, for example, and the standard
of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" has been restored. Those changes were
worked out not by the Justice Department headed by Ashcroft, but by lawyers
in the Department of Defense.

In fairness, it should be noted that on at least one occasion Ashcroft did
show the capacity to change --- or at least to adapt. Recently, he
announced that a suspect in the murder of two female hikers along the
Appalachian Trail would be charged under a federal hate-crimes law.
Officials believe the suspect targeted the women because they were gay.

As a U.S. senator, Ashcroft had voted against that hate-crimes law and had
generally opposed gay-rights legislation. So it was reassuring to see him
apply the law for the first time on behalf of a gay victim.

"Just as the United States will pursue, prosecute and punish terrorists who
attack America out of hatred for what we believe, we will pursue, prosecute
and punish those who attack law-abiding Americans out of hatred for who
they are," Ashcroft said in announcing the indictment.

On that point, at least, the attorney general is in tune with the law he is
supposed to enforce and the people he serves