ASHCROFT'S CURB OF RIGHTS SETS SCARY LEGAL PRECEDENT

The tiny raised letters, "In God We Trust" are hard to decipher on a worn
copper penny. Maybe it's just as well.

It seems U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft is demanding that our trust go
to him. With a mere stroke of his pen, Ashcroft has effectively suspended
the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.

We're at war, and he's replacing God. In the Attorney General We Trust?

The Sixth Amendment gives every person in this country (not just every
citizen) the right to the assistance of counsel if accused by the
government of a crime. But what good is a lawyer unless you can talk
confidentially?

Ashcroft's new regulation allows the Justice Department to monitor
conversations between suspected terrorists and their lawyers on a mere
hunch, "a reasonable suspicion," of criminal activity.

He says it's preventive, to stop communications from jail to terrorists on
the loose. He promises his staff "listeners" will not talk to his staff
prosecutors, and that suspects and attorneys will be given notice that
their conversations may be monitored.

Baloney, say the new rule's critics --- among them Georgia Congressman Bob
Barr, a former federal prosecutor and an Ashcroft ally in pushing the
conservative agenda. Barr says violating attorney-client privilege "is
totally unnecessary."

"I'm not aware of any court ever turning down a request for monitoring a
conversation when a prosecutor makes the proper probable cause showing
[which is more than mere suspicion] that criminal activity may be going on."

Barr says Ashcroft's attorney-client monitoring could create serious
hurdles for the prosecution later on in a case. Although Ashcroft says the
information from listening would not be given to prosecutors, that promise
could come back to haunt government lawyers, who may have to prove that
evidence didn't come from monitoring a defendant's conversations with his
lawyer.

Kent Alexander, former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia,
agrees with Barr. He and other legal authorities point to the U.S. Supreme
Court's ruling that overturned the convictions of Oliver North and John
Poindexter in the Iran-Contra scandal as a comparable example. North and
Poindexter were promised immunity from prosecution for their testimony
before a congressional committee. Their convictions were overturned when
the special prosecutor could not show that his evidence didn't come from
that testimony.

Alexander says federal prosecutors traditionally have taken pains to honor
the confidentiality rule.

For example, a prosecutor armed with a court order allowing a phone tap is
supposed to hang up if an attorney comes on the line to talk to the suspect.

Still, he acknowledged, comparing the jailed terrorist suspects with
members of the mafia, crimes can be plotted from behind bars.

"In other words," Alexander said, "I don't think the attorney general gets
up every morning and says, 'How can I bash civil liberties today?' "

Nevertheless, civil liberties are fast fading at the Ashcroft Justice
Department, whether through the shortcutting of the justice system with a
secret military tribunal or the holding of suspects in jail without
disclosing the charges against them.

American Bar Association leaders and criminal defense attorneys have been
strangely silent so far about the erosion of fundamental rights.

Says Russell Gabriel, who directs a legal aid clinic and teaches at the
University of Georgia Law School, "Maybe we should think on Shakespeare's
warning in Henry VI --- the best advice for undermining a government of
laws is to kill all the lawyers."

Barr couches his criticism of Ashcroft with praise for the attorney
general's integrity. But --- referring to the Bush administration's
weakening of civil liberties --- "I lose sleep over these things," he said.

Why should the average American care about such legal disputes? Lee County
Magistrate Judge Jim Thurman, who deals with everyday crimes from his bench
in the small South Georgia town of Leesburg, puts the attorney-client issue
in perspective.

If you honor the Constitution, he says, Ashcroft's monitoring sets a scary
precedent: "What if your college daughter were falsely accused of selling
drugs --- didn't know someone put them in her dorm room? Wouldn't you want
to protect her right to talk to a lawyer without the other side listening in?"

That should be the test for all of us as Americans who cherish a free and
open society: How would this temporary rule, if expanded, affect my rights?