JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER ALL IN ONE: JOHN ASHCROFT

JOHN ASHCROFT, Part I: First, the attorney general pressed U.S. attorneys
to demand more death penalties - not out of any finding that justice was
being slighted in death-eligible cases, but just because Ashcroft thinks
more executions are neater than fewer.

The attorney general seemed to take particular delight in pushing for
federal executions in the 12 states that have have declined to adopt the
penalty, a power-tripping "Take that!" to electorates that have shunned
conservative orthodoxy.

Then Ashcroft, stretching his powers under a new statute, ordered U.S.
attorneys to report on federal judges who impose sentences lighter than
federal guidelines recommend.

The point was to intimidate judges and to signal the prosecutors themselves
to press the judges not to exercise their lawful discretion where decent
justice might call for precisely that.

Now the attorney general, suppressing prosecutorial discretion, has ordered
U.S. attorneys to bring the most serious charges possible against suspects
and to shun plea bargains, as if prosecutors and courts were letting
criminals off easy.

The U.S. prison population recently topped 2 million, a record: we lead the
world. Our incarceration rates are five to eight times higher than those of
other industrial nations and our sentences are typically longer. The
federal prison population has increased 69 percent in the last eight years.
One out of 37 Americans has served prison time. At the current rate, by
2010, one out of 29 will have.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer recently
protested the use of mandatory and over-long sentences. No matter. And the
Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's
policymaking body, led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, has unanimously
opposed the law Ashcroft is using to harry judges.

No matter, again. The attorney general is too busy to listen. Too busy
creating a one-man justice system that decides charges, prison terms and
even death.

JOHN ASHCROFT, Part II: It was with gotcha glee that the attorney general,
after long refusing any public accounting, recently reported that the
Patriot Act has never been used secretly to suck up the personal records of
library borrowers or bookstore patrons, as the law would allow. So there!

In arch and dismissive language unbecoming to the nation's chief legal
officer, he ridiculed critics of the legislation, which was enacted in
panic right after 9/11. Ashcroft made particular sport of anxious
librarians - calling them "hysterical" - who fear for the rights of their
patrons. (Truth in packaging: I'm a trustee of the American Library
Association's Freedom to Read Foundation.)

Presumably Ashcroft didn't miss the point; he just dodged it. The concern
is that the law can be used to violate citizens' privacy with police-state
stealth. And if it can be misused, will it be?

Well, already the Patriot Act, although supposedly targeted at terrorism
suspects, has been used against drug dealers, con artists and bookies. And
the inspector general of the Justice Department has rebuked Ashcroft's shop
for its sweeps of immigrants, its open-ended detentions and drumhead
deportations.

The Patriot Act raises serious civil liberty issues, as even many
conservatives recognize. But rather than address them squarely, Ashcroft
finds it easier to beat up on librarians.

Tough guy.