Mr. Ashcroft's Tantrum

EDITORIAL / Washington Post 21sep03

EVEN WHEN ATTORNEY General John D. Ashcroft is right, he manages to be wrong. Until the other day, the Justice Department insisted it could not reveal the number of times it has sought records from libraries during national security investigations under the USA Patriot Act. In the absence of basic information, many department critics assumed the worst and made some hyperbolic criticisms of what is actually one of the Patriot Act's reasonable powers. Last week, realizing that its public relations would be served by disclosure, Mr. Ashcroft ordered the number declassified. And the number was zero: The government has never used the authority. Now, the first question is why this fact was ever classified if its disclosure would not harm national security. But Mr. Ashcroft's preference seems to be to keep secret any information except when he thinks he can make his opponents look silly by releasing it.

The attorney general followed with a sarcastic harangue of critics of the Patriot Act. "The charges of the hysterics are revealed for what they are: castles in the air," he scoffed. "Built on misrepresentation. Supported by unfounded fear. Held aloft by hysteria." And he continued: "Allow me to take a moment to clarify who should, and who should not, be worried about these tools in the hands of law enforcement. If you are spending a lot of time surveilling nuclear power plants with your al Qaeda pals, you might be a target of the Patriot Act. If your idea of a vacation is two weeks in a terrorist training camp, you might be a target of the Patriot Act. If you have cave-side dinners with a certain terrorist thug named bin Laden . . . if you enjoy swapping recipes for chemical weapons from your 'Joy of Jihad' cookbook . . . you might be a target of the Patriot Act."

As we have said before, we believe Mr. Ashcroft's defense of the infamous library provision of the Patriot Act is reasonable. The law, which parallels existing authority to seek business records -- including library records -- in criminal cases, makes sense. There was no particular reason to think it was being abused, and we objected to the overheated rhetoric used against it. But Mr. Ashcroft always had the power to alleviate public concerns by releasing a reasonable amount of information about his department's use of the power.

The attorney general of the United States has no business jeering at those who, rightly or wrongly, disagree with his policies or disfavor a particular law. And the administration's disregard for civil liberties in other areas -- particularly its assertion of authority to designate U.S. citizens "enemy combatants," lock them up and deny them access to counsel -- naturally inflames suspicion. It is unfortunate that some of Mr. Ashcroft's critics are not more sober and careful in their charges. But Mr. Ashcroft's apparent disregard for civil liberties concerns -- indeed, his contempt for those who have questions -- does not invite sobriety or care. The attorney general ought to manage to debate important policy without selectively declassifying to serve his own interests and then throwing a temper tantrum at the controversy that results.