Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration has used the existence of terrorism to justify the utilization of illegal tactics in the name of “homeland security.” This began first with the USA Patriot Act that passed on Oct. 26, 2001, which drew criticism almost immediately due to its infringement on civil liberties. The Patriot Act greatly expanded the authority of the government in many areas, such as intelligence-gathering abroad and the monitoring of electronic communication. It also loosened guidelines governing the detainment and deportation of immigrants. Initially, this expanded authority mainly affected domestic law. However, as the War on Terror proceeds into its seventh year, the U.S. is increasingly condemned for violating international law.

Recently, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released letters sent to Capitol Hill, citing terrorism as a justification to go beyond both domestic and international law in areas of clandestine anti-terrorist activity. According to The New York Times, these proposals ran afoul of limitations the Supreme Court and Congress had imposed on the Central Intelligence Agency. The violated laws in question include both the Geneva Conventions stipulation that governments may not undertake “outrages on human dignity” and the “prohibition on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” in the Detainee Treatment Act. The DOJ claims that because coercive interrogation tactics are aimed at preventing a terrorist attack rather than humiliating the captive, the government is justified in employing illegal techniques.

Currently, the administration considers methods causing “anything short of organ failure and death” to be acceptable means of interrogation. Bush claims that any tactics that meet this standard are in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Such a vague definition of legality in interrogation leaves prisoners and suspects, some of whom might be innocent, in danger of being tortured and denied basic rights.

What will terrorism not justify? The power of the government is unlimited. The executive branch is unaccountable to the other two, as Bush has chosen to interpret the imposed limitations of the other two branches in his favor. What is most alarming, though, is the apathy and even ignorance of many American citizens, not only regarding the trampling of terrorist suspects’ rights but also with respect to the perilous condition of their own liberties. Most seem not to care about the fact that the administration has overcome constitutional limitations and has been able to ignore rights, using the excuse of “homeland security.”

This outright defiance of international law and the outrageous expansion of domestic authority under the Bush Administration should be one of the key concerns of the American public and its politicians. So far, however, there has been much talk and no action. Is it justified that the government is arbitrarily subjecting citizens to government scrutiny and observation by monitoring a computer or phone line that has, at best, a slim chance of being used by a terrorist suspect? Have the guidelines governing suspect identification not been outrageously loosened since the attacks? Is it humane that this country takes such a lax approach to cases of torture? These arrogations of power should be condemned and the rights they abuse, protected. It is time for the U.S. to uphold a stricter adherence to human rights, both domestically and internationally.