Ashcroft speaks in circles

On Tuesday night, John Ashcroft, former United States Attorney General, spoke at the Foreign Affairs Symposium (FAS). His speech, which focused primarily on civil liberties and counterterrorism, reflected the Symposium's 2012 theme, "The Paradox of Progress: Chasing Advancement Amidst Global Crisis." Specifically addressing how to defy the paradox of maintaining a secure society while also protecting individual liberty, Ashcroft underscored the importance of constructive debate and personal freedom. With a free people engaged in debate, "making meaningful decisions," Ashcroft reasons, we can "turn ordinary metal into pure gold."
This page, while in agreement about the importance of civil discourse and personal liberty, believes that Mr. Ashcroft's flowery rhetoric is grossly detached from reality. We contend that while Mr. Ashcroft purports to be in favor of defying the paradox, he is actually creating one himself: calling on individuals to freely voice their opinions while simultaneously stripping from individuals their freedom.
As Attorney General, Mr. Ashcroft created an environment diametrically opposed to individual liberty - an atmosphere unsuitable for the growth of political activism or the appearance of civil debate. Ten days after 9/11, for example, Mr. Ashcroft ordered unprecedented secrecy in federal immigration courts. The procedures, among other things, required that trials be closed to the public and kept from the public record, thus precluding the possibility of outside sources ever reviewing the facts of a case. These actions clearly do not respect individual liberty nor the idea of public debate.
Time and time again during his tenure, Mr. Ashcroft championed restrictions on personal liberty and public discussion - from allowing police to tap different phones without separate warrants, to monitoring dialogue and personal transactions, to restricting freedom of the press and speech. It's clear that Mr. Ashcroft's rhetoric is void of fact.
This page contends, most importantly, that Mr. Ashcroft's hypocrisy could shake public confidence in our ability to ever attain both security and liberty, thus contradicting the very purpose of the Symposium. A detached and disenchanted citizenry will lead inevitably to a lack of meaningful public debate and political activism. Such detachment of the body politic will thus prevent us from every defying the paradox. Mr. Ashcroft risks producing a dangerous cycle of ineptitude and inaction.