WASHINGTON, Aug 5 (IPS) More than a year after the administration detained two U.S. citizens without charges, a growing number of groups reflecting a broad spectrum of views believe that constitutional rights here are increasingly threatened by the so-called 'war on terrorism.'

Soon after their arrests, Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla were declared enemy combatants by President George W. Bush  and detained by the military--without a chance to see lawyers or face charges.

”Never in our history has the president asserted the authority to arrest and detain somebody indefinitely and without any due process. We think there is no basis for this in domestic or international law,” says Joseph Onek from the Constitution Project, a bipartisan non-profit based at Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute.

”The danger is that this administration or future administrations could simply arrest people without any charges indefinitely,” he added in an interview.

”Civil liberties in the post 9/11 environment cannot be inviolable. But when the government proposes to violate traditionally protected rights it must at a minimum satisfy two criteria,'' adds Robert A. Levy.

''First, the government has to convince us that there is a compelling need to do what it's going to do. Second, the government has to demonstrate that what it proposes will be effective and that there is no less intrusive means of accomplishing the same goals.”

”And we do not believe that the government has met this burden. Certainly not in the Padilla case,” added the senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, a non-partisan public policy research foundation.

FBI officials arrested Padilla at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport last May after he arrived from Pakistan.

He was held as a material witness in a plot to detonate a radioactive ”dirty bomb” before Bush declared him to be an ”enemy combatant” the day after his arrest.

Since then, Padilla has been held in solitary confinement in a military brig in South Carolina.

The Cato Institute, Constitution Project, and four other groups filed a friend-of-the-court or ''amicus curiae'' brief in federal appeals court last week in which they argued that the administration has no legal authority to detain a U.S. citizen indefinitely without charge, and that the act violates the constitution.

”No congressional action justifies the lawless seizure and incommunicado detention of Mr. Padilla by the executive,” argues the brief. ”To the contrary, the executive action runs brazenly afoul of the constitutional principles of separation of powers and the statutory law that safeguards that principle.”

According to Levy, ”the central issue involved is separation of powers. We don't contend that the justice department has to give every combatant an attorney and a full hearing in federal courts.

”But we do contend that the executive branch unilaterally cannot arrest a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, detain him in a military brig without any charges, without access to an attorney and without any ability to argue in his own defence.”

”That's why we joined together. We felt that a cross-section of ideological views from left to right might convince the court that this issue is of broad relevance to all Americans of all political persuasions,” he added.

”American citizens have a right to a lawyer and the right to be charged with a crime,” John Whitehead, president and founder of the Rutherford Institute, a non-profit civil liberties group, told IPS on Tuesday.

”So far that hasn't happened (in the Padilla case) because the president--much like the old kings in Europe--just made up the law. What we see the Bush administration doing is overriding our constitution. I think it's tyranny.”

”There is a specific act passed by our Congress which says that this kind of action can be taken but there has to be a specific congressional law authorizing it. In this case, there is no specific law authorizing this. Not only is the administration overriding the Constitution but also Congress,” he continued.

”There is no law at this point, if someone is brought to a detention camp, much like the Nazis did in World War II with the Gestapo.”

Besides Padilla, Yaser Esam Hamdi--also a U.S. citizen--was declared an enemy combatant. But in contrast to Padilla, Hamdi was not detained on U.S. soil but captured in Afghanistan.

Last month, the Fourth Circuit Court in Virginia refused to re-hear his case. His lawyers are currently seeking review by the Supreme Court.

As these cases unfold, public interest groups question the balance between the 'war on terror' and the protection of civil liberties.

”I think there is no basis for abandoning all our constitutional values and liberties. There is no demonstrated necessity for this kind of conduct. Padilla could have been tried in a court for various offences and that's what should have happened in this case,” said Onek.

”The government is using the threat of treating somebody as an enemy combatant--that is basically throwing them in prison and throwing away the key--to try to force people to plea guilty in criminal cases,” he added.

”The (Padilla) case is incredibly important because it's really unprecedented,” says Fiona Doherty from the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.

”It's really the first time the government is effectively saying that it has the authority to do whatever it likes with an American citizen just by invoking the ''enemy combatant'' label. And it refuses to tell us why it thinks Mr. Padilla is an enemy combatant. It wants the courts to look the other way,” she told IPS.

Copyright 2003 IPS