LONDON: By their words and actions, George Bush and senior US administration officials may be doing more to terrify American citizens than the Al Qaeda terrorists they have vowed to destroy.

In particular, John Ashcroft’s assertions about the alleged “dirty bomber”, Abdullah al-Muhajir, require close scrutiny. The attorney-general claims a “plot” to attack the US with a radioactive weapon was foiled by al-Muhajir’s arrest. But deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz is more circumspect. “It was not an actual plan,” he says.

FBI director Robert Mueller is vaguer still. “It had not got, as far as we know, much past the discussion stage, but there was substantial discussion.”

Is Al-Muhajir to be charged therefore with the hitherto unfamiliar offence of talking? Or is there more substantial evidence to suggest prospective wrongdoing? Unfortunately Ashcroft and his colleagues, by denying al-Muhajir legal counsel and a public hearing and by locking him up indefinitely, have ensured that such questions cannot be answered. This they do in the name of national security.

Yet by this and similar actions they undermine their cause, boost Al Qaeda’s credibility, scandalize the US constitution, and intensify the anxiety all Americans share about possible repeat attacks. Perhaps another terrible outrage really was forestalled. But the point is, how is the public to know?

The Bush administration’s feckless attitude to civil liberties and the law, symbolized by its Guantanamo Bay prison camp, is far from being the only frightening aspect of current policy.

Bush’s West Point speech on June 1 made clear that this administration now feels itself justified in threatening, and attacking without warning, states and individuals anywhere, any time if, in its unaccountable, secretly-sourced wisdom, it judges them to constitute a potential security risk.

Bush’s aggressive rhetoric about the “evil axis”, “unbalanced dictators”, “mad tyrants”, and unidentified foes seeking the “catastrophic power to strike at great nations” stokes rather than reduces fear. By threatening pre-emptive strikes, even to the irresponsible extent of using tactical nuclear weapons, Bush foments international instability, encourages copycat behaviour by vassal governments, and invites pre-emptive pre-emption by hidden enemies.

Thus is international law, like US domestic law, subverted, no doubt to the terrorists’ silent delight. This is not leadership. It is scare tactics borne, perhaps, of an unpleasant mix of political calculation and something approaching private panic.

What is needed now is backbone — a little less of febrility in Washington, a little more of fortitude and calm resolve.

Nobody doubts the reality of the terrorist menace; the potential horror of weapons of mass destruction in the wrong hands is plain to all. But curbing proliferation means, for example, fully funding the Nunn-Lugar programme for weapons disposal (which Bush initially opposed) and extending it beyond the old Soviet sphere.

Beating terrorism requires painstaking collective diplomacy and intelligence-gathering, not go-it-alone militarism. Sound leadership means respecting and building on America’s democratic strengths, not emphasising America’s vulnerability to justify the undercutting of its traditions.

Too much of what Bush and his officials say, including the al-Muhajir case, looks politically-driven, partly by a belatedly rising tide of domestic criticism, partly by a rightwing agenda. Too much of what they do lacks perspective. When fear usurps reason and becomes the ruling principle of governance, terrorism wins.—Dawn/The Guardian News Service.