In World War II that attitude reached the horrendous level of unjustly imprisoning the West Coast Nisei in what amounted to concentration camps. This time around, the Bush Administration has not gone nearly so far. But without Congressional approval it has decreed the use of military tribunals at home or abroad for suspected terrorists, and approved government invasions of the supposedly private lawyer-client relationship.

These exceptions to customary constitutional projections are justified as necessary in the war on terrorism. As Attorney-General John Ashcroft put it in tones of revelation: "I think it's important to understand that we are at war now."

Of course it is, but it's also important to understand that even in wartime rights may be only the first steps down a slippery slope toward the loss or permanent impairment of those rights.

Ashcroft insisted that "foreign terrorists who commit war crimes against the United States, in my judgment, are not entitled to and do not deserve the projections of the American Constitution " That only raises the questions: how can he or anyone know that a "foreign terrorist" has committed a "war crime" before such a person is tried and found guilty? And if that person has not been found guilty of a "war crime," how can anyone say the accused is neither entitled to nor deserves Constitutional projections?

The same questions arise from Vice President Cheneyís defense of Bush's executive order decreeing the use, for the first time since World War II, of military tribunals. Anyone who "conducts a terrorist operation killing thousands of innocent Americans combatant," Cheney said, and doesn't "deserve to be treated as a prisoner of war" or to have "the same guarantees and safeguards that would be used for an American citizen going through the normal judicial process."

A military tribunal is not, however, "the normal judicial process" accused citizens face. And, like Ashcroft, Cheney seems to be assuming the guilt, even before trial, of someone accused of a terrorist act. He may have come closer to the Administration's real desires when he said that a military court "guarantees that we'll have the kind of treatment of these individuals that we believe they deserve."

How can he know what "these individuals" only accused of terrorism "deserve" until they are tried and found guilty? And if the prosecution believes there is ample evidence to convict a person accused of a terrorist act, why can't that evidence be presented in "the normal judicial process" rather than in a military tribunal?

Well, for one thing, Administration officials contend, military courts would be better able to protect confidential information. For another, witnesses and jurors could be better protected against terrorist retaliation.

Philip B. Heymann of the Harvard Law School, a former Justice Department official in the Clinton Administration, has pointed out, however, that the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were successfully prosecuted in a civilian court, owing to a law that allowed classified information to be used, but not made public. As for effective witness and juror protection, it has been provided in numerous Mafia and drug cartel trials.

Military tribunals to try suspected terrorists, said Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, would be "a message to the world that it is acceptable to hold secret trials and summary executions without the possibility of judicial review, at least when a defendant is a foreign national."

The invasion of lawyer-client confidentiality without Congressional sanction conversations between an accused terrorist and his or her counsel. The terrorist crisis may seem to justify this to prevent crimes planned for the future; but lawyers already are required to disclose any criminal plans their clients may discuss.

Again, moreover, such wiretaps would be permitted, not just on convicted terrorists, but on accused or detained persons who may never be found guilty of anything. In fact, some of the many people, including immigrants, who have been detained since the September 11 attacks may be transferred from the custody of the Justice Department to that of the Pentagon.

Many Americans, like Ashcroft and Cheney, may feel that terrorists persons merely suspected or accused of terrorist acts full projections guaranteed by the Constitution. That's a constant danger in "wartime" and quick fixes that apparently would never apply to ordinary American citizens in ordinary times.

Basic legal projections, however, are not in the Constitution just to protect criminals, or to be suspended in emergencies. They are there to protect all of us all of the time never need to be shielded by the law from the law. And once breached or ignored, those projections may be difficult to reclaim