As he sits down before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow, Attorney General John Ashcroft can expect a grilling not seen since his Senate confirmation hearing. The line of questioning will likely boil down to one issue: whether he and the Bush administration have been overly authoritarian in prosecuting the war on terrorism and protecting the public.

The hearing hints at a shift in the political landscape in Washington. A growing willingness to criticize the antiterrorism tactics of President Bush's team is displacing the near-total support the administration has enjoyed up to now.

Indeed, tomorrow's proceedings are the third hearing in three days dealing with the Justice Department's actions since the terrorist attacks.

They come at a time when polls show a significant drop in the public fears about terrorism. This shift may diminish the desire for lock-step political unity - and embolden critics to question members of Bush's team.

As fear abates, "There's a complacency factor that's settling in," says Marshall Wittmann, a congressional analyst at the Hudson Institute here.

That means partisanship is resurrecting itself on Capitol Hill. Furthermore, Ashcroft himself, "has become the clear face of hard-core conservatism" for some Democrats, "and that has fueled opposition to him on civil liberties and other issues," says Mr. Wittmann.

The debate centers on two issues: whether the tactics used by the Justice Department are too draconian - and whether Ashcroft's team has done too little consulting with Congress.

The attorney general has faced mounting criticism over several tactics: asking Arab-American men to submit to voluntary interviews, listening to conversations between terrorism suspects and their lawyers, and not revealing information about some 1,000 people detained since Sept. 11.

In Detroit on Sunday, Ashcroft told community leaders they could observe the questioning of the young Arab men - perhaps an attempt to tamp down some criticism.

On congressional consultations, some observers say senators - including Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont - are whining about not being in the law-enforcement loop.

Others counter that an important constitutional issue is at stake. "This isn't just about Congress complaining: It's about the Constitution, which sets up three branches of government," says Neal Katyal, a law professor at Yale University in New Haven, Conn. Having Congress play its role as a check on the executive branch is crucial, he says.

For instance, the military tribunals allow the executive branch to carry out functions usually reserved for the other branches: making the law (by designing rules for the tribunals) and carrying out the law (by using judges who are under the president).

Page: 1 | 2