I don't know if James Ujaama is a terrorist or not. Since his arrest in Denver nearly 3 weeks ago, the government has shrouded him in secrecy. To our knowledge, he has been charged with no crime. He is being held on the ubiquitous "material witness" claim the government has used, along with immigration charges, to round up hundreds of people since Sept. 11.

Seattle community leaders have called Ujaama an asset to their community. His brother says he is a pacifist. His Denver family says he is a deeply committed Muslim who hates U.S. foreign policy. The government thinks he sold computers to the Taliban, scouted a potential terrorist training camp in Oregon and transported al-Qaeda fighters to Afghanistan. We don't know who's right. All we know is that he is now in Virginia, awaiting a secret Grand Jury appearance.

The Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News asked U.S. Magistrate, Craig Shaffer, to open Ujaama's Denver hearings, claiming "any time a citizen is arrested, there's a huge public interest." Judge Shaffer said the newspapers should have filed their request in Virginia, since that's where the secrecy order originated. But, the Virginia judge's order was, itself, secret and therefore unavailable to the press. So now, none of us knows what's going on.

The Ujaama case raises deeply troubling concerns about the fate of Americans' civil liberties in the wake of September 11. President Bush has said that wartime is no time to weaken his ability to protect the American people. But, this is no ordinary wartime. The war on terror is unlikely to end. We have not rooted out all potential terrorists, and probably never will. Are we, then, supposed to acquiesce indefinitely as our government greatly expands its reach and power, infringing on press and individual freedoms?

This Administration is using terrorism to justify undermining our basic rights. Not since World War II, when Americans of Japanese descent were herded into isolated detention centers, has America experienced such an attack on individual liberties. It is beginning to arouse the ire and scorn of liberals and conservatives alike. It should raise questions for all of us.

Under its interpretation of the Constitution, will our government continue to arrest and hold people indefinitely, in secrecy, often without access to a lawyer? Throughout a war-without-end? As Judge Gladys Kessler wrote in ordering the government to release most detainees' names, "Secret arrests are a concept odious to a democratic society." So are secret court proceedings, detentions without charges and no access to lawyers.

The Justice Department says that holding people secretly and indefinitely has thwarted additional terrorist attacks. How can we judge the truth of this contention if we don't know who the detainees are or with what crimes, if any, they've been charged?

The Justice Department says it needs to hold people as "material witnesses", secretly, so that terrorists won't know what it knows about their plans. But, then, how do we know about whom or what crime this person is supposed to testify? And, how do we know what will trigger his release?

The Justice Department also claims it must hold people indefinitely on immigration charges and keep their deportation hearings secret. How do we know people are being treated justly if we are denied knowledge of their cases? How can we be sure particular ethnic groups are not unfairly targeted?

James Ujaama can't be deported because he is an American citizen, born in Denver, Colorado. To jail him indefinitely, without charges, as a "material witness", subverts not only his Constitutional rights, but also the public's right to know. If we are expected to believe our government's claims of new terrorist threats, we need to know what these are. If we are to believe that American citizens are dangerous and need to be imprisoned, we need to know why.

The Bush Administration has a huge credibility gap across the political spectrum. It must explain its attack on Constitutional protections or lose the confidence of the American people. Better yet, it should just follow the Constitution. This is about freedom, not war.