The first setback took place in Detroit, the scene of the Bush administration's first major prosecution of suspected terrorists after 9 -11. Last June, a federal court found two men, Abdellah Elmardoudi and Karim Koubriti, guilty of conspiracy to provide material support for terrorism and for document fraud, a third man, Ahmed Haman, was convicted for document fraud, but acquitted of terrorist charges, while a fourth, Farouk All-Haimou, was acquitted of all charges.

The case looked like a victory for our country in the War on Terrorism. The government had broken up a major al-Qaeda terrorist cell in the American heartland. Or so it seemed. But early last month the U.S. Justice Department revealed that it had failed to turn over evidence to the defence that might have helped its case.

The evidence involved an imprisoned leader of a drug gang named Milton "Butch" Jones who accused the government's chief witness, Yousef Hmimssa, a Moroccan and self confessed scam artist, of having confided to him that he had made up a part of his story.

Lawyers for the three convicted men asked that their convictions be thrown out. The judge in their trial scheduled an emergency meeting, demanding that the government provide an explanation.

And that's not all. On December 18, a judge publicly rebuked US Attorney General John Ashcroft for exhibiting a "distressing lack of care" in violating a gag order in the District trial. Ashcroft, who is turning to be a walking legal disaster, had publicly praised the star government witness in the case. Fortunately for our judicial point man in the War on Terrorism, he will no have to face criminal contempt charges.

The case is now in turmoil. As of January 1, US District Judge Gerald E. Rosen was considering throwing out the convictions and starting over.

On the day the court reprimanded Ashcroft, a federal appeals court finally ruled on the legal rights of the 660 men held at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba on terrorism charges. The Bush administration argued that the prisoners could be incarcerated indefinitely without charges or trial because they were being held on foreign soil.

In a 2-1 decision, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Bush administration's contention that the prisoners had no rights ran contrary to American ideals. Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority thus: "Even in times of national emergency -- and indeed particularly in such times -- it is the obligation of the judicial branch to insure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the Executive Branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike."

In other words, sorry guys. You can't radically change the constitution to fight the War on Terrorism. Once again, proponents of the New American Century stood rebuked.

And the legal blows kept reigning on the Bush administration. At about the same time, the US judicial system rejected the Bush administration's claim that it had the right to detain Jose Padilla, an American citizen, without charge or counsel, because he was an enemy combatant. Padilla, of course, is the suspected terrorist, ex-gang member and converted Muslim who has been incarcerated in Charleston, South Carolina, for nearly nineteen months. In high profile media coverage, Ashcroft had identified Padilla as being a part of a well-coordinated al Qaeda plan to detonate a so called dirty bomb on American soil.

Case closed again, right? When the glitz and hype stopped, it appeared that evidence against Padilla was not as solid as the American public was led to believe. In fact, Padilla's case is looking like another example of how Ashcroft and other law enforcement officials have been hyping their "successes" in anti-terrorism efforts.

This is the conclusion one has to make following the release of a report -- Syracuse University's Transactional Clearinghouse report -- early last December. The report revealed that US investigators have brought criminal charges relating to terrorism against about 6,400 people in the period after 9-11. Yet fewer than a third of them were charged and only 879 were convicted. The median sentence was 14 days and only five got sentences of at least 20 years.

Incredibly, just five out of the 6400 charged got any meaningful jail time. In its defence, the Justice Department said that terrorist suspects are being arrested before they can attack. But that feeble justification is not only arrogant in its intention but also doesn't make any sense. Does that mean a lot of guilty people with terrorist intentions have been let out of prison and are now roaming the streets of America? What are we going to do now? Go into poor minority neighborhoods and start rounding up minding-their-own-business citizens in the hopes of catching a few crack dealers?

Actually, the Transactional Clearinghouse report verifies what many of us suspected: many innocents are getting caught up in what amounts to a Bush administration dragnet. This policy raises three questions: 1) does the Bush administration has what it takes to lead in the War on Terrorism; 2) how good is its intelligence on the home front; 3) assuming most of the 6400 released suspects are Muslims, how eager will these "suspects" be willing to cooperate on the War on Terrorism after languishing in jail for no good reason?

The US government will appeal all three cases, but the scary thought is that more cases like these will surely arise in the future. There is no guarantee the US Constitution can be protected from the radical neo-conservative assault it is now experiencing.

It's a good bet that whoever wins the presidential election this November will likely pick two, maybe three, new lifetime Supreme Court appointees during his four- year term of office. If Bush is the winner he gets the chance to pick justices that share his views on constitutional power, and the American people will lose more freedom and civil liberties. That's why the year's election is shaping up to be perhaps the most important in US history.

Yet, the Democratic presidential candidates seem more intent on beating up Howard Dean rather than exploiting the Bush administration's weaknesses and incompetence. One can only wonder if we Americans have anybody to lead us during this seminal period of our history.

Ron Chepesiuk, a South Carolina-based freelance journalist, is a Visiting Professor of Journalism at Chittagong University.