The US Government's efforts to extend legal powers to combat terrorism are drawing criticism from different sides.

Civil libertarians have frequently criticised the administration for rushing to give law enforcement expanded powers to track down and try suspected terrorists.

Mr Bush has defended his plans, saying that he needs the option to try people in military courts in times of war.

Detentions denounced

Some 1,200 people have been detained since the 11 September attacks, and the US Justice Department is asking law enforcement agencies to question some 5,000 men, mostly from Middle Eastern countries, who have sought to enter the US on tourist, student and business visas.

A coalition of civil liberties, human rights and immigration groups have filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding information about the detainees.

The Justice Department has frequently given updates on the number of detainees but has provided little else in the way of information about those held in connection with the investigation.

Officials have said that they are prohibited from releasing information in some cases, but the groups have denounced the detentions as undemocratic.

The liberal civil liberties group People of the American Way Foundation is calling on Congress to hold emergency hearings to curb what it called Attorney General John Ashcroft's "relentless assault on constitutional rights and civil liberties."

"Terrorism isn't the only threat to our way of life," said the foundation's president, Ralph G Neas.

"We need an attorney general who will stand up to terrorists, but we also need an attorney general who will stand up for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"Unfortunately, we have an attorney general whose record increasingly makes clear that he is the most dangerous threat to civil liberties in the federal government," Mr Neas said.

Congressional critics

The response from Civil liberties groups was not unexpected. But now members of Congress, from both parties, are beginning to question the administration's efforts to expand legal powers to combat terrorism.

"They're literally dismantling justice and the justice system as we know it," said Representative Maxine Waters, a Democrat from California.

Jerrold Nadler of New York, who represents the Manhattan district that includes the site of destroyed World Trade Centre, shares his California colleague's dim view of Mr Bush's executive order to use military tribunals.

"These procedures belong in a Soviet state or a dictatorship, not in a free society," Mr Nadler said.

Mr Bush is also facing criticism from within his own party. Representative Bob Barr of Georgia objected to the executive order, saying that the president should have consulted Congress.

Military tribunals differ from US criminal courts in several important ways.

In criminal courts, juries must return a unanimous verdict to convict, but military tribunals need only two-thirds agreement from jurors.

Also, in a military tribunal there is less right to appeal a conviction than in a criminal court.

President's defence

On Monday, President Bush again defended his decision to try suspected terrorists in a military tribunal, saying that it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Mr Bush told reporters that he ought to have the option of trying suspected terrorists before a military tribunal.

He said that it was in the interest of national security and in the interest of the safety of potential jurors.

"The option to use a military tribunal in time of war makes a lot of sense," he said.

"We're fighting a war against the most evil kinds of people, and I need to have that extraordinary option at my fingertips," he added.