Clearly, the judge must impose some sanction on the government. Otherwise government officials will feel free to violate the Constitution and disobey court orders whenever they feel like it.

Thus the question is, What would be the most appropriate remedy? What remedy would discourage this kind of wrongful conduct on the part of the government? What remedy would best serve the interests of the American people?

The answer is, Judge Brinkema should cite John Ashcroft for contempt of court for knowingly, intentionally, and deliberately violating her order enforcing the U.S. Constitution.

Such a citation of contempt followed by incarceration would not be unusual at all. Punishing both litigants and attorneys for refusing to obey court orders is one of the standard remedies available to the courts.

Consider, for example, child-support cases at the state-court level. When a person refuses to comply with a court order mandating child support, what’s the remedy? The judge orders the person’s incarceration until he forks over the money, at which point he is released.

Recall the cases, both at the state and federal level, in which a newspaper reporter refuses a court order to divulge a source of information. What does the judge do? He orders the incarceration of the reporter until he complies with the judge’s order.

Some people are suggesting that an appropriate remedy in the Moussaoui case would be for Judge Brinkema to dismiss counts of the indictment or to throw out evidence that relates to Binalshibh.

But how would that serve the interests of the American people? If Moussaoui is truly guilty of criminal offenses arising out of those counts, shouldn’t he be called to account for them? How would dismissing counts of the indictment or throwing out incriminating evidence be in the interests of the American people? Why should Ashcroft’s wrongdoing reward a suspected criminal and harm the American people?

Would Ashcroft be without a remedy if Judge Brinkema were to cite him for contempt and order him jailed? No, he would be free to appeal the order to the federal court of appeals and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. He would even be entitled to bail pending his appeal. He would also have the right to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Equally important, as judges often point out to people whom they jail for violating their orders, Ashcroft would have the key to his own liberation. By complying with the judge’s order enforcing the Sixth Amendment, John Ashcroft would be free to liberate himself from indefinite incarceration.

As U.S. attorney general, John Ashcroft, not the American people, should bear the responsibility for his intentional violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution. He, not the American people, should be held responsible for intentionally violating an official order of a U.S. district judge.

In the process, however, it would be wrong to deny Ashcroft what he himself has denied others — all the guarantees of due process of law that our judicial system accords criminal defendants.

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.