There are other Patriot Act threads here, I know.
This gentleman states his case so well, IMO, that I believe it has more value than many of the second-hand items that have been written about the Patriot Act.
At the very least, Viet Dinh presents a model for rational discourse on an often emotion-laden subject.
There is a lot of reaction against this Act - I am aware of that.
You can either state your fundamental objections or you can tell me why you feel that this may be a good thing to combat terrorism's unique threats. This is how I feel about it. I understand why some feel it has something to do with limiting our freedom, but I don't agree. I believe it is needed and I do not fear it.
The following piece appeared in Wired magazine and gives some insight into the fellow's mind who actually drafted the verbiage.
......................
The Patriot Act Is Your Friend -
and its author is not who you think
from: Wired News
Story location:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,62388,00.html
02:00 AM Feb. 24, 2004 PT
Viet Dinh has been called a "political pit bull" and "a foot soldier" for Attorney General John Ashcroft. But the 36-year-old author of the Patriot Act prefers to be called an "attendant of freedom."
In May 2001, the professor of law at Georgetown University was tapped by the Justice Department to work for two years as an assistant attorney general, working primarily on judicial nominations for the department. But three months later the World Trade Center towers collapsed, and Dinh was drafted to work on the USA Patriot Act, a bill that would give the government some of its most controversial surveillance powers. The bill, coupled with the government's subsequent treatment of immigrants and native-born citizens, prompted critics to charge the administration with overthrowing "800 years of democratic tradition."
Dinh: I do feel that way. I think right now at this time and this place the greatest threat to American liberty comes from al-Qaida and their sympathizers rather than from the men and women of law enforcement and national security who seek to defend America and her people against that threat. That doesn't mean that each and every single one of us agrees with everything that is done in the name of the fight against terror. While I would do things somewhat differently in minor aspects in the war on terror, I do recognize that our Defense Department officials have an awesome responsibility to play in not only prosecuting the war in Afghanistan and Iraq but also continuing to protect the American homeland.
WN: Is there anything that you would change about the Patriot Act in light of how it's been implemented?
Dinh: I think the overall answer is generally no. I do, however, recognize that the act has been mischaracterized and misunderstood and has engendered a lot of well-meaning and genuine fear, even if that fear is unfounded. The issue is not one of substance but one of perception. But perception is also very important because we do not want the people, however many of them, to fear the government when that fear is unfounded.
WN: But the government has mischaracterized how the Patriot Act can be interpreted. For instance, the government has told the American people that in many cases these laws cannot be applied to citizens and in fact some of them have been applied to U.S. citizens.
Dinh: There are a number of provisions within the USA Patriot Act that have a tremendous effect on our war against terror. However, they are tools that can be used in general criminal investigations as well. At no time do I think that anybody intentionally sought to elide the difference between the two. The reason why you need tools of general applicability is that terrorists do not go around wearing an "I am a terrorist" T-shirt, and these normal investigative tools are the ones that allow us not only to deter terrorism but also to investigate crimes.
WN: Some critics have called you the purveyor of the most sweeping curtailment of freedom since the McCarthy era. Is that an exaggeration?
Dinh: I think it is very easy to employ sweeping rhetoric and personal denunciations. I think it is much harder to back it up with facts and concrete examples. I seek to engage in this conversation by giving as much facts as I can and letting the efforts of the Department of Justice, the administration and my own to be judged by the people, by history and by eternity. Where I err, I obviously am not hesitant in recognizing my mistakes. I wish people who criticize me would just pick up the phone and ask me specific questions, like we are engaging right now, so that we can isolate the issues of difference, so that we can engage in a constructive dialogue rather than a destructive dialogue.
WN: Some Asian Americans have accused you of dishonoring your own struggle and background as a refugee and immigrant. What do you say to charges that the law you wrote is hostile to immigrants and noncitizens?
Dinh: I come to this country having known government that does not work, either through the chaos of war or through the repression of totalitarian communism. In each and every thing that I do in my life -- in the law and as my life as a public official -- I ask myself how can I better serve the cause of freedom and the cause of good government. And while some may disagree with the decisions I make, just as some may disagree with the overall strategy on terror, I hope that people will recognize that there is no dishonor, there is no disconnect, there is no irony -- just an honest effort of a person trying to serve his country at her time of greatest need according to his best ability, however limited that may be.
WN: You once wrote that the rule of government was to maximize the zone of liberty around each person. You said, "Security without liberty -- it's not an America I would want to live in."
Dinh: I firmly believe that liberty should not be traded off for some sense of security. I think the harder task is to determine our best tools we can have in order to protect our security, while at the same time ascertain the safeguards that will be necessary in order to protect against abuse of that tool and misuse of it at the expense of privacy or liberty.
WN: So what do you say to Americans who feel that the Patriot Act has shrunk their zone of liberty?
Dinh: If indeed that is your fear or that is your perception then engage in the democratic process. Back up your argument, back up your belief with facts, marshal evidence in order to convince those who are engaged in the process of governance.
I have the utmost respect for those who engage in this (national conversation), even when I am unfairly maligned because those persons are willing to engage in order to advance the national conversation and contribute meaningfully to our process of governance. Somebody once said that democracy is not a spectator sport. We should all applaud each other for getting into the game and risking injury because of it, because at the end of the day we all win if we do engage.