The Patriot Act, Who Wrote it, And Why I Like It - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ARTelevision · 06-11-2004, 04:38 PM

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.

nanofever · 06-11-2004, 07:01 PM

"Dinh: ...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."

Can someone please explain the safe-guards built-in to the patriot act? In particular, the ones that prevent horrible breeches of law like those stated in Rumsfeld vs. Padilla.

ARTelevision · 06-11-2004, 09:17 PM

I think that is an admonition to determine what safegaurds will be necessary to protect against the abuses of the implementations of the tool in question. Those would be extrinsic to the tool itself and need to be created or applied separately. These would include things like laws clatrifying or strengthening liberties that might be abused or using existing law itself as an interpretive tool or safeguard. It would even include tests of the constitutionality of the instrument or parts of it as implemented.

cthulu23 · 06-11-2004, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I think that is an admonition to determine what safegaurds will be necessary to protect against the abuses of the implementations of the tool in question. Those would be extrinsic to the tool itself and need to be created or applied separately. These would include things like laws clatrifying or strengthening liberties that might be abused or using existing law itself as an interpretive tool or safeguard. It would even include tests of the constitutionality of the instrument or parts of it as implemented.

This response fails to address Nanofever's basic premise: what safeguards are there in the Patriot Act to prevent miscarriages of justice such as stripping a US citizen of their constitutional rights under the banner of "national security?" One does not have to agree with Jose Padilla to believe that he has inalienable rights that cannot be stripped by executive fiat, indeed that is what the Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee. We have seen a deluge of leaked memos recently that showcase the Bush adminstration's attempts to redefine the definition of torture. Why should we trust the reassurances of Bush, the FBI, et al, that they will only use these newfound powers in righteous ways? In fact, it would seem to me that a traditional conservative would resist the urge to grant sweeping, new powers to a government that is already all-pervasive. It doesn't take a conspiracy nut to see that easing the regulations on wiretapping, the acquisition of library records/book purchases, and the indefinite detention of suspects with no probable cause can be easily abused. It only takes a cursory examination of US history to understand why limits to government intrusions were in place to begin with, ie Operation Chaos and Cointelpro.

nanofever · 06-11-2004, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I think that is an admonition to determine what safegaurds will be necessary to protect against the abuses of the implementations of the tool in question. Those would be extrinsic to the tool itself and need to be created or applied separately. These would include things like laws clatrifying or strengthening liberties that might be abused or using existing law itself as an interpretive tool or safeguard. It would even include tests of the constitutionality of the instrument or parts of it as implemented.

Such fancy diction, but I can't help but read that as "pass any laws now, fix later". I can't see that kind of logic as prudent way to preserve civil liberties. That kinda of legislative logic, as Lucas would suggest, is the path down the Dark Side.

I like hypotheticals and fun exercises in legislative theory, but I was wondering what *exact* safeguards the Patriot act had in it. I'm still waiting on a specific answer on this question, because your hypothetical seemed to suggest that the Patriot Act, with good reason, was written without safeguards.

Patriot Act. No Safeguards. Darkside.

ARTelevision · 06-12-2004, 12:18 AM

I was talking about the statements made by Viet Dinh.
In my opinion, extraordinarily dangerous situiations call for extraordinary solutions. I do not see this as a path down the Dark Side. The position stated, which I adhere to as well, is that external safeguards - of which the current legislative and judicial system provide many - are sufficient. The point concerns the possible misapplication of the Act, not the Act itself.

I'm not interested in convincing you of anything. You have your views, I have mine.

Macheath · 06-12-2004, 02:55 AM

It's always good to see the personalities behind the legislation. The Patriot Act is not simple legislation, there are aspects of it that are not as bad as we thought, better than we thought and worse than we thought. It's an understatement that the law is very much a work in progress.

Personally, I got a lot out of a rather even-handed recent feature on Ashcroft and the Patriot Act in this April's Atlantic Monthly.

These three paragraphs extracted detail some of the better and worse aspects of the Patriot Act, as well as the proposed SAFE Act - a bipartisan legislative response to nanofever's desire for specific safeguards.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/04/rosen.htm

Quote:

...I suppose I qualify as a [policy] junkie of sorts, having written about different aspects of the act for the past two years. But it wasn't until I taught it in a law-school seminar devoted to the balance between liberty and security that I felt knowledgeable enough about its technical details to form a relatively informed opinion. Based on that seminar, I've concluded that some criticism of the act is overblown. "Roving wiretaps," for example, which allow investigators to tap every electronic device a suspect uses, have long been available for drug and racketeering investigations; the Patriot Act corrects an inadvertent gap in the law that denied these wiretaps for investigations of suspected terrorists. (Orin Kerr, a scholar of cyberspace and a law professor at George Washington University, has argued that parts of the Patriot Act actually expand the protection of privacy—by applying to previously unregulated Internet surveillance the same standards that have been applied to searches involving the telephone and regular mail.)

Other parts of the act are more troubling. The most controversial provisions vastly expand the government's authority to search private records and other personal data without notifying a suspect. Before passage of the act the government could search certain personal records—including hotel, airline, and car-rental records—if it could provide evidence to suggest that the records were those of a spy or terrorist. The Patriot Act extended the government's reach to include all tangible information, such as bookstore receipts and library records; the government need not tell the targets their records are being searched, and the record keepers are not allowed to. Worse, under the act the government no longer need certify in advance that its target is a suspected spy or terrorist. Now government agents can simply assert that the records they seek are "relevant" to an ongoing terrorism investigation. In theory, an unscrupulous Attorney General who wanted to intimidate his opponents could certify that their medical, bank, and Internet records were relevant to a terrorist investigation—just as Richard Nixon retaliated against Vietnam War critics by scouring their tax returns. Banks and doctors and Internet-service providers would be compelled to turn over the critics' data—but prohibited from telling the critics that their records were being searched. And if the Attorney General found evidence of low-level crimes (say, minor financial misdoing), he could threaten prosecution.

This is the essence of the case offered against the Patriot Act by its most thoughtful opponents. As the lone senator to vote against the act two years ago, Russell Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, warned that it could be used to prosecute low-level crimes that had nothing to do with terrorism. Today Feingold believes that his fears have been vindicated. "I'm confident that the Department of Justice and the Administration are going too far," he told me not long ago. "A compelling case in The New York Times laid out the fact that the USA Patriot Act is being used in a wide number of regular criminal cases ... and to me that's an abuse." To protect citizens from potential abuses, Feingold and other Democrats have joined an array of Republican colleagues to introduce the Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003. The SAFE Act would resurrect the requirement that evidence of espionage or terrorism be provided in advance of secret searches. Ashcroft's fall tour was undertaken in direct response to Republican critics, such as Butch Otter, a congressman from Idaho, who persuaded the House in July to vote to repeal the so-called sneak-and-peek provisions of the Patriot Act, which expanded the use of secret searches. Ashcroft worried that critics of the act were defining the debate about civil liberties in ways that could damage the Bush Administration. Feingold said to me, "I believe Ashcroft was told by the White House that the Patriot Act was causing significant political problems for the President on his conservative, right flank. I think they told Ashcroft, 'You have credibility in the country; you have to sell this thing.'"...

Now, it's very difficult to get info on the exact status of the SAFE Act at this very minute. It's probably in a classic legislative limbo. I do know Bush was threatening to <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/29/154017.shtml">veto</a> it back in January but I don't know its current chances of passing.

I think it would be a constructive thing to watch this legislation closely and voice support for it; rather than merely voicing opposition to the Patriot Act.

ARTelevision · 06-12-2004, 05:51 AM

Macheath, as always thanks for your thoughtful and constructive response.
...
The link below leads to an easily accessed version of the text of the Act.

U.S. Patriots Act, text

DelayedReaction · 06-12-2004, 06:58 AM

One of the problems with the author's statement that we should "back up our argument with facts," is that there really can't be much factual evidence that supports abuses of the PA. If the abuse is done in secrecy, and everyone involved is under a gag order, how can the average citizen possibly be privy to any information pertaining to the abuse?

It is obvious that special measures need to be taken to apprehend terrorists, and I accept that. But the law must be constructed in such a manner as to ensure that there is no possibility of abuse.

ARTelevision · 06-12-2004, 07:18 AM

Both the US Department of Justice and the Official sites of both houses of the US Congress have complete official documentation on the questionable applications of the Patriots Act as well as point-counterpoint documents which chronicle the history of the continuing judicial and legislative dialog on this Act.

For example, here's a search result page from the DOJ:

http://search.usdoj.gov/compass?scop...late=dojsimple

cthulu23 · 06-12-2004, 08:02 AM

The real determiner of whether one likes or dislikes the Patriot Act is the amount of trust that one places in the US government. I, for one, feel that any new government powers will eventually be abused, regardless of which party is in power. When these new powers circumvent the protections that are inherent in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution or side step regulations that have been put in place in response to past abuses, I really begin to sweat.

The Patriot Act has set up a parallel system of justice with much lower standards of probable cause...the FBI can perform unlimited "sneak and peek" searches, "trace and trap" all communications and peruse the medical/library/personal records of a "terror suspect" without ever producing a shred of evidence. Couple this with a broadening of the definition of what a "terrorist" is, and a picture of a highly abusable system begins to take shape.

Given all of the evidence that the various law enforcement had of the 9-11 attacks beforehand, we have to ask, are these powers even necessary? It's my belief that these provisions have been at the top of the supercop wish list for decades and that terrorism only provided the mechanism for ramming them through into law.

The Patriot Act, the legal black hole in Guantanamo and the Walker "torture" memos all illustrate that the current administration may like to talk about freedom but has no interest in actually spreading it. It's unfortunate that the American public is frightened enough to follow along.

ARTelevision · 06-12-2004, 08:40 AM

The statement: "The real determiner of whether one likes or dislikes the Patriot Act is the amount of trust that one places in the US government" does it for me.

I'm pleased to live in a country - perhaps one of the very few - in which citizens do not often err in trusting the government.

cthulu23 · 06-12-2004, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
The statement: "The real determiner of whether one likes or dislikes the Patriot Act is the amount of trust that one places in the US government" does it for me.

I'm pleased to live in a country - perhaps one of the very few - in which citizens do not often err in trusting the government.

How does that affect your opinion on the Patriot Act? We do seem to live in scary times, but any student of history can tell you that the wolrd has always been a dangerous place filled with oppositional forces that are all to eager to rip each other to shreds. In times of crisis we must be doubly cautious that we do not throw away our liberty in pursuit of security. There have been times in the past when America has failed this test (the internment of Japanese citizens immediately springs to mind). I hope that we can avoid such failure now.

roachboy · 06-12-2004, 10:07 AM

a website devoted to the problems presently being faced by the critical art ensemble under the cretin aegis of the patriot act.

http://caedefensefund.org/press.htm

ARTelevision · 06-12-2004, 11:01 AM

cthulu23, the point has been made several times that our excellent system of government has many avenues for checks and balances among the three branches, administrative, legislative, and judicial.

This same review process addresses roachboy's concerns as well.

Hell, if you want the other side check out the ACLU's voluminous reference material on this Act available at their site.

The point of the subject of the article which I started the thread with - and my own point as well - is that all of this is part of the normative operation of our governmental processes.

cthulu23 · 06-12-2004, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
cthulu23, the point has been made several times that our excellent system of government has many avenues for checks and balances among the three branches, administrative, legislative, and judicial.

This same review process addresses roachboy's concerns as well.

Hell, if you want the other side check out the ACLU's voluminous reference material on this Act available at their site.

The point of the subject of the article which I started the thread with - and my own point as well - is that all of this is part of the normative operation of our governmental processes.

I don't feel that the Wired article implies that the Patriot Act is fine and dandy. I would call it a balanced interview with one of the architects of a very powerful, sweeping piece of legislation. The article neither praises nor condemns Dinh. The quotes that you selected for pasting only show a portion of the interview and do not feature any of the "hardball" questions that the Wired reporter asked.

Of course the Patriot Act is a part of the "normative operation" of our government, just as any law is. That does not imply that it is a good piece of law, however. One can look back at our nation's history and see any number of immoral, unethical or just plain wrong laws that were all part of normal government operations. I did not say that the Patriot Act is something outside of our system, I simply stated that I feel that it is unnecessary and imminently abusable. Let's put that straw man to the side, please.

Perhaps I misread an earlier post of yours. Did you not say that you don't make the mistake of trusting your government very often? To my simple way of thinking, that would make you more likely to abhor any infringment on personal liberty, but that's just me.

You speak of checks and balances. The judiciary serves as the most potent check to the powers of law enforcement, as it approves wiretaps, issues warrants and otherwise regulates the use of techniques that violate the privacy of a citizen. The Supreme Court has ruled that for eavesdropping on or for searching a citizen that probable cause must be proven (Berger v New York, 1967). How does that jibe with the Patriot Act's granting of these privileges without meeting the same guidelines? Does that not circumvent some of the checks and balances structure that you so rightly praise? It is the exceptional nature of the Patriot Act that I find so alarming, meaning "you have these rights, except...." This is the parallel system of justice that I mentioned earlier, a system set apart from the normal protections that we are entitled to (and we haven't even touched on the secret court that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act created).

ARTelevision · 06-12-2004, 12:44 PM

No, sorry if I was unclear - to trust the U.S. government is not often an error. That's what I meant.

gibingus · 06-18-2004, 09:50 AM

this trust issue is whacked.

consider this simple example.

i trust my bank, they manage to keep track of my money down to the cent, transaction after transaction. i no longer trust the electoral process - my representative democratic government's very foundation - because i learned that they think a margin of a few hundred thousand votes not counted is acceptable once every four years.

if my bank lost a few hundred thousand of my dollars and told me that was just the way it is, i would not only terminate my business relationship with them, i would sue the hell out of them.

i can not trust that my vote was counted in the last election, and that is the most FUNDAMENTAL breakdown in our government possible. it all depends upon that simple equation: one person, one vote. that is what the forefathers rebelled for. that is what our soldiers defend. that is what we cherish as american democracy when we tell other countries at gunpoint to be like us.

and that is what my government cannot guarantee.

so art, you're ok with that, generally speaking? it doesn't really matter if your voice gets counted when it matters?

anyone who trusts that kind of representation in the name of patriotism is a fool and deserves to be hauled off to jail when the narrow-minded and self-righteous deem their private acts to be unmoral and dangerous to "society."

this is a subject of national shame.

Locobot · 06-18-2004, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision

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.

In bold you'll see why I object to the Patriot Act. Dinh is basically admitting that there is a slippery slope of eroding liberty and the Patriot Act will be used as such. There might not be any way to differentiate between terrorists and any other sort of criminal, therefore blanket provisions effect us all. For the 10 millionth time since the Act's passing I feel the need to quote Benjamin Franklin--"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." Habeas Corpus, freedom of information, and freedom of communication are all liberties essential to the American "experiment."

pig · 06-18-2004, 03:56 PM

Locobot : word.

I've been wanting to post that same thing, for a while now,but haven't had time to post until today. I think it's great to get an interview with one of the guys that wrote the legislation, but the fact that he's human and believes that the law is a good thing doesn't surprise me. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and all that. To me, it boils down to this:

People in law enforcement have wanted a lot of the expanded powers given in this legislation for a long time. They haven't been able to get it, because it violates due process, search and seizure, and a lot of other civil rights issues. It goes to the essence of "innocent until proven guilty." Now, suddenly we realize that we can't ignore terrorist threats anymore, and so the decision comes down, implicitly, that "all that seach and seizure and habeas corpus crap is fine and good for law-abiding American citizens, but we've got to have drastic measures to meet the drastic needs in these drastic times." Well, I don't much care for that, and would probably be against the Patriot Act, even if it wasn't intentionally written and being leveraged to allow these expanded powers to be applied in non-terrorist involved legal matters. Why? Because

1.) It presupposes that this type of expanded governmental power to encroach on the freedom of American citizens is necessary. I'm not convinced of this. We seem to have had plenty of information, and just no way of correctly analyzing it, added to a stigma that terrorism didn't happen on American soil.

2.) At the same time, I feel that it slaps down the notion that American Justice is different from many so-called barbaric justice systems around the world, because of the incredible freedom and number of rights afforded to American citizens. America is supposed to be a place where the little guy has a chance, and doesn't get pushed around by his government, and the government is accountable for its actions.

3.) We have no real mandate on how long the War on Terror is going to last, what the specific goals of this war are, and when we will know we have achieved whatever the goals are. What? Elminate terrorists, everywhere, through the entire friggin world? Seriously? O-bee-kay-bee. This isn't a War, it's a cultural movement. And along with this cultural movement, the government has a shitload of new powers, that it couldn't previously have. And we don't know when it will end, if ever . Fantastic.

Add that to the fact that this legislation isn't only being used on "terror" suspects, but can be used on anyone, and it scares my nards off. With that much power, with the strong intuition that there is a lot of corruption in the government and the Halls of Justice - no, I just don't trust it, nor do I care for the legislation that enable it.

ARTelevision · 06-18-2004, 04:12 PM

gibingus, yes I am OK with all that.
I'm not king of the world. I don't act like I'm king of the world. I am one citizen living in a country that has earned my trust through the real and significant incremental historical progress acheived by generations of Americans who came before me and those who pull together for it now. I take all this very seriously. In contrast to all that I don't take nearly as seriously the kinds issues raised by those who do not feel the same way I do about our country.

06-11-2004, 04:38 PM	#1 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	The Patriot Act, Who Wrote it, And Why I Like It 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. __________________ create evolution

06-11-2004, 07:01 PM	#2 (permalink)
nanofever Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe. Location: UCSB	"Dinh: ...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." Can someone please explain the safe-guards built-in to the patriot act? In particular, the ones that prevent horrible breeches of law like those stated in Rumsfeld vs. Padilla. __________________ I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect. Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum: "Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

06-11-2004, 09:17 PM	#3 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I think that is an admonition to determine what safegaurds will be necessary to protect against the abuses of the implementations of the tool in question. Those would be extrinsic to the tool itself and need to be created or applied separately. These would include things like laws clatrifying or strengthening liberties that might be abused or using existing law itself as an interpretive tool or safeguard. It would even include tests of the constitutionality of the instrument or parts of it as implemented. __________________ create evolution

06-12-2004, 12:18 AM	#6 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I was talking about the statements made by Viet Dinh. In my opinion, extraordinarily dangerous situiations call for extraordinary solutions. I do not see this as a path down the Dark Side. The position stated, which I adhere to as well, is that external safeguards - of which the current legislative and judicial system provide many - are sufficient. The point concerns the possible misapplication of the Act, not the Act itself. I'm not interested in convincing you of anything. You have your views, I have mine. __________________ create evolution

06-12-2004, 05:51 AM	#8 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Macheath, as always thanks for your thoughtful and constructive response. ... The link below leads to an easily accessed version of the text of the Act. U.S. Patriots Act, text __________________ create evolution

06-12-2004, 06:58 AM	#9 (permalink)
DelayedReaction BFG Builder Location: University of Maryland	One of the problems with the author's statement that we should "back up our argument with facts," is that there really can't be much factual evidence that supports abuses of the PA. If the abuse is done in secrecy, and everyone involved is under a gag order, how can the average citizen possibly be privy to any information pertaining to the abuse? It is obvious that special measures need to be taken to apprehend terrorists, and I accept that. But the law must be constructed in such a manner as to ensure that there is no possibility of abuse. __________________ If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

06-12-2004, 07:18 AM	#10 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	Both the US Department of Justice and the Official sites of both houses of the US Congress have complete official documentation on the questionable applications of the Patriots Act as well as point-counterpoint documents which chronicle the history of the continuing judicial and legislative dialog on this Act. For example, here's a search result page from the DOJ: http://search.usdoj.gov/compass?scop...late=dojsimple __________________ create evolution

06-12-2004, 08:02 AM	#11 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	The real determiner of whether one likes or dislikes the Patriot Act is the amount of trust that one places in the US government. I, for one, feel that any new government powers will eventually be abused, regardless of which party is in power. When these new powers circumvent the protections that are inherent in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution or side step regulations that have been put in place in response to past abuses, I really begin to sweat. The Patriot Act has set up a parallel system of justice with much lower standards of probable cause...the FBI can perform unlimited "sneak and peek" searches, "trace and trap" all communications and peruse the medical/library/personal records of a "terror suspect" without ever producing a shred of evidence. Couple this with a broadening of the definition of what a "terrorist" is, and a picture of a highly abusable system begins to take shape. Given all of the evidence that the various law enforcement had of the 9-11 attacks beforehand, we have to ask, are these powers even necessary? It's my belief that these provisions have been at the top of the supercop wish list for decades and that terrorism only provided the mechanism for ramming them through into law. The Patriot Act, the legal black hole in Guantanamo and the Walker "torture" memos all illustrate that the current administration may like to talk about freedom but has no interest in actually spreading it. It's unfortunate that the American public is frightened enough to follow along.

06-12-2004, 08:40 AM	#12 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	The statement: "The real determiner of whether one likes or dislikes the Patriot Act is the amount of trust that one places in the US government" does it for me. I'm pleased to live in a country - perhaps one of the very few - in which citizens do not often err in trusting the government. __________________ create evolution

06-12-2004, 10:07 AM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	a website devoted to the problems presently being faced by the critical art ensemble under the cretin aegis of the patriot act. http://caedefensefund.org/press.htm __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-12-2004, 11:01 AM	#15 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	cthulu23, the point has been made several times that our excellent system of government has many avenues for checks and balances among the three branches, administrative, legislative, and judicial. This same review process addresses roachboy's concerns as well. Hell, if you want the other side check out the ACLU's voluminous reference material on this Act available at their site. The point of the subject of the article which I started the thread with - and my own point as well - is that all of this is part of the normative operation of our governmental processes. __________________ create evolution

06-12-2004, 12:44 PM	#17 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	No, sorry if I was unclear - to trust the U.S. government is not often an error. That's what I meant. __________________ create evolution

06-18-2004, 09:50 AM	#18 (permalink)
gibingus Insane Location: 38° 51' N 77° 2' W	this trust issue is whacked. consider this simple example. i trust my bank, they manage to keep track of my money down to the cent, transaction after transaction. i no longer trust the electoral process - my representative democratic government's very foundation - because i learned that they think a margin of a few hundred thousand votes not counted is acceptable once every four years. if my bank lost a few hundred thousand of my dollars and told me that was just the way it is, i would not only terminate my business relationship with them, i would sue the hell out of them. i can not trust that my vote was counted in the last election, and that is the most FUNDAMENTAL breakdown in our government possible. it all depends upon that simple equation: one person, one vote. that is what the forefathers rebelled for. that is what our soldiers defend. that is what we cherish as american democracy when we tell other countries at gunpoint to be like us. and that is what my government cannot guarantee. so art, you're ok with that, generally speaking? it doesn't really matter if your voice gets counted when it matters? anyone who trusts that kind of representation in the name of patriotism is a fool and deserves to be hauled off to jail when the narrow-minded and self-righteous deem their private acts to be unmoral and dangerous to "society." this is a subject of national shame. __________________ if everyone is thinking alike, chances are no one is thinking.

06-18-2004, 03:56 PM	#20 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	Locobot : word. I've been wanting to post that same thing, for a while now,but haven't had time to post until today. I think it's great to get an interview with one of the guys that wrote the legislation, but the fact that he's human and believes that the law is a good thing doesn't surprise me. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and all that. To me, it boils down to this: People in law enforcement have wanted a lot of the expanded powers given in this legislation for a long time. They haven't been able to get it, because it violates due process, search and seizure, and a lot of other civil rights issues. It goes to the essence of "innocent until proven guilty." Now, suddenly we realize that we can't ignore terrorist threats anymore, and so the decision comes down, implicitly, that "all that seach and seizure and habeas corpus crap is fine and good for law-abiding American citizens, but we've got to have drastic measures to meet the drastic needs in these drastic times." Well, I don't much care for that, and would probably be against the Patriot Act, even if it wasn't intentionally written and being leveraged to allow these expanded powers to be applied in non-terrorist involved legal matters. Why? Because 1.) It presupposes that this type of expanded governmental power to encroach on the freedom of American citizens is necessary. I'm not convinced of this. We seem to have had plenty of information, and just no way of correctly analyzing it, added to a stigma that terrorism didn't happen on American soil. 2.) At the same time, I feel that it slaps down the notion that American Justice is different from many so-called barbaric justice systems around the world, because of the incredible freedom and number of rights afforded to American citizens. America is supposed to be a place where the little guy has a chance, and doesn't get pushed around by his government, and the government is accountable for its actions. 3.) We have no real mandate on how long the War on Terror is going to last, what the specific goals of this war are, and when we will know we have achieved whatever the goals are. What? Elminate terrorists, everywhere, through the entire friggin world? Seriously? O-bee-kay-bee. This isn't a War, it's a cultural movement. And along with this cultural movement, the government has a shitload of new powers, that it couldn't previously have. And we don't know when it will end, if ever . Fantastic. Add that to the fact that this legislation isn't only being used on "terror" suspects, but can be used on anyone, and it scares my nards off. With that much power, with the strong intuition that there is a lot of corruption in the government and the Halls of Justice - no, I just don't trust it, nor do I care for the legislation that enable it. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

06-18-2004, 04:12 PM	#21 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	gibingus, yes I am OK with all that. I'm not king of the world. I don't act like I'm king of the world. I am one citizen living in a country that has earned my trust through the real and significant incremental historical progress acheived by generations of Americans who came before me and those who pull together for it now. I take all this very seriously. In contrast to all that I don't take nearly as seriously the kinds issues raised by those who do not feel the same way I do about our country. __________________ create evolution