radical_edward wrote:
] ] 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."
]
] I've read through the article, and I must say that although
] this guy is well-intentioned, I'm still skeptical. He says
] that we who oppose the Patriot Act need to back up our
] arguments with facts, but how can we do that when the U.S.
] government withholds the facts from us? An intriguing read. An interesting non-answer there to the Jose Padillia question. This guy keeps mentioned mis-understandings and lack of facts. The ACLU has some very very specific questions for him about this law he crafted. If he is so interested in a meaningful "discussion" why doesn't he take on the ACLU. I'd like to see it. (Similarly, this reporter asks very weak, emotional questions. There should have been more technical meat in this interview.) I think that the fundamental problems that people have aren't actually with the Patriot act, per say, but with other things that are going on. The patriot act has such a simple name that people associate it with all of the changes that have taken place. Most of the things that are really dangerous don't have names. This puts the government in a very comfortable position vis-a-vis the public because they can argue about the patriot act specifically and neglect to discuss more troubling developments in other areas. The most troubling development right now is executive designation of enemy combatants. Very literally, the executive can denote any person an enemy combatant, and then hold them without trial. There is absolutely no check on this power. If the president wanted to, he could name his democratic contender in the fall an enemy combatant and imprison him in cuba. There is very literally nothing that anyone could do about this. There is absolutely no legal provision for contesting such a designation. Hopefully the Supreme Court will strike down the enemy combatant designation this spring. In my opinion, if they don't, they might as well pack up and go home right after they sign the majority opinion, because at that point the idea that the judicial branch is a check upon the power of the executive becomes about as realistic as the idea that Queen Elizabeth is the supreme ruler of Canada. Having said that, there are specific problems with the patriot act that one can chew on, but they are details. On the whole most of the document is not unreasonable. The biggest problem with the patriot act is the definition of the word terrorism. "Violent Crimes committed for a political purpose." This is similar, but not exactly the same as the definition that you and I have in our heads about terrorism. The people who crafted this wanted to paint with a broad brush lest important cases not fall under the law. The ACLU can see situation where this wording encompasses crimes that I don't think we really want falling under this law. Its a little over-broad. The FISA court is also particularly troubling, as it is secret, and as there have clearly been protests from the people running it over certain orders they were asked to approve, and we can't learn anything about this because its all bottled up. | 
