Slashdot Mirror
Viet Dinh Defends The Patriot Act
Grrr writes "Wired News has posted an interview with Viet Dinh, who worked on the PATRIOT Act for the Justice Department. In the past he said, "Security without liberty - it's not an America I would want to live in." And also, in this interview, "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." Several of his replies are (predictably / necessarily / discouragingly) less than direct."
isn't the objective of terrorism to terrorize people? the more "ACTs" we have the more obvious we're really really scared of terrorists.
now not only people are terrorized by terrorists for physical dangers, they're also terrorized by their own government for privacy invasion.
Planes aren't being hijacked because we stop the dreaded nail clipper from coming on board.
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Everyone was uber-patriotic and wanting to kill any Middle Eastern man who looked at them wrong.
There was actually not much debate in Congress. The Patriot Act passed through very easily. The only problem was that it takes away our checks and balances system of government, which is part of what makes American such a great country.
Don't trust me, though. Read what one website said: "The FBI can now access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records... and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done.
The Department of Justice is expected to introduce a sequel, dubbed PATRIOT II, that would further erode key freedoms and liberties of every America.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
How would something that you claim is so horrible get voted into law then?
Same way hitler managed to convince his people that 'jews' were the enemy.
Its called scare tatics.
I highly doubt the DESTROY part where you say we lose our rights. This thing had to be voted for by hundreds of senate/congress men.
Well, you can doubt all you want. Doesn't change the fact that america has made a mistake by following those who have already failed in history. And no, millions, like yourself, were duped into this law by sensless fear.
Untill america gets a clue, things wont improve.
"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."
Woah he is taking a stand against unfounded fear, isn't that what he is in the business of selling?
He once said that he was drawn to study the government because he "had seen government that did not work," and he was drawn to the Republican Party because of his hatred for communism.
Anybody who would be drawn to a political ideology purely based on what they oppose is, in my opinion, a dangerous person. Especially when mixed with the power, money and support that an organization like the Republican party has.
While the US has previously imprisoned people without access to council, these were in dire times, World War II, US Civil War, etc. While some could argue that these are equally troubling times, I find the argument problematic.
In both of the above examples, the very existence of the country was at stake, in one of the two, half the US had broken off. The other, millions of people decided to declare war on the US (Germany, Italy, Japan, etc). Despite the tragedy that was 9-11, the entire attack was planned by dozens of people and executed by about 20.
My second problem is the open-endedness. The suspensions of due process in the above cases were understood as temperary and were lifted as soon as the war was over. These days, presidents don't seem to declare war on things that can possibly be ended by a peace treat (drugs, poverty, terror, etc). Tell me, Mr Bush, is the war on terror going to be over before or after the war on drugs?
The suspension of due process indefinitely is an abomination to liberty, which I could've sworn was what we were fighting for in the first place.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
You really don't have a clue, do you? You think the fact that a bunch of little piggies feeding at the corporate trough represent anyone but their own greedy little power hungry selves? You think because after being subjected to a bunch of hot-button advertisements, people actually vote for them, that they somehow represent the best interests of the population?
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
the old saying "if the only tool you have is a hammer, you will tend to see every problem as a nail". maybe that's why everybody's treated as terrorists now.
Just look at the history of law enforcement. They begged for the ability to seize the property of drug dealers, and were granted that power by short sighted politicians. Now that power is used to steal cars from people never even charged with a crime - in complete violation of the Constitution, but what's the shredding of that moldy old paper when stopping evil drug dealers?
-- Will program for bandwidth
Come on, folks, of course he's going to defend the PATRIOT ACT - he wrote the damn thing. Of course he's going to defend its enforcement - he helped enforce the damn thing. And of course he's going to be vague about the illegal/unconstitutional parts of the act, or of its enforcement - you think he wants to go to prison?
I support Viet Dinh's use of his 5th Amendment rights in this article.
What I don't support is the many parts of this act, and its enforcement, that are illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and so far beyond the scope of Federal powers as to shock the imagination. I'm about ready to start looking into how we can find a strong libertarian presidential candidate who has a good chance of being elected. Along with a willing Congress, I'd like nothing more than to see the Federal government stripped down better than an unattended Corvette in south-central LA on a Friday night.
I want to see the Federal government up on cinder blocks, with the states standing around checking out their new goodies. Things are getting out of hand. We're spending more than $400 Billion a year on our military, just so we can stretch it to the breaking point by playing parent to the world. We're spending... well, we don't know how much we're spending on the very intelligence agencies that watch our every move. Why don't we know how much we're spending? Sorry, that's classified. Well, what are you doing with my money? Sorry, that's classified. Why is it classified?! It's my money! Sorry, that's classified. Well what am I getting in return for my unknown investment? Safety. Could you be more specific? Sorry, that's classified.
It's about time for a change. I wonder how much longer it will be before Americans can get together enough courage to dismantle the bulk of the Federal government. Are we ready for 10 - 20 years of readjustment, the end result of which is far more freedom and a return to the Constitutional Republic we once had? Or shall we sit on our collective asses for a bit longer while Uncle Sam's goons start doing random cavity searchs to see what we might be hiding?
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I bet it'll be modded as flamebait, but it's my oppinion anyway, so I'll post it.
I think right now at this time and this place the greatest threat to American liberty comes from Bush and their sympathizers rather than from Al-Qaida.
This works this way: An unjustifiable attack to other countries (like Iraq) leads to more anger from its citizens and even other countries. Now we have not just one group of loons who hate the US (Al Qaida), but many.
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
If your watchdog barks at every breeze that rustles the trees, you aren't getting any good information from it. Maybe it's time to start looking for a new watchdog or to take security into your own hands.
Your statement encapsulates precisely many people's arguments against the Patriot Act. Namely, I'd rather retain my liberty/privacy and take my security into my own hands than allow Big Brother Ashcroft, et al, do whatever he likes, Constitution be damned, in the name of ferreting out communists, oops, I mean terrorists in our midst.
NO, McCarthy, the blacklists. etc. etc. The track record (aka HISTORY) is that this bullshit leads to more bullshit. And people are going to nip it in the bud this time, all these complaints have made sure that it hasn't gone any further. Just think if all these voices hadn't complained what types of laws they would be trying to pass right now.
You are basically saying "You made us take all these vitamins, but we never got ill"....
I think that somebody who doesn't understand the distinction between correlation and causation has no business whatsoever rewriting the Constitution.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
But that's how it starts. As a relatively minor problem. Holocaust magnitude tragedies are only the consequence. I quote from my own website "quotes" page:
Hermann Goering
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
(at Nurnberg trials)
I'd be very interested in someone asking Viet Dinh substantive questions about specific concerns raised in the Patriot Act, but I'm unable to draw much of any conclusion from reading this article, especially not the same alarmist conclusion that the story submitter has drawn.
Another interpretation I could make, especially based on the story submitter's comments, is that the critics of the Patriot Act are equally incapable of discussing the ramifications of the Act as are its supporters. Unfortunately, it's the job of the critics to do a good job criticizing and they get far too hung up in rhetoric and name-calling to take most of them very seriously and given that the law is now on the books, I think they're going to need to change their tactics if they want to have any substantive effect.
Oh crap, I seem to be falling prey to the standard media script of analyzing process rather than issues.
Do not kid yourself, the Patriot Act is permanent. Legislation like this which is originally intended to address a current problem (Al Quida) has a way of lingering around long after the problem is no longer around to justify its existince.
The patriot act may look like a drop in the bucket, but do some research into how the founding fathers viewed strong centralized government versus what we actually have today and you can see how each of these minute changes has managed to turn this country upside down.
I think right now at this time and this place the greatest threat to American liberty comes from al-Qaida and their sympathizers
A threat to American liberty? Sure they're a threat, but how on earth can a small, loosely knit band only really capable of random destruction threaten liberty? They may threaten building, airplanes, and (heaven forbid) a city, but the exact same destruction is wreaked on a larger scale around the world by natural disasters.
You need a large army, militia or police force to threaten liberty.
:wq
According to Viet Dinh toward the end of the article: USA PATRIOT and similar legislation will be necessary as long as we are "fighting terrorism." If you think he is correct, then you probably believe that the Iraq war had everything to do with Terrorism, and you are probably the caliber of person to whom I would like to sell this bridge I own in New York.
These people MUST realize that the "War on Terrorism" is a necessarily perpetual one. Is Viet therefore proposing that we give up our civil liberties indefinitely? Whether he knows it or not, that's what he seems to be proposing.
As long as Americans are willing to believe that politics is over their heads and that they shouldn't worry about what goes on in Washington, the way is wide open for some dynastic madman to install himself in the White House without even being elected, and start waging unprovoked wars in countries most Americans can't recognize on continents most Americans can't name.
As THE most powerful nation on Earth that claims to be, (of/by/for) the people, its citizens have a great responsibility to keep their civil servants accountable. If you ask me, most are allowing themselves to be distracted from that responsibility.
Frankly, this appears to be the entire Democratic Platform for 2004. I have heard nothing but "Hate Bush" from Democratic Party since 2000.
pot.kettle.black.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Visit the best Liberal Blog: DU
Is to secure liberty.
Yes, this does reduce safty in some areas, but that is the price you pay to avoid the real risk involved in allowing desaparacidos.
On the whole it's a pretty good bargain.
If we do not remove liberties than the people who died on 9/11 (I'm a New Yorker, so that list includes acquaintences and directly affected family members) did so as patriots protecting liberty.
If we use 9/11 as an excuse to remove liberties then they died so that we might all be less free and subvert the constitution.
If I've gotta die I'd rather do so for liberty, not a police state.
KFG
He falls into the same trap as Senator McCarthy, by destroying the very thing he seeks to protect in his zeal. I remember stories of the neighbourhood "stazi" agents in the former East Germany, and thought what a horrible sort of place to live. Of course I would fight to the death to avoid having to live in such a society. Then you read about initiatives such as TIA and the PATRIOT act initiatives, and wonder if we really won the cold war after all....
This danger exists on both the right and left of the political spectrum. Censorship and repression in the name of "political correctness" is the other side of the coin.
In one way at least, Al Queda has won the war on terror - they hate the idea of a free, tolerant, pluralistic society, and they have managed to make ours considerably less so.
My rights don't need management.
How the parent poster can refer to he Patriot Act as a relatively minor problem is beyond me. But history has shown that you (and Goering) are correct. In a nutshell, what you're talking about is incrementalism.
... I know what can happen.
Few societies willingly accept totalitarianism in one gulp, which means that citizens must be weaned onto it in small steps. Make no mistake: the Patriot Act (and many others like it) is a first step. In spite of the many rationalizations used to justify its continued existence, laws such as that really have no place in civilized society, much less the United States of America. Just don't get too complacent: I'm sure many Germans prior to the rise of the Third Reich felt that it "couldn't happen here" but they were wrong. Hey, I've seen Sliders
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Actually, the threat is mostly from your fellow citizens, who just don't care enough. Many have forgotten that democracy and freedom have risks, and the only way to protect them is to recognize, and ignore, that risk. If I stand a .00005% chance instead of a .00001% chance of getting blown up on a plane- but I and my fellow citizens remain free(ie, i didn't have to take my shoes off, didn't have to hand over "papers") so be it. If you aren't, you are a -coward-, and you can damn well pack your bags and move somewhere else, because America was founded by a bunch of guys who got -really- tired of exactly this kind of crap. What gives -you- the right to take -my- freedom, for -your- illusion of security? Franklin said it best: "They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Nevermind that the risk is infinitesimal; in one year, +10x more people died on our highways than did in all the planes+buildings involved in the terrorist attacks. Every three days more people die of heart disease than died in the terrorist attacks(700,000 people a year, roughly). Nope, I can't have universal healthcare, but I can have Johhny Ashcroft breathing down my neck.
Planes aren't being hijacked because we stop the dreaded nail clipper from coming on board.
Exactly. Further- if you want proof of just how ineffective these measures are, look at countries where "security" is tightest. Israel, for example, is indisputable proof that no matter what you do, you just can't stop someone determined enough; when they stopped Palestinian men, women started strapping bombs to themselves. Then there's England; no end of security procedures did little to stop the IRA. Those video cameras in London, which practically outnumber people, have yielded no drop in crime; same goes for their thousands of radar-speed cameras; in fact, speeding's gone -up-...
Please help metamoderate.
::deep breath::
/. and bitch and moan all we like but if we aren't doing anything about it, it's like... uh... pissing in the wind.
/. could be if everyone got out and just voted?
Okay kids, here's the thing. We can all sit on
Can you even fathom what a political power the members of
Don't like what you see? Don't talk, do.
Wan't a coup? Fine. Let's have one in November.
S
bah.
Asking a Vietnam refugee... About civil liberties is like asking Jack Valenti about fair use.
Wrong. Asking a Vietnam refugee about civil liberties is more like asking DVD Jon about fair use. Jack Valenti knows nothing about fair use because he never lost the right; a Vietnamese refugee has losh his civil liberties.
My parents fled from Castro's regime in Cuba (which came to power in when they were teenagers). Consequently, they have a deeper appreciation for liberty than any natural born American I have ever met. Why? Because they had liberty and it was taken. They don't want to get it taken again. I imagine that Vietnamese refugees are similarly inclined.
Ironic that two decades ago the right wing flag wavers made a career of berating the Soviet Union for these same acts.
I was all for the PA until they used to for something other then terrorism, that is when they raided a strip club in Vegas and shut it down, using the PA for an excuse, how can anyone say that it is a law that has been absused?
"The majority is always wrong," by which I suppose he meant that principles are not a matter of majority consent.
Neither are they a matter of minority imposition.
They are a matter of personal reflection and commitment to what is right.
This is unsound for two reasons. First, it begs the definition of what is right. You've ruled out the majority; the minority is no better -- what do you have left? Second, it's no different than the ancient formula "everyone does that which is right in their own eyes". That way lies anarchy.
Oh brother. It's a joke. Anybody without a strong, direct connection to the Vietnam War really has no grounds to be offended. Half the people here are probably either a) two young to get it or b) too ignorant of history to get it.
If you really are one of those people that's offended, that's fine. But rather than waste everyone else's time, just smile, shut up, and have a coke. You can't live your life running around pointing and shrieking like a schoolgirl all the time.
Great... now I probably offended some psycho feminist chick with the schoolgirl crack. And I probably offended a lesbian with the feminist crack. Oh shit.. now I really done did it...
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
"the greatest threat to American liberty comes from al-Qaida and their sympathizers" - What the heck? When did al-Qaida get the right to toss me in prison without a trial and never tell anybody where I am or why? I mean sure, perhaps they'd like to kill me... but deny me liberty? I think not.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
The Holocaust is not unique nor extrodinary. The same thing would not be impossible, or even that unlikely if a charismatic, young, power-obsessed fanatic tried to take over a public building to protest the degredation of "traditional values" here, even today. Look at the blind following Roy Moore got for dumping some cheap corporate art in a lobby somewhere, and he's ugly, a mediocre speaker at best, and the police never even shot any of his followers or put him in jail.
Look, just fuse together Roy Moore, Che Guevera, Kevin Mitnick, L. Ron Hubbard, the guys from Queer Eye, Martin Sheen, and Fred Phelps, send them back to the Great Depression, and have them run for president on the platform of "Kill the Lawyers, Take Their Money". What do you think's going to happen?
That's the strength of fascism, it's not political, it's social and artistic. It's a near-foolproof method of gaining power in a free society, and it just so happens that it appeals to, and works best for, vapid power-fetishists who often happen to be prone to bouts of genocidal mania once they get to the top. The most stunning thing about the Holocaust is that they managed to pull it off before the whole mangled system collapsed in on itself.
The majority is always wrong because the majority is stupid. 99% of the population is stupid, not because they are all un-educated, but mostly because they have been "educated". They are never taught to think for themselves.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
is that while the interviewer was attempting to illustrate the fear people may feel about the patriot act, it hardly at all actually specifically cites the offending sections. Except for section 215, the interviewer doesn't specifically say the parts of the patriot act that are damning.
By not mentioning the specifics of the act, and instead talking about how people are afraid of the act, this report manages to, surprise surprise, actually stir up more fear (hence all the posts on slashdot.)
What I would like to see is a specific breakdown. here's what patriot act ACTUALLY SAYS and here's what the constitution says, and show me differences. then I can make an opinion. Here's why X is bad, here's why Y is bad.
Also, shame on you if you posted against the patriot act in this thread and have not actually read it yourself. you shouldn't trust the trolls around you to summarize it with their slant.
I for one thought Viet's response to the one accusation, section 215, was actually reasonable. The powers he mentioned exist and have existed on state level and make sense nationally.
and finally, to those who say that our greatest threat comes from our own government: Physical violence against citizens in the most blatant way, murder, is preventable. Each one of those twenty hijackers made a conscious effort. America did not deserve it. not one person who died deserved it. And it could have been prevented had a decent enough intelligence effort been put forth. If the government did NOT put forth efforts to protect us, it would be abdicating its duty.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
" ...he was drawn to Hamas because of his hatred for Americanism.
Now he sounds more like a Palestinian suicide bomber. "
Show me an outspoken member of the GOP that has blown himself up at a bus terminal and/or press releases where the Republican party has taken credit for such a bombing and I'll agree with your comparison between the two. Otherwise, you have +4 Fear Mongering.
The real problem with the "War on Terror" is... there is no end. When all the Muslims are dead, something else will be classified as terrorism. Unions, "file-sharers", hackers, cable television thieves...
The government of the United States should be concerned with INCREASING my liberty and privacy; not the opposite. If they want to pass a law regarding oversight of law enforcement activities... why don't they pass one INCREASING oversight?
Only one thing will save us and the world from our out-of-contol political system and wannabe emperors... eventually, we will be so far in debt that tyranny will bankrupt itself.
Bush is the most transparently corrupt and immoral president in modern United States history. He does not value our democratic traditions. The only thing more putrefied than Bush and his administration; is the heart of every citizen in the United States who voted for him. We get what we deserve.
Yes, I have read similar publications from them. A typical propoganda piece, full of historical distortions.
Bin Laden is a Saudi, not a Palestinian. None of the Sept 11th hijackers were. Very few Al Queda memebers are. The Palestinian Authority has gone to great lengths to distance themselves from, and denounce Al Queda. They use the existance of the state of Israel is a straw dog. I was able to speak with somebody before in the Egyptian government about the Yom Kippur war. It was quite revealing - the allies never trusted each other, and he admitted that even had the state of Israel been utterly destroyed, there would be no peace or stability in the region. Quite the reverse in fact.
American has lent much material aid to Israel, no doubt about it. They have also lent considerable aid to Islamic countries as well. Turkey enjoys very good relations with the US. They conveniently forget how the NATO, particularly the US and GB went to war to save Muslims in Bosnia.
Al Queda loves to beat their chest about the evils of the 800 year old crusades, (true enough) yet forget about the enslavement and mandatory conscription of Christan children to serve the Ottoman empire.
But you do have one point. Some of the things I see coming from the religious far right in the USA bear an uncomfortable resemblance to statements that might have come from the Taliban.
Although it is not mentioned in your statement, they DO hate a free society. Look at the model society they built in Afghanistan. It wasn't enough even to be a practicing Muslim, look what they did to the Sheite minorities, they considered heretic. You were forced to exactly follow the edicts of their particular (warped) interpretation of Islam.
Not to pick on Muslims by the way, there seems to be an equal distribution of intolerance distributed among all faiths.
My rights don't need management.
That post is ignorant at best, but more likely just racist.
Offensive, possibly. But racist, no. Racist would be that joke applied to a someone of Korean descent, as Koreans have little to do with the Viet Cong but happen to be ethnically related (very broadly) to Vietnamese. Would it be racist to make a "Heil Hitler" joke about a German? And if so, how about a Swede? I realize it's a lost cause, but I just wish the word "racism" were used more accurately rather than as a blanket term for "based on stereotypes".
And to characterize the joke as "ignorant" is also an absurd misuse of the term. I can't imagine that anyone who knows the signifance of the term "Charlie" in relation to Vietnam (and thus understands the joke) would confuse a 35-year-old first-generation immigrant Vietnamese American with a communist guerilla.
It was a silly, offensive joke based on cultural stereotypes. Just leave it at that. And just for the record, I'm a bit of an aficionado of Vietnamese culture, I'm part Asian, and I thought it was funny. (Though I would never repeat it in front of a Vietnamese person.)
Sometimes, people who fled totalitarian countries are the most ardent supporters of American freedoms. I can't read into the heart and mind of Viet Dinh, but your post is contemptible.
Unfortunately, such people aren't immune to engaging in the same mindset they sought to flee: Little Saigon, 1999 And the Cuban refuguee community in Florida isn't much better behaved, in my opinion.
Your definition of "race" must be different from mine. I don't consider German or American or German-American or Swedish or Vietnamese to be races. Racism would be making a Viet Cong joke about someone solely because he has black hair, thin eyes, a flat nose, and whatever physical attributes associated with people from East Asia. The connection between a Vietnamese and communist guerillas, or between a German and Hitler is historical, not ethnic. That's the point I'm trying to make. And the reason I'm doing so is that "racism" has become the politically-correct catch-all blanket condemnatory term for any sort of discrimination, and used inaccurately.
Yes, it would be both ignorant and racist to make a Hitler joke about a Swede. The Swedes have been non-aligned for a long time.
It would be ignorant certainly, because a Swede has no unique connection, ethnically or historically, with Hitler. For it to be racist, the teller would have to draw a link from blond hair and blue eyes, to Germany, to Hitler. That's beyond ignorant, it's simply stupid. And Sweden's policitical history is totally irrelevant to anything at ll.
I stated clearly in my previous post that the joke can indeed be characterized as offensive, in its use of stereotypes about Vietnamese. That's why I wouldn't tell it to a Vietnamese. As for "hatefulness", that's another glib assertion. I thought the joke was funny, yet I know I am not hateful towards Vietnamese.
Moreover, the muslims in Bosnia are of Turkish descent. Arabs and Turks have never got along well. Turkey also has economic and military ties with Israel. So I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Arabs don't really care what happens with Turks...
I'd say the Bill of Rights would count as "essential liberties", wouldn't you?
quote still works for me.