U.S. Patriot Act author, critic go toe to toe

Despite the quickly falling snow, students gathered Tuesday evening in a mostly-full ASEAN Auditorium for a rescheduled discussion of increased law enforcement powers after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The U.S. Patriot Act, passed days after the attacks, was written to help enhance law enforcement investigations of potential terrorists in the United States.

Tuesday night's event was sponsored by the Tufts American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Tufts Democrats and the Tufts Republicans.

Former U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy and U.S. Patriot Act author Viet Dinh, and Massachusetts ACLU Executive Director Carol Rose attempted to frame the act outside of partisan political thought that is becoming more popular as the U.S. presidential campaign revs up.

While Tufts Republicans President Philipp Tsipman introduced Dinh, Tsipman said that the Patriot Act is "a civil liberties litmus test that separates the good guys from the bad."

But during the speech, both panelists spoke against using an absolutist mentality when examining some of the country's most controversial new anti-terror laws.

"It does not shock me that there is politics in this town," Dinh said, referring to the stigma attached to supporters and critics alike of the Patriot Act, which he said had become a "brand name" for individual viewpoints on civil liberties.

Dinh stressed that it would be a "grave mistake" to view the Patriot Act as intended to balance security against liberty. "You provide security to preserve liberty," he said.

Dinh said, however, that even the provisions of the Patriot Act would not be enough to prevent terrorism. "It will not provide us an iron-clad guarantee that there will not be any more terrorist attacks," he said.

Dinh defended the most non-controversial portions of the act -- including updates to privacy law for new forms of communication -- and said that theses were "corrective nips and tucks" that "patched the holes" in pre-Sept.11 law enforcement legislation.

Dinh said the Patriot Act aimed to determine "how do we give law enforcement the tools they need" while simultaneously realizing that "governmental authority can be misused and abused."

Rose countered that post-Sept. 11 is the citizens of the United States' "moment to decide what kind of a people we are."

She said the problems of the Patriot Act were due to the pressure for politicians to "do something, to do anything" after the terrorist attacks.

Rose agreed with Dinh that anti-terrorist legislation should not be a "choice between liberty and security."

Rose said, however, that the Patriot Act provided "false security" because it did not address the root causes of terrorism and it prevented good law enforcement.

She blamed the Sept. 11 attacks not on a lack of intelligence but on a failure to recognize the warning signs from available intelligence.

"It wasn't like we needed to get more information," she said.

Unfortunately, according to Rose, the Patriot Act's aim was to gather more intelligence and in the process it brought about a "decline in judicial oversight and a decline in legislative branch oversight."

At that point in the discussion, the American flag stationed behind the podium fell to the floor. "Exactly," Rose said.

During the question and answer system, Dinh and Rose often found common ground on issues -- at times giving each other good natured pats on the back and joking about their presumed enmity.

Tsipman chose questioners, whose queries often served as jumping-off points for debate between the panelists.

Dinh and Rose agreed that the legislative branch should be more active in changing the Patriot Act rather than using it as a political tool in election years. "If you have real issues, put it on the agenda," Dinh said. "Put up or shut up."

For much of the question period, however, Dinh and Rose argued over provisions of the Patriot Act that extended beyond terrorism, especially in the field of immigration.

Dinh, himself an immigrant who came to America as a refugee from Vietnam in 1978, said that stricter enforcement of immigration laws was warranted. "Abide by our laws when you come to our country as a guest," he said.

Rose said that there is a fundamental difference in saying that immigration laws are illiberal and working to change them, rather than not enforcing those laws.

She said many immigrants who were "given bad counsel" 15 years ago and told that immigration laws were not strictly enforced were now shocked to be put in jail after the Patriot Act.

Dinh dismissed the leaked "Patriot Act II" which he said was an internal Department of Justice document that "wouldn't pass the laugh test past me or my assistant."

The "Patriot Act II" was a preliminary draft of ideas for enhancing the Patriot Act that contained many controversial provisions, such as giving the government power to deport any legal permanent resident and the ability to revoke citizenship of those suspected of terrorism.

Dinh acknowledged that the federal government currently has many methods to follow a U.S. citizen's private life. He joked that after he started working for the Department of Justice, he "started using cash a lot more."

The event was originally supposed to be held Monday evening, but needed to be moved due to scheduling problems.