The Patriot Act Is Your Friend 

WN: In his recent State of the Union address President Bush pushed to have parts of the Patriot Act, such as section 215, renewed when their sunset clause kicks in next year. Did you intend for these sweeping laws and other powers granted in the Patriot Act to be remedial measures or long-standing legislation?

Dinh: I did not intend any of these provisions, nor did Congress intend the provisions, to be having such wide-sweeping effect that your characterization would make it out to be. I think that is a fundamental mischaracterization of both the meaning, the effect and the operation of the law and the interpretation of the law.

Story Tools

Story Images

Click thumbnails for full-size image:

See also

• Gore to Bush: Rescind Patriot Act
• Court Rules Against Patriot Act
• A Pledge for Privacy Protection
• Keep an eye on Privacy Matters
• Picture Yourself in Politics

Today's Top 5 Stories

• Extra! Extra! Read All About You
• Jamming Tags Block RFID Scanners
• Living Life in Virtual Reality
• Greenpeace Founder Green No More
• Buy Offline, Get Spammed Online

Tech Jobs Partner

never settle.

Section 215 only follows the long-standing practice of (allowing) criminal investigators to be able to seek business records that are relevant to criminal investigations. Section 215 gives the same power to national security investigators in order to seek the same records with very important safeguards. First, a judge has to approve such orders, not simply a clerk of the court, as in ordinary criminal investigations. Second, the Department of Justice is under a statutory obligation in section 215 to report to Congress once every six months on the manner and the number of times it has used that section. And third, it calls for special protection by requiring that the FBI not target an investigation based solely on First Amendment activities.

There has been a lot of hue and cry regarding specific provisions with USA Patriot Act that is predicated upon a misunderstanding. Once we engage in this national conversation that the president has called for, all the facts will come out, and we will see that the fears are unfounded.

WN: Hasn't a national conversation been lacking until now? The act was passed very quickly. There hasn't really been any national debate or any willingness by the government to debate this issue.

Dinh: The USA Patriot Act was passed after six weeks of deliberation by Congress. That is a very quick process in the normal legislative agenda, but then again the six weeks following Sept. 11 was a very unique time in our national history and also in the legislative process. For those six weeks, key members of Congress, including the members of the Senate and House judiciary committees, sat down and rolled up their sleeves. And while the process was very quick, it was also the most deliberate process that I have seen in Washington, D.C.

With respect to the ongoing national conversation, I think it should be noted that the administration and the Department of Justice has, within the last six months to a year, given incredible amounts of information to Congress regarding how the USA Patriot Act has been implemented, to provide to Congress the information that Congress needs in order to do the proper oversight and debate for the next level -- that is, the reauthorization debate in 2005.

WN: In October 2002 you told The Washington Post that civil liberties were not being compromised. Do you still feel that way even after the Jose Padilla case?

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.

Story continued on Page 3 »