Wired interviews author of Patriot Act

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-02-29 06:11pm

Viet Dinh: There is no question that the last 28 months of peace in America, where not another life has been lost on American soil to terrorism, would have been much more difficult without the USA Patriot Act.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-02-29 06:25pm

As opposed to all those years of daily terrorism, suicide bombings, etc before the Patriot Act.. oh, wait, this isn't Israel or North Ireland, silly me.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-29 06:49pm

And the giraffe scarecrow in my front yard works too. You know how I know that? I've never seen a giraffe in my front yard.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-29 07:03pm

Well I'm convinced. If I were an American citizen, I'd just be opening myself up to more of that liberty restricting in the ongoing effort to keep me safe.

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-02-29 07:06pm

I can respect some of what he says, as he seems to have an honest belief in his position.

Some laws, like our surveillance laws, have been old fashion, and not up to date for the technical realities. And I feel at the border and airports America is really lax (and still are).

But I think the Congress crossed lines, and got taken advantage of in a time when they were wetting themselves in fear of the "next attack". The admin got in got power, and then worked to expand those powers. Congress should have known better, but they had a lot of danger and lives on their backs.

What bugs me is the talk about how the admin has and is again now trying to have a dialogue about the Act. All I've seen so far is the likes of Bush and Ashcroft getting in forn of a podum and surrounding themselves wit supporters before extolling the acts virtues to cheers and then calling for extensions. Or going on a Sunday morning show to throw out some sound bites. This is a major thing. Where's this dialogue? To me, this would usually mean 2-ways. I mean, will we see it on the campaign? Will they have a deabate where they focus solely on it? I doubt it, just soundbytes, and carefully scripted stories of success.

Now whats important is what happens next.

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 think it is a good idea to look at the changes and see what has gone too far, and what we as a nation should do next.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-02-29 07:06pm

This man comes from a communist nation. If this were the 1950s he'd be in jail on similar justifications. IRONY THERE?

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-02-29 07:07pm

I'm pretty sure the war in Afghanistan had something to do with it. Besides, it's not like terrorist attacks of the magnitude of the 9/11 attacks were a bi-annual occurence before the PATRIOT Act.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-02-29 07:58pm

I don't recall any provisions in the PATRIOT Act which would have stopped the September 11th attacks. Those attacks were successful because of intelligence failures on multiple different levels, not because intelligence agencies didn't have enough power.

jairyn_1 · Post by **jairyn_1** » 2004-02-29 10:33pm

Oddysseus wrote:I can respect some of what he says, as he seems to have an honest belief in his position.

That alone would be reason not to respect him.

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-02-29 10:51pm

jairyn_1 wrote:
Oddysseus wrote:I can respect some of what he says, as he seems to have an honest belief in his position.
That alone would be reason not to respect him.

Part of the problem is I started saying one thing, then changed it leaving a poorly worded sentence, at least no typos.

But the point I have is I he has a real desire to protect his adopted home. It's commendable. The patriot act is the wrong way. And based on his history, he is a longtime supporter of many of the objectives he helped bring about. He has been working hard for the reppies, and even is part of the whole Supreme Court fiasco...so actually what I should have said was I have doubts about his points and think he is so paranoid and sealous about enemies and threats he'd help shred certain liberties to get national safety. Hmm, no wonder he's working well under Bush and Ashcroft. The ends to apparently justify the means.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-03-01 12:52am

My question is if he's related to Ngo Dinh Diem.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-01 01:17am

Oddysseus wrote:But the point I have is I he has a real desire to protect his adopted home. It's commendable. The patriot act is the wrong way. And based on his history, he is a longtime supporter of many of the objectives he helped bring about. He has been working hard for the reppies, and even is part of the whole Supreme Court fiasco...so actually what I should have said was I have doubts about his points and think he is so paranoid and sealous about enemies and threats he'd help shred certain liberties to get national safety. Hmm, no wonder he's working well under Bush and Ashcroft. The ends to apparently justify the means.

The thing is that, in a crisis, civil liberties are the first things to go, which is infuriating. Either freedom is something sacred to be fought for overseas, or it's dangerous and needs to be taken away from as many people as possible.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-03-01 01:43am

Durandal wrote:
The thing is that, in a crisis, civil liberties are the first things to go, which is infuriating. Either freedom is something sacred to be fought for overseas, or it's dangerous and needs to be taken away from as many people as possible.

There are legitimate reasons to restrict liberties during wartime. The problem is how it's been done and in fact the entire approach to the conflict. But I don't think it could have been done any differently because I don't think the climate of sacrifice exists for it.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-01 02:22am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: There are legitimate reasons to restrict liberties during wartime. The problem is how it's been done and in fact the entire approach to the conflict. But I don't think it could have been done any differently because I don't think the climate of sacrifice exists for it.

The problem with saying that it's okay during war-time is that you leave the definition of "war time" wide-open. We both know that no president will ever come out and say that the War on Terror has been won, so we're basically in a perpetual war-time state.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-01 02:28am

At least Roosevelt could say they were on the road to Tokyo or Berlin. Where does America's road lead today? Afghanistan? Been there, war's still going on. Baghdad? Been there, war's still going on. Even the capture and execution of Bin Laden wouldn't end this thing. Not until all of Israel's- er, I mean America's enemies are defeated.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2004-03-01 02:32am

Durandal wrote:The problem with saying that it's okay during war-time is that you leave the definition of "war time" wide-open. We both know that no president will ever come out and say that the War on Terror has been won, so we're basically in a perpetual war-time state.

America is at war with Eastasia. America has always been at war with Eastasia.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-03-01 02:35am

But last week the Floating Fortresses were bombarding Eurasia, I....

:is dragged kicking and screaming to the Ministry of Love:

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-03-01 02:36am

Durandal wrote:
The problem with saying that it's okay during war-time is that you leave the definition of "war time" wide-open. We both know that no president will ever come out and say that the War on Terror has been won, so we're basically in a perpetual war-time state.

The definition of the enemy is incorrect, thus causing the problem.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-03-01 02:38am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The definition of the enemy is incorrect, thus causing the problem.

This was intentionally done, however.

War has entered the hazy and politically dishonest world of buzz words, catch phrases, and slogans.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-03-01 02:38am

Darth Wong wrote:At least Roosevelt could say they were on the road to Tokyo or Berlin. Where does America's road lead today? Afghanistan? Been there, war's still going on. Baghdad? Been there, war's still going on. Even the capture and execution of Bin Laden wouldn't end this thing. Not until all of Israel's- er, I mean America's enemies are defeated.

The terrorist funding states must be overthrown and occupied to end the conflict. It's quite obvious where the road has led for some time now. The problem is that very few people have the courage to say it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-01 02:40am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The terrorist funding states must be overthrown and occupied to end the conflict. It's quite obvious where the road has led for some time now. The problem is that very few people have the courage to say it.

Of course, America could simply stop tying its own fate to that of Israel, but that would take even more courage to say in Washington DC, wouldn't it?

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-03-01 02:42am

The trouble is we are in an open ended "war". And not even a fun one like Vietnam. This one goes everywhere and anywhere. It sprouts here and there. The enemy is you, him, or the other guy, unless we need you and then you are okay...for now. How do you win a social war?

Vietnam was open ended to, in a sense. But this helps add a new definition to that idea, like we've done with war.

This patriot act isn't about a quick solution. It wasn't going to be for 9/11 and any soon to come surge. It is going to be for posterity. It is an attempt to redine many of the assumptions and laws we live under. I think it needs to be seriously metted out and seriously argued over. It is easier to do that when one side isn't hiding behind an alert and a flag.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-03-01 02:48am

Darth Wong wrote: Of course, America could simply stop tying its own fate to that of Israel, but that would take even more courage to say in Washington DC, wouldn't it?

That won't stop the al-Muwahhidun from going after us. Only the mass conversion of the west to Islam will do that. Stopping funding to Israel is just stopping funding to the fortress in their path. The Israelis may be engaged in morally questionable acts, but at the moment supporting them is no different than supporting the USSR during WWII--an entirely necessary act brought on by the circumstances.

They hate us for letting women wear short skirts and halter-tops and for loaning money at interest and for practicing democracy and religious toleration and for letting men shave their beards. Israel is a side issue that regularly gets lumped together with the reconquista, which ended in 1492. And now banning the Islamic headdress in France will bring the same hatred against the French, who decidedly do not support Israel like America does.

And that hatred is being fueled and spread by large amounts of money from the Gulf Oil Sheikhs, who deal with their own consciences and with their angry people by those massive payoffs. That's the real threat and that's what needs to be dealt with, and until those sources of funding--spreading schools around the world that teach mindless rote recitation of the Koran and that the Jews drink blood; and that the "Crusader-Zionist" entity of Western Culture is totally subverting Islam--are eliminated, we will see no improvement. Even the Mosques and Islamic schools of America are 80% controlled by the Saudis and teaching that garbage and that's where the real threat is coming from.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-01 02:58am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:That won't stop the al-Muwahhidun from going after us. Only the mass conversion of the west to Islam will do that.

Do you have any basis for that claim other than their traditionally florid rhetoric? China isn't converting to Islam either, and I don't see Al-Quaeda going berserk trying to attack them. Not to mention the fact that I don't see how Israel is acting as a "fortress" against Islamic expansion. Islam is expanding quite effectively in France and America with no resistance from Israel. Or is the IDF planning airstrikes on mosques in Paris and New Jersey now?

<snip some really impressive channeling of Richard Perle>

Wow, that was cool ...

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2004-03-01 03:24am

I think a major reason the U.S. is targetted and not China is that the U.S. is a highly visible, but relatively easy to attack country. If you attack China, they could easily just bury it (like they did some of the SARS) or if it is too large, they will use it as a justification to bury whatever country can best be linked, and build a military with better force projection. With the U.S. you normally can get a few free shots before the mass will wanna kick the shit out of you. Kind of like if you were fighting a "war for decency" as some christians call it. Would you blow up a highly visible and poorly defended strip join, or would you attempt to kill a number of maybe armed, and far harder to target prostitutes?

Though, I still agree with your general idea, but saying China isn't converting doesn't take all of the political spectrum into account.