Several months old but still very pertinent, here’s an interview with Viet Dinh, the Vietnamese professor of law at Georgetown University who authored the much-maligned, much-misinterpreted Patriot Act: The Patriot Act Is Your Friend. Excerpts:

WN: An estimated 5,000 people have been subjected to detention since 9/11. Of those, only five — three noncitizens and two citizens — were charged with terrorism-related crimes and one was convicted. How do we justify such broad-sweeping legislation that has resulted in very few terrorist-related convictions?

Dinh: I’ve heard the 5,000 number. The official numbers released from the Department of Justice indicate approximately 500 persons have been charged with immigration violations and have been deported who have been of interest to the 9/11 investigation. Also, approximately 300 individuals have been criminally charged who are of interest to the 9/11 investigation. Of the persons criminally charged, approximately half have either pled guilty or been convicted after trial.

…

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.

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.

…

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: Some Asian Americans have accused you of dishonoring your own struggle and background as a refugee and immigrant. What do you say to charges that the law you wrote is hostile to immigrants and noncitizens?

Dinh: I come to this country having known government that does not work, either through the chaos of war or through the repression of totalitarian communism. In each and every thing that I do in my life — in the law and as my life as a public official — I ask myself how can I better serve the cause of freedom and the cause of good government. And while some may disagree with the decisions I make, just as some may disagree with the overall strategy on terror, I hope that people will recognize that there is no dishonor, there is no disconnect, there is no irony — just an honest effort of a person trying to serve his country at her time of greatest need according to his best ability, however limited that may be.