http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2004/02/62388Viet Dinh has been called a "political pit bull" and "a foot soldier" for Attorney General John Ashcroft. But the 36-year-old author of the Patriot Act prefers to be called an "attendant of freedom."
In May 2001, the professor of law at Georgetown University was tapped by the Justice Department to work for two years as an assistant attorney general, working primarily on judicial nominations for the department. But three months later the World Trade Center towers collapsed, and Dinh was drafted to work on the USA Patriot Act, a bill that would give the government some of its most controversial surveillance powers. The bill, coupled with the government's subsequent treatment of immigrants and native-born citizens, prompted critics to charge the administration with overthrowing "800 years of democratic tradition."
Ironically, Dinh is an immigrant himself. The youngest of seven children born in Vietnam, he was 7 years old when communists took over the country and imprisoned his father, a city councilman, for "reeducation." Three years later, Dinh's mother escaped with him and five of his siblings to the United States. His father arrived eight years later.
Paul Craig Roberts's Response
I stand by my characterization of Viet Dinh’s remarks in his debate with Bob Barr at the recent CPAC annual meeting and by my statement that conservatism has morphed into brownshirtism.
Viet Dinh is one of the authors of the so-called "PATRIOT Act," an anti-American piece of legislation recognized throughout the civil libertarian community as an assault on American civil liberties. Former Republican congressman Bob Barr has fought to restrain the act’s more egregious intrusions into the constitutionally protected privacy of American citizens.
Even Republican US senators, such as Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, are concerned about the Bush regime’s proclivity for warrantless spying in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Senator Specter is drafting legislation with which he hopes to curtail President Bush’s illegal activity. As far as I can tell, the legal community recognizes that Bush’s warrantless spying is illegal, except for members of the Republican Federalist Society, a group of lawyers dedicated to concentrating unaccountable powers in the executive.
There are several news reports on the CPAC conference and the debate between Bob Barr and Viet Dinh. My observations follow from these news reports.
Writing in the Washington Post on February 11, "Bob Barr, Bane of the Right?," Post reporter Dana Milbank, for example, reports that Barr asked the CPAC audience, "Are we losing our lodestar, which is the Bill of Rights" to the Bush regime’s zeal in its war against terror?
Barr confronted the conservatives: "Do we truly remain a society that believes that every president must abide by the law of this country" or "are we in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle?"
Barr’s questions were greeted with silence followed by booing. According to Milbank, "Dinh brought the crowd to a raucous ovation when he judged: ‘The threat to Americans’ liberty today comes from al Qaeda and its associates and the people who would destroy America and her people, not the brave men and women who work to defend this country!’"
How else are we to interpret Viet Dinh’s words? Clearly, he is saying that it is more important for Bush to seize powers to protect America from Osama bin Laden than to obey the law and abide by the separation of powers. The entire position of the Bush regime is that protecting the country from terrorists is more important than loyalty to habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions, the proscription against torture, open government, and an accountable executive.
Dinh himself endorsed the Führer Principle and urged it upon the conservatives when he declared, "The conservative movement has a healthy skepticism of governmental power, but at times, unfortunately, that healthy skepticism needs to yield." Yield to what? To the Leader who works "to defend this country."
That’s exactly what Hitler said following the Reichstag fire, a staged incident that he used to remove himself from accountability.
Milbank notes that by turning the debate into the issue of who do you fear – George Bush or Osama bin Laden, Viet Dinh employed "the sort of tactic that has intimidated Democrats and the last few libertarian Republicans who question the program’s legality."
Milbank reports that Viet Dinh’s tactic did not work on Bob Barr who nailed Dinh: "That, folks, was a red herring. This debate is very simple: It is a debate about whether or not we will remain a nation subject to and governed by the rule of law or the whim of men."
In fairness to Viet Dinh, coming as he does as an immigrant from a country without a constitutional tradition, without a Bill of Rights, and without a judiciary empowered to enforce civil liberties, Dinh may only naturally confuse patriotism with loyalty to leader. Trust the Leader, Dinh told the conservatives. They seemed to agree. This certainly is not America’s way.
Destroying America does not mean blowing up buildings. It means destroying the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers. Al Qaeda is powerless to bring about such destruction. Only our own government, enabled by the public’s and Viet Dinh’s and Attorney General Gonzales’ endorsements of the Führer Principle can destroy America.
February 23, 2006
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
