“I think any restriction would not only be impractical, it would be counter-productive,” he said after the debate.

While Rose criticized the extension to local law enforcement of investigatory privileges formerly reserved for federal investigations, Dinh said he thought this provision enabled necessary communication.

“Terrorists don’t go around wearing t-shirts saying ‘I’m a terrorist,’” he said. Because of the inherent difficulty in identifying subjects for further scrutiny, he added, investigative methods should not be segregated.

Asked by Juliette N. Kayyem ’91, who moderated the talk, whether she thought that the lack of a second major terrorist act was evidence of the legislation’s success, Rose said that she—and the ACLU chapter she represents—was not opposed to all of the PATRIOT Act’s recommendations. Many, though, overstepped the boundary of constitutionality based on their infringement of rights, she said.

According to Dinh, Rose’s expectations were unrealistic. Anonymity is not constitutionally guaranteed, he said.

“Do not mistake privacy with anonymity,” he said.

Dinh also cast aside allegations from Rose and the audience that the PATRIOT Act was hastily drafted.

“It was the most deliberate process I’ve ever participated in,” he said.

—Staff writer Nathan J. Heller can be reached at heller@fas.harvard.edu.