In response to Petrof's letter ISA and Patriot Act, oceans apart , it is true that ISA has detained only locals while the Patriot Act primarily targets aliens.

I use the word 'primarily' because section 411 of the Patriot Act extends designation of terrorist organisations to both foreign and domestic groups while ISA can also detain foreigners if they are a threat to national security.

If they are 'oceans apart' the Patriot Act violates more civil liberties because it gives the FBI and the CIA greater rights to wiretap phones, monitor e-mail, survey medical, financial and student records, and break into homes and offices without prior notification.

It is an effort in vain for the writer to try and argue the point that the Americans have no moral right to dictate human rights to Malaysia by seeking to distinguish the differences between the two legislations that must invariably exist, when both share the common important feature of curtailing severely civil liberties in the broad sense of the word.

The United States has a history of championing human rights beyond rhetoric only to the extent that her national interest is promoted by such actions. The global geopolitical scenario is replete with innumerable instances of supporting dictatorial regimes where it is in their perceived national interest to do so.

In this respect US Secretary of State Colin Powell's affirmation that the US still regarded ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim's trial as flawed (reported in malaysiakini but not in mainstream media) is more a token gesture to demonstrate consistency of state's policies between present and previous US administrations but is not likely to be pressed on by US contrary to her national interest.

In fact, the United States wants Malaysia to become the Southeast Asian centre for anti-terrorist activities following its success in combating the menace at home ( New Straits Times , July 31).

One should not forget that it is the Malaysian government's consistent stand that the ISA has been used to detain militants. In praising the Malaysian government's 'success' in combating this menace at home, the US is definitely not complaining about the ISA's efficacy, human rights notwithstanding.

Anwar's dilemma is that it is to US' greater interest to collaborate with his nemesis Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad in the global fight against terrorism that is more important to US national interest than Anwar's incarceration.

That's the unpalatable fact. The fact that Anwar has not directed Keadilan to oppose PAS' extreme enactment of hudud/qisas (Islamic penal/traditional laws) in Terengganu is a point against him in the eyes of the Americans.

This relationship is cemented by reciprocity. Mahathir reaps mileage in the Islamic world by making it look as if, in exchange for support given by Malaysia to US in clamping down on terrorists in this region, the United States commitment of remaining fully engaged in the Middle East region and bringing into being a Palestinian state within three years is secured (see Malaysia lauds US commitment to Middle East solution ).

The point of my letter is that without US patronage, Anwar should think of a way of how to compromise with his nemesis. It is waste of talent to remain in jail for the many years to come.