I didn't know whether to laugh, cry or scream (or all three) when I read Robert McMillan's "Opinion" piece in your March 18 issue. Two statements stood out as particularly silly. The first was that the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (in case you don't get it, it's the USA Patriot Act) stands in the middle between the so-called extremes in the debate about the Administration's anti-terror policies. Second, he asserted that that debate centers on two phrases in the Constitution, one in the Preamble about insuring domestic tranquility and the other, the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Surely, this must be the first time someone has seriously proposed that a phrase in the Preamble be given equal weight to the Bill of Rights. But if we're going to do that, why not also mention the clauses about establishing justice and securing the blessings of liberty?

Mr. McMillan would have you believe that this statute is just a benign effort to bring law enforcement technology into the 21st century and to allow government agencies to share information. That is a grotesque distortion of the truth. At the risk of Mr. McMillan branding me an extremist, here are several problems some of us have with the law and why his characterization of it is so wrong:

* Its definition of terrorism is so broad as to make the exercise of constitutionally protected rights, such as speech and assembly, potential crimes.

* It allows a person to be detained indefinitely, incognito, upon the mere certification of the Attorney General that that person is connected to terrorism.

* It permits the tapping of phones in violation of the Fourth Amendment's requirements for specificity.

* It contains provisions that violate the First Amendment's protection of free speech and even imposes prior restraints on that speech.

* It contains other provisions that obviate the Sixth Amendment's guarantees of the accused's right to counsel, to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, to be advised of the charges against him, to be confronted with witnesses, and to compulsory process to have witnesses testify on his behalf.

* It permits government agents to obtain personal records without the right to contest the order in court and without a showing of probable cause or even that the person whose records are sought is a foreign agent or linked to terrorism.

* It further institutionalizes the use of secret courts (which need not publish their decisions) to obtain warrants.

* It effectively abolishes judicial review of actions taken under its auspices.

* It permits the use of subpoenas where formerly court-issued warrants were required.

These are dangerous times; and for McMillan to write so cavalier an article, devoid as it is of perspective and revealing an apparent ignorance of this law's content, is inexcusable.

Jack K. Feirman