Alan M. Dershowitz, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, is a noted specialist in criminal law and constitutional rights, famous for his high-profile cases, provocative television appearances and equally provocative books such as Shouting Fire, Why Terrorism Works and Sexual McCarthyism. An outspoken defender of Israel, Dershowitz will give a speech tonight in Cincinnati on behalf of the Jewish Federation of Cincinnati, in honor of the closing of the federation's 2004 campaign.

As a prelude to his visit here, Dershowitz spoke recently with Assistant Editorial Page Editor Ray Cooklis. Here are excerpts from his comments:

Q. What will you be saying to your Cincinnati audience?

A. Well, the topic is "The Case for Israel," which is the title of my new book. I'll touch on both the most current issues and the most enduring issues. But I have some rules. I never make the same speech twice. And I never tell an audience what it wants to hear. Perhaps I will advocate for the rights of Palestinians. I look at an audience and think, What can I do to upset them? ... I get invited to speak everywhere - once.

Q. How would you characterize your role as a public speaker and professor?

A. I think of myself as a provocateur. In one of my classes, for example, I taught about the law and rape. I presented a politically un-correct argument that enraged the students. I try very hard to get students to question their deepest values. I think that's part of my job - to provoke people to think about things they would rather not think about. Life is full of contradictions and cognitive dissonances. I try to figure out the core issues that make people comfortable, then create discomfort. At Harvard, some students love it, some don't. We have a 1 to 5 faculty grading system here. I seem never to get 2s or 3s or 4s, only 1s or 5s - mostly 5s, of course.

Q. What are your thoughts about the debate on Iraq?

A. People tend to think in extremes here, and nuance is hard to bring to bear, particularly when each side denounces the other. I don't think there's been a good debate on Iraq, especially given that there are good, strong arguments on both sides. I myself was only about 51-49 against going into Iraq in the first place.

It has raised a vital issue: I'm writing a book now about the doctrine of preemption. I believe it's the wave of the future, whether we like it or not, in a world with more intrusion from non-deterrable threats. We don't have a philosophy of jurisprudence on preemption, and we need it. We need something calibrated, nuanced.

Q. As you follow the 9-11 Commission hearings, what do you think of that process?

A. I think we made a big mistake. We appointed a bipartisan commission when we should have appointed a non-partisan commission. I think it should have been more professional, a panel of experts. Earlier commissions have been much more nonpartisan. England has its tradition of royal commissions, which are wonderful institutions.

Q. Is the media doing its job informing the American people on these issues?

A. The media has been performing a very good function, and by media I particularly mean newspapers. There are seven or eight newspapers I read regularly, and I believe the press gets high grades for elucidating the issues, presenting intellectual content and framing the debate. I hunger for newspapers and learn a lot from them. Whenever I'm in a city, I like to read the letters to the editor, the editorials and local columnists. As for television news, I'm just amazed at the stuff Fox News gets away with. MSNBC keeps a sharp distinction between commentators and the news, but on Fox it gets very much blurred.

Q. Do you believe Americans have become better informed about the legal system recent years, particularly since the O.J. Simpson trial captured the public's fancy?

A. They may be better informed about trials. But the public doesn't have much of a clue about what goes on behind the scenes - the decision to prosecute, plea bargains, appeals and much more. The focus tends to be on trials, as it has been throughout our history. In the early 1800s, everyone was following the Aaron Burr trial. Before that, there were the Boston Massacre trials. It didn't start with O.J. One of my latest books, by the way, is America on Trial, a look at the 60-70 most important cases in our history.

I will say this. We've had a decided effect as a nation on the democratization of the legal system. We have the only real jury system in the world. But I wish the public knew more about the non-trial aspects of our system. We have to begin to do some of it more openly. The biggest offender here is the U.S. Supreme Court for not allowing cameras in for arguments.

Q. Any predictions on the presidential election?

A. It's a very long campaign ahead. There's going to be a lot of substantive discussion on one side, a lot of appeals to patriotism on the other. But it's much too early to call.

Q. What is the state of civil liberties in this country, particularly with 9-11, the Patriot Act and the war on terrorism?

A. President Bush has institutionalized a number of "temporary, emergency" measures in the war on terrorism, but the war on terrorism is not a "temporary" thing. The war on terrorism is going to endure through our lifetimes. In the next two months the Supreme Court is going to consider some of the most important cases in a long time on civil liberties - on the Guantanamo detainees, on Jose Padilla and others.

The problem is the American public isn't so focused on it because we don't think "our" liberties are at stake. That's because the Bush administration has succeeded in turning this into a "we-they" issue, not "we-we," with Arabs and Muslims as the "they."

Now, there were some very good things in the Patriot Act, some win-win provisions. The change in being able to wiretap a particular person instead of a phone - that's good for civil liberties. We want the Fourth Amendment to protect people, not places or things.