Brandon Mayfield of Portland, Oregon was an attorney and converted Muslim when he was arrested in 2004 in connection with the Madrid bombings that killed 191 people (Abramson, 2005). The FBI held him for two weeks as a material witness but let him go after admitting that his fingerprints were erroneously matched with another set that were found near the scene of the bombing. This kind of mistake rarely happened; however, it prompted the government to tell Mayfield that his home was secretly searched allowed by a special court order that was authorized for intelligence purposes (Abramson, 2005). According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the search was an abuse of the Patriot Act masking a search for evidence to use in a criminal
…show more content…
A provision of the act allows law enforcers to carry out searches without warrants (Collins, 2015). Dubbed the “sneak and peek provision”, FBI agents can search and individual’s home and business with judicial authorization, however, they do not have to inform the individual (Johnson, 2011). ACLU investigators have discovered from public reports that less than 1% of these types of searches happen for terrorism investigations. They have been used instead for immigration and drug cases and sometimes fraud cases (Johnson, 2011). The act has also been criticized for its broad definition of “domestic terrorism” and for using the provisions to prosecute crimes other than terrorism (“What Wrong With”, 2003). According to the act, individuals who commit misdemeanors could be labeled as “domestic terrorists” and have their assets seized and face other consequences (“What Wrong With”, 2003). The Justice Department used this provision to prosecute a 20-year-old Orange County woman who planted threatening letters on a cruise ship in efforts to force the ship back to port so that she could be with her boyfriend. She was sent to prison for two years in prison for making criminalized threats against mass transportation systems (Abramson, 2005). Other serious issues with the Patriot Act include email and internet surfing monitoring, expansive “roving” wiretap authority, and lack of accountability (“What …show more content…
In 2004, the director of the FBI reported that within two years of the law’s creation the act had proven to be “extraordinarily beneficial” in the war on terrorism and to how the FBI conducts business (“Testimony”, 2004). The greatest success seems to be the removal of barriers that prevented government agencies to share vital information. Government agencies are freely sharing information enabling them to disrupt terrorist operations in the early stages and participate in joint investigations which greatly increases the efficiency of those investigations (“Testimony”, 2004). Also, according to McNeill, Carafano, and Zuckerman (2011), thirty nine terror plots against the U.S have been foiled since 9/11 crediting support of the Patriot Act as a key factor. One of those plots involved 21 year old American citizen Antonio Martinez also known as Muhammad Hussain who planned to bomb a military recruiting center in Maryland. An informant told the FBI of the plot and Martinez was arrested after failing to detonate the explosive device supplied by the FBI. The government charged him with attempting to murder federal officers and employees and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction (McNeill et al., 2011). In spite of its strength and benefits, support for the Patriot Act does mean that its weaknesses and risks are not recognized. With the U.S
A provision of the act allows law enforcers to carry out searches without warrants (Collins, 2015). Dubbed the “sneak and peek provision”, FBI agents can search and individual’s home and business with judicial authorization, however, they do not have to inform the individual (Johnson, 2011). ACLU investigators have discovered from public reports that less than 1% of these types of searches happen for terrorism investigations. They have been used instead for immigration and drug cases and sometimes fraud cases (Johnson, 2011). The act has also been criticized for its broad definition of “domestic terrorism” and for using the provisions to prosecute crimes other than terrorism (“What Wrong With”, 2003). According to the act, individuals who commit misdemeanors could be labeled as “domestic terrorists” and have their assets seized and face other consequences (“What Wrong With”, 2003). The Justice Department used this provision to prosecute a 20-year-old Orange County woman who planted threatening letters on a cruise ship in efforts to force the ship back to port so that she could be with her boyfriend. She was sent to prison for two years in prison for making criminalized threats against mass transportation systems (Abramson, 2005). Other serious issues with the Patriot Act include email and internet surfing monitoring, expansive “roving” wiretap authority, and lack of accountability (“What …show more content…
In 2004, the director of the FBI reported that within two years of the law’s creation the act had proven to be “extraordinarily beneficial” in the war on terrorism and to how the FBI conducts business (“Testimony”, 2004). The greatest success seems to be the removal of barriers that prevented government agencies to share vital information. Government agencies are freely sharing information enabling them to disrupt terrorist operations in the early stages and participate in joint investigations which greatly increases the efficiency of those investigations (“Testimony”, 2004). Also, according to McNeill, Carafano, and Zuckerman (2011), thirty nine terror plots against the U.S have been foiled since 9/11 crediting support of the Patriot Act as a key factor. One of those plots involved 21 year old American citizen Antonio Martinez also known as Muhammad Hussain who planned to bomb a military recruiting center in Maryland. An informant told the FBI of the plot and Martinez was arrested after failing to detonate the explosive device supplied by the FBI. The government charged him with attempting to murder federal officers and employees and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction (McNeill et al., 2011). In spite of its strength and benefits, support for the Patriot Act does mean that its weaknesses and risks are not recognized. With the U.S