Quote:Gonzales Admits Patriot Act Used in Mayfield Case
Rukmini Callimachi
The Associated Press
04-07-2005
Ever since the FBI admitted it wrongly arrested him in connection with the Madrid train bombings, Brandon Mayfield has contended the government used the Patriot Act to search his home and gather personal information to portray him as a Muslim militant.
The Justice Department denied Mayfield's claims -- until Tuesday.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acknowledged that provisions of the controversial act were used to investigate Mayfield, a Muslim convert.
Mayfield was arrested May 6, after the FBI claimed his fingerprint matched a fingerprint found on a bag of detonators near the scene of the Madrid train bombings, in which 191 people were killed. He was freed two weeks later after the FBI admitted the fingerprints were not his.
At the congressional hearing Tuesday on whether 15 sections of the law set to expire at year's end should be renewed, Gonzales at first denied the FBI used the Patriot Act while investigating Mayfield.
"Senator, I think we have said publicly -- if not, I guess I'm saying it publicly -- that the Patriot Act was not used in connection with the Brandon Mayfield case,'' he told Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
But later, after Feinstein asked him a different question, Gonzales corrected himself: "You asked me specifically about the Mayfield case and I'm advised that there were certain provisions of the Patriot Act that apparently were used,'' he said.
Gonzales said one code from the act that was used deals with extending the duration of electronic surveillance. Another makes it easier to obtain warrants to search the private residences of U.S. citizens -- a provision that has raised concerns about constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Mayfield's attorneys and some legal experts believe the Justice Department has been reluctant to admit that the Patriot Act was used in the case for fear it would taint the image of the 2001 law as its provisions come up for reauthorization.
"This administration is more concerned with public relations than an honest scrutiny of the Patriot Act -- a law which is the most dangerous attack on civil liberties since the McCarthy era," said Elden Rosenthal, an attorney for Mayfield.
Source
Squinney, reading the article you posted, the prominent question in my mind to you is, why do you think that one misstep justifies the end of the system. There is the expression "throw the baby out with the bath water", that would adequately describe your point - if the point you're making with this article is that the Mayfield case is evidence of the Patriot Act gone wrong. The fact of the matter is, the Mayfield case is evidence that the Patriot Act works incredibly well indeed. Any investigation, of any crime, but especially the more major incidents, will turn up large numbers of false positives, dead-end leads, and mistaken suspects. It's just part of the game. In this case the Patriot Act cleared this suspect far faster than would have been the case. You see, since they searched his house, kept him under surveillance, and questioned him under Patriot Act provision, that all served to point to his innocence. When they realized the mistake with the fingerprint that was the confirmation. There are things that most certainly came up in the gumshoe police work that was done under the Patriot Act. His whereabouts, his friends and associates, his communications, that would have ultimately proved his innocence. So, if the FBI had spent weeks gathering warrants, supoenas, conducting hearings, etc, his time under suspicion would have grown exponentially.
Are you saying that the FBI should never be wrong, and if wrong, be penalized?
I think I would speak for all in the government agencies, intelligence services, and law enforcement offices, if I said, STOP WHINING! Sometimes inconveniences may have to be tolerated when attempting to apprehend terrorists, murderers, drug dealers, or other criminals who refuse to wear the cardboard "I am a violent criminal" sign that liberals assume all the legally challenged must sport.
It is so typical of the neo-liberal to spent countless man hours (on this site especially), criticizing this administration, and the intelligence agencies, for not detecting and thwarting 9/11, but then turn around and denounce and refuse authorities the added powers needed to prevent a repeat. Evidence of the conflicting, convoluted, nuanced-to-the-point-of-the-ridiculous mentality that has defeated the liberal party in every election this half of the millenium.
And, by the way Walter, I may not be the blogosphere regent resident as you are. But, to question my intelligence/investigation experience or prowess, is indicative of just how little you know past the opinion forum post-it sites. While I would never claim to be the finest operative, my day in and day out is involved in this exact field. And since I've done this same job in three different theaters, six different countries, been trained for it through military intelligence schools, the DEA academy at Quantico, and a couple of other agencies that will not be named, I find your comment to be the insipid dismissal of all the neo-liberals on this site (especially those out of country), that they use as their defense to those of opposing opinions, who actually work in the field and feel the effects of the policies that you all so whimsically suggest and promulgate.
