The Usa Patriots Act
This particular case is interpreted to be USA PATRIOTIC Act case because the teen in question Ashtion Lundeby is suspected to have made bomb threats from his home in the night of February 15th. With this information in mind the FBI and local enforcement officers believed that the teen was connected to terrorist or had intentions of taking part in terrorist activities. The Act was enacted on October 23, 12001 in response to the September 11th and the anthrax attacks. The aim of the Act was to strengthen America by availing the necessary tools needed to intercept and obstruct terrorism. The Act gave the law enforcement agencies more power to investigate, indict and bring terrorists to justice. Therefore since the bomb threats were suspected to have come from the suspect’s home, the law enforcement officers believed that he was a planning a terrorist activities and thus they interpreted the case to be USA PATRIOTIC Act caseI believe that the case should not have been interpreted as a USA PATRIOTIC Act case for a number of reasons.
The first reason is that the law enforcement officers ignored the teen’s mothers’ assertion that on the night that the alleged threat was made they were in church. The law enforcement officers should have made further investigations to find out if indeed was in church as claimed. They could achieve this by interviewing some members of that church and also using technology to locate the location of the teen’s mother through her phone. They should also have done furrthe4r investigations to verify if the IP address had actually been hacked as the mother had claimed. This would have enabled them to find out if the call had actually originated form the home of the suspected teen. Having searched the home and found nothing related to bomb making or terrorist activities would also have helped the law enforcement agencies with their investigations. The balance between protections of the population with traditional civil rights in a free open society can be achieved by focusing attention on the actual enemies. A better focused intelligence should be on the actual enemies and not ordinary Americans. The war should be projected at the right places especially the leadership. Focusing on the right places will ensure that the security of Americans is protected without necessarily trampling on their traditional civil rights. Another strategy is to ensure that the good of many outweighs the personal freedom of few. Instead of curtailing the freedom of the majority compliant citizens the government should concentrate on the minority noncompliant ones. This can be done by asking the people that enter or travel to war-ton countries for personal reasons to justify the reasons because they may be traveling there for radicalization.
People that don’t have hidden agenda should not have a problem justifying there reasons for traveling and those that travel to or form such countries without the approval form 5the government should have the8ir citizenship revoked. It is far much better to suspend personal freedom of few individuals with bad intension to protect the freedom and lives of the majority innocent citizens. Creating an environment where citizens have a good relationship with the law enforcement agencies can also help in balancing between security and liberty. Terrorists and terror groups live within the communities and some of them are known. A good environment that encourages the citizens to interact with the law enforcement officers without the fear of intimidation will enable them to report any suspicious activities and movements. This will help in the collection of intelligence and it can assist the law enforcement officers to be pro-active and act early before things get out of hand. It will also help to remove such characters from the community without compromising the security and safety of many citizens and also ensuring that their freedoms and liberties are not interfered with.
Technology that shows a crime originated at a specific location is not a sufficient evidence to conduct a raid. it is true that technology can help in resolving many complex cases but it should not be used entirely in isolation. Technology can usually be manipulated using another technology. It is therefore prudent for the investigating officers to use technology together with other factors before making some decisions. For instance, in the case of the teenage boy, the teen’s mother states that on the night alleged that the bomb threat was made they were at church and not at home therefore the threat could not have emanated from their home. She also claims that the IP address was hacked which is a reality ion our daily lives today. The investigating officers should have done thorough investigations to get to know if indeed the bomb threat had come form that home before conducting a raid because it involved a very serious crime that would attract serious recursions on the suspect and the safety of the citizens of the U. S. they should also have tried to verify the truth regarding the location of the family that night by interviewing members of the church where the teen’s mother claimed they had been on the night that it is alleged the crime took place.
One of the changes on the USA PATRIOTIC Act that could correct the civil rights issues raised by such cases is to include a provision that will provide for checks and balances when applying the Act. The law enforcement agencies should have sufficient and accurate evidence that is backed by reliable technology together with other factors before conducting any raid. There should be specific facts that give reason to believe that a person is involved in crime before they can be searched and arrested.
