HarmlessRabbit

This story got a bit buried in all the other current news, but it's worth pointing out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004May24.html
The bottom line: A lawyer who happened to be a convert to Islam was picked up and detained based on a couple of lousy fingerprint images. The FBI was ready to lock him up and throw away the key, but fortunately Spanish authorities weren't quite as sure, and they found the person who the fingers actually belonged too.

What's wrong with this case? The abuse of material witness warrants.

here's a good summary: http://www.rcfp.org/secretjustice/te...alwitness.html

The "material witness" classification allows law enforcement to put someone away, without justification, for as long as the trial they claim they need the witness for lasts. Even if that takes years.

In this case, it's easy to see that the FBI actually thought that Mayfield was a criminal, his prints, after all, were on some of the bomb materials. But, by using the material witness classification they were able to skirt all the normal legal protections a criminal would have and just lock him up.

It's a sad abuse of a statute that was meant to allow the police to legally detain witnesses to a crime temporarily until they could question them. Now it is being used as an end-run around the justice system.

Another story about abuses: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...1438-2002Nov23

filtherton

Freedom will be defended at the cost of civil liberties.

Asuka{eve}

I think I heard that there is a 1 in 24 million chance that someone else has a similiar finger print.

I hate crap like this.

gondath

It seems like another abuse of a loophole in the legal system by authorities. This is why laws should tend more towards being lax than restraining. Welcome to the world of the Patriot Act. Suspects are being detained in Guantanimo Bay without access to lawyers or being told what they are charged with.

onetime2

While it sucks for him and all, even an expert hired by his own lawyer agreed that the fingerprint was a match. Anything less than diligence on the FBI's part is unacceptable.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

HarmlessRabbit

I have no problem with him being detained for questioning. My problem is the use of the material witness statute in a way that wasn't intended. Technically, he could have been held for YEARS under the statute with no charges. If he instead had an arrest warrant, which would have been the appropriate way to detain him, then he would have had far more rights under the law.

onetime2

I can understand your distaste for it but given the lack of attention given to terrorist acts and the planning of terrorist acts in our laws I'm a little more forgiving of unconventional use of existing laws.

As always, the system allows for the use or abuse of some of its components until those uses can be deemed inappropriate. Illegal uses will be identified and banned through the proper channels whether they be appeals to courts, legislative remedies, etc. Hopefully our legislateive system will have a chance to address the terrorist threat between now and then.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

HarmlessRabbit

On that we can agree.

jb2000

Freedom will be defended at the price of freedom?

__________________
"Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy.
Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see."

- DTH

jb2000

I'm sorry, but I thought murder, bombings, kidnapping, assault, etc., etc., were already pretty well covered under our laws as illegal. Am I mistaken?

__________________
"Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy.
Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me.
'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see."

- DTH

filtherton

I know, it doesn't make much sense, does it.

onetime2

Have you seen what sentences convicted terrorist conspirators have gotten? Typically 4 to 7 years or so from what I've seen if they can even be convicted. Try proving conspiracy to murder when it's a tight knit group of religious zealots. Many are willing to die for their cause and somehow 7 years will change their minds or protect the public? Please.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

j8ear

I kind off agree with you too. Material witness detentions are an afront to the constitution, violate due process, and are anathma to our way of life. After all 'law enforcement' and constitutional rights are in direct conflict. One makes the other harder. (tin hat slippery slope follows/) I mean you can just go out and execute everyone who ~might~ commit a crime sometime, and that would serious reduce crime rates. Right? We should do that...in the name of freedom and security. Right after we sieze everyones tools of self defense. (/end thssp)

I don't think the material witness statute is being abused, but rather exactly as it was intended. An end run around the provision in place to protect our freedoms. They became (have always been?) burdensome and a weak constituency allowed them to be over riden.

What led you to believe that they wouldn't use it whenever it was possible?

It must be repealed imho.


-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

Not Normal

So basically we are now a society where the accused is guilty until proven innocent.

Excerpts from the NY Times article on this includes some shady activity by the FBI inside Mayfield's home...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/national/25oreg.html

May 25, 2004
Bomb Case Against Oregon Lawyer Is Rejected
By SARAH KERSHAW and ERIC LICHTBLAU

SEATTLE, May 24 -

....

The Justice Department is known to have used the [material witness] statute at least 50 times since the Sept. 11 attacks, and civil liberties advocates said Monday that the Mayfield case demonstrated the potential for abuse.

....

Mr. Mayfield said that in the weeks before his arrest he had sensed that he was being watched and that things were not quite right in the house, in the Portland suburb of Aloha, where he lives with his wife, Mona, an Egyptian immigrant, and their three children. He said a bolt on the front door had been locked, when no one in the family used it. Blinds were raised higher than usual, and there was a large footprint in the living room carpet, much larger than the shoe sizes of any of the Mayfields, he said.

"I feel that I was being surveyed or watched," he said. "Any of us sitting in this room could be subject to it. They will fiddle around with your possessions; they may take things or bring them back. People should wake up, is what I'm saying. We need to start protecting our civil liberties. You can't trade your freedom for security, because if you do, you're going to lose both."

Mr. Mayfield, a former lieutenant in the Army who was raised in a small town in Kansas, converted to Islam in 1989. He had also represented Jeffrey Leon Battle, who had been convicted of conspiring to aid the Taliban and Al Qaeda, in a custody case. He said he believed he had been investigated and arrested because he was a Muslim and because of his representation of Mr. Battle. But Karin J. Immergut, the United States attorney in Portland, said at a news conference that the investigation of Mr. Mayfield had nothing to do with his religion.

Ms. Immergut said that "although it is regrettable that the new information" about the fingerprint "came to light just now, I can assure you that we moved immediately to remedy the situation."

But questions were raised Monday about whether the F.B.I. had listened to doubts the Spaniards raised early on about the fingerprint match.

Steven T. Wax, Mr. Mayfield's lawyer and a public defender in Oregon, said: "What we know is that very early in this investigation, after the F.B.I. received the prints, the F.B.I. examiners met with Spanish fingerprint examiners and we are advised that very early on, the F.B.I. was told, 'We do not agree with your analysis, and we don't see a connection.' "Mr. Mayfield declined to say whether he was considering taking legal action against the government.

The F.B.I. said that after the Madrid attacks, it had received digital images from Spanish officials showing partial latent fingerprints from plastic bags containing detonator caps. The Spaniards asked the F.B.I. to analyze the images, and they were run through a database comparing unknown prints to millions of known prints, the F.B.I. said. Mr. Mayfield's fingerprints were on file because of his Army service.

The agency said its in-house fingerprint examiners "determined that the latent fingerprint was of value for identification purposes.''

It added, "This print was subsequently linked to Brandon Mayfield."

The bureau said the results were independently analyzed and confirmed by an outside fingerprint expert.

A motion by the Justice Department on Monday seeking the dismissal of the proceedings against Mr. Mayfield revealed additional details about the investigation and how it collapsed.

Prosecutors said that before what was thought to be a fingerprint match, Mr. Mayfield "was not under investigation and federal law enforcement authorities had no reason to believe that Mayfield had any information about the Madrid bombings."

It was the fingerprint match alone that led the F.B.I. to Mr. Mayfield, prosecutors said.

Mr. Mayfield was released last week after officials in Spain matched the fingerprint found in the bag near the Madrid bombing site with those of an Algerian. After Mr. Mayfield's release, officials said, two F.B.I. examiners traveled to Madrid to investigate the prints.

After the agents returned , they concluded that the latent print originally linked to Mr. Mayfield was "of no value for identification purposes," and it withdrew its finding of a match.

j8ear

Not at all. You are still innocent until proven guilty and all that good happy horse shit. Now, instead, guilt or innocence doesn't really matter one iota. They can hold you for as long as they want, just because of the likelyhood or even possibility that you might testify in some capacity. That's it.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.