Opposition:
The goal of the Patriot Act is to provide a means to protect the United States from terrorism, but some in opposition claim that the contribution the Patriot Act makes counterterrorism is not that great considering the relative burden to American citizens. For example, Brandon Mayfield of Portland, Oregon, was falsely arrested as a suspect of the 2004 Madrid terrorist bombings due to a fingerprint error and a hasty follow-up by the government. As a consequence of this, the Patriot Act allowed the government to electronically monitor Mayfield, search his house, copy his computer hard drives, and sample his DNA (Sarasohn 28). Critics of the Patriot Act hold that Mayfield was subject to injustice at the hands of a government that became too eager to find its man for the bombings. Gregory Nojeim, Associate Director of the American Civil Liberties Union, elaborates on this point: “The Mayfield case is a poster child for Patriot Act abuse. It showcases how the unchecked powers in the law can dramatically compound federal investigative efforts and result in serious civil liberties deprivations” (qtd. in “USA Patriot Act” par. 36). The point Nojeim makes is that the cost to an innocent, private citizen is far too great to justify the Patriot Act as a means for counterterrorism efforts.
Support:
Despite these attempts to defame the success of the Patriot Act in the battle against terrorism, evidence points to the contrary; the Patriot Act is essential in fighting these radicals. In “Supreme Court: Does Part of Patriot Act Violate Citizens' Rights?”, author Warren Richey finds that within ten years after the passage of the Patriot Act, around 150 people were investigated for terrorist activity, and around half of them were found guilty (par. 7). That means around 75 people who were aiding terrorism are now behind bars because of the surveillance systems in place. “USA Patriot Act” provides a specific example: in 2003, six men, coined the “Lackawanna Six” were found to have been relaying information to Al Qaeda; the only reason this was discovered was because intelligence about a foreign acquaintance of one of the men was uncovered in accordance to laws allowed by the Patriot Act (par. 40). Had the government not been able to access this information, this group of six could have caused the next 9/11. Comparisons must be drawn between the value of a tool like the Patriot Act and its dangers, but, overwhelmingly, national security must take precedence to keep the public safe.