To those who claim that the Bush administration's assault on the Constitution has nothing to do with them because they "have nothing to hide," I have two words: Brandon Mayfield.

Brandon Mayfield is an American, a lawyer who lives in Oregon. He has  not been out of the country since 1994, but that did not stop the FBI from throwing him in jail. Here's the story.

Money quote: "

Fingerprint examiners at the F.B.I. erroneously linked Mr. Mayfield to the terrorist bombings in Madrid through a mistaken identification of a print taken from a plastic bag containing detonator caps that was found at the scene of the bombings. The bombings, on March 11, 2004, killed 191 people and left 2,000 injured in the deadliest terrorist attack in Europe since World War II.

Despite doubts from Spanish officials about the validity of the fingerprint match, American officials began an aggressive high-level investigation into Mr. Mayfield in the weeks after the bombings. The fact that he had represented a terrorism defendant in a child-custody case in Portland spurred further interest in him. Using expanded surveillance powers under the USA Patriot Act, the government wiretapped his conversations, conducted secret searches of his home and his law office and jailed him for two weeks as a material witness in the case before a judge threw out the case against him."

Since Michael Chertoff believes that such things as fingerprints, anything you post to the web are not private, it could happen to any of us here.



del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • TinSoldier said on Apr 18, 2008....
    Yup, pretty familiar with the Mayfield case, and pretty disturbed by it.

    Not enough to
    scream_munch


    over it, but still. I'm glad that it was straightened out, and I wish that the FBI had listened to the Spanish folks.

    I'm certainly willing to chalk it up to a combination of overzealousness and honest mistakes. Sometimes overzealousness is better than excessive caution, as was seen before 9/11. However, it is a razor's edge to walk, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    But what's this last bit about Chertoff?

    I think that he's right that anything you post to the web is not private. It may even be that your fingerprints are not private either.

    I remember hearing on the news recently about a convicted meth dealer who put up a website exposing police informants. Should she not be allowed to do that?
  • silverwhisper said on Apr 21, 2008....
    i echo TS's questions re: chertoff--it seems as though something is missing here. ?

    ed
  • lioneljay said on Apr 21, 2008....
    I can't find it, but my original source on this was an entry at Daily Kos. This entry included a link to an interview with Michael Chertoff, our cherished secretary of homeland security, in which Chertoff pointed out the obvious: that anything we post on the web is fair game for his snoops. The reason that Mr. Mayfield's case went as far as it did is that he had served as defense attorney in a case that involved an American Muslim who was accused of some act to aid and abet terrorism.

    My point, which I didn't make very clearly, I guess, was that any mixup such as a possible fingerprint match can be exacerbated by completely unrelated happenings in your life. It would have been very easy for the FBI to determine if Mr. Mayfield had been in Spain at the time of the bombing but instead they ignored this logical problem for their case and were influenced by his having defended a particular person in court.

    Many times bloc or others here have made the case that the Bush administration has made it possible for an everyday American to be locked up without cause and then denied the fundamental right of habeas corpus. Then others have derided this point by claiming that it's not a problem if you don't have anything to hide. Mr. Mayfield didn't have anything to hide either. Funny thing, though; he ended up in jail nonetheless. And for a crime that he could not have committed because he was verifiably several thousand miles away at the time.

    So what if somebody plants a bomb somewhere and his or her fingerprint resembles mine? My name comes up as a possible match (virtually all of us have had our fingerprints taken; mine was for professional licensing). Some flunkie at the FBI does a bit of internet search and sees that I've posted some anti-Bush blogs. Bingo - we've got our man. No matter that his passport record shows no departure from the country for years before the crime and none in the days or weeks since. Lock him up! He might be a terrorist.

    It could happen to any of us just as easily as it happened to Brandon Mayfield.
  • silverwhisper said on Apr 22, 2008....
    ah...OK, now i understand.

    and yes, it certainly could. i rather hope it'll happen soon to some bush apologist.

    ed
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 22, 2008....
    But situations like that could have happened before Bush was president as well. Innocent people are investigated all of the time.

    If the system works as designed then things sort themselves out.

    When an "everyday American" is actually locked up without cause and then denied their right of habeas corpus, then let me know.
  • silverwhisper said on Apr 23, 2008....
    situations like that could have happened before, yes, but given the erosion of civil liberties throughout bush the lesser's administrations, it's become considerably more likely to happen to everyday americans.

    TS, if your canary in the mines is when this happens to "everyday americans", i'd like to know who/what precisely constitutes an everyday american. b/c that may make for a good sound bite but i'm not sure it's a meaningful metric.

    ed
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 23, 2008....
    I really don't understand your question, ed.

    I'm concerned about the erosion of civil liberties. I'm just not seeing it in this case.

    What constitutes and "everyday American"? An American citizen? What else?
  • lioneljay said on Apr 23, 2008....
    TS, the example here is of a man being put in jail for no reason. Except that there was a tenuous link to an overseas terrorist action. Without the terrorist connection, there's no likelihood that Mr. Mayfield ends up in jail. As far as we know, he was not denied his right of habeas corpus, but that's not the only civil liberty on the books. Freedom from wrongful arrest is also one. My point in putting this case on display was that ordinary citizens are already being arrested for no cause - even though they have nothing to hide.

    I'm not saying that the Mayfield case proves that we've lost all our liberties. I'm just pointing to the fact that the "the only people who have to worry about the administration doing the illegal wiretapping and the false arrests are those who have something to hide" argument is pure bs. Having nothing to hide is not enough.
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 23, 2008....
    Okay, well I think that with the evidence that the FBI thought they had, they had reasonable cause to arrest Mr. Mayfield.

    I agree that the FBI should have been more thorough before actually arresting him and putting the case before a grand jury.

    Anyone who discusses civil liberties seriously, even the pro-law-and-order types, knows that "if they have nothing to hide" is a BS argument that goes against almost every point listed in the Bill of Rights.

    I don't know about you, but I've actually been accused of a crime that I didn't commit. I wasn't arrested but I still had to go through the whole investigation rigamarole. I respect the fact that the detectives were just doing their jobs, and that the truth won out.

    I think that while the FBI made a serious error in judgment in this case, if they had not been so vigorous in following up a potential lead then people would have been angry at them for not being diligent enough.

    Now, we can discuss the legality of sneak-and-peek warrants and what not...
  • lioneljay said on Apr 23, 2008....
    TS, seems to me that the very first question one asks in the investigation of a crime is if the suspect had the opportunity to commit the crime. A ten-minute search of passport records would have proven that Mayfield couldn't have been in Spain when the suspicious fingerprint was created. End of investigation. They went overboard for two reasons: 1) the global "war" on terror has created an atmosphere of fear in our law enforcement institutions (they are dread to make a mistake) and 2) they had little fear of reprisal from the general public. They were wrong on point 2.

    Absent the so-called GWOT, this case would never have happened.
  • TinSoldier said on Apr 23, 2008....
    You know, just because the passport records don't show opportunity doesn't prove anything. People can travel on false identity or move from one country to another illegally.

    I agree that if 9/11 had not happened then Mayfield may never have been charged. I can't say for sure though.

    And if you think that the authorities have little fear of reprisal when they make a mistake then I think that you are wrong. There was quite a bit of backlash regarding Mayfield here in this state.
  • lioneljay said on Apr 23, 2008....
    Fair enough, but there are so many parts of our day to day lives that are recorded these days: card transactions of all kinds. Stops at ATMs are video taped, as are visits to all manner of stores and such. Easy, easy easy to find out if someone was near home at the time of an overseas crime. They didn't do their homework because they didn't think they had to. Sure, there's been a backlash after this affair but that in no way speaks to the FBI attitude in that region beforehand.
  • silverwhisper said on Apr 24, 2008....
    TS: LJ continued my thought quite well. :>

    ed

Comment on "It Could Happen to You"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Comment Anonymously