Paper Example on Counter-Terrorism

Introduction

The case was transferred by the Bureau of Explosives and Weapons (state agency) on 15th August 2014. It involves a suspected terrorist in downtown Minneapolis, MN. The suspect in the case is accused of constructing a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). The suspect is alleged to intend to carry out the attack within his apartment which located in downtown Minneapolis, MN.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Summary of the Evidence Data

The suspect activities were observed starting 15th January 2014. The observation of the suspected occurred for three months. The suspect purchased explosive materials from a local hardware store. Detectives from the Bureau of Explosives and Weapons (State Agency) reviewed CCTV footage around the local hardware store. The surveillance confirms that the suspect purchased explosive materials. The detectives also carried out interviews with eyewitnesses who reported to have seen the suspect walk into the local hardware store and buy the explosives. Over the cause of three months, the witnesses recorded statements indicate that the suspect bought different explosive materials at the local hardware.

Detectives from the Bureau of Explosives and Weapons (State Agency) investigation show that the suspect acquired chemicals in the period beginning 02/16/2014 and for the next four months. The suspect worked at ABC chemical plant whereby the substances were obtained. The investigations indicate that the suspect acquired small amounts of the chemicals to avoid detection by the plant's security personnel.

Further investigations by the Bureau indicate that the suspected acquired 55-gallon drums of ammonium nitrate in on 04/15/2014. The suspect was observed by the bureau's undercover field operatives report to have seen the suspect move the 55-gallon drums between the hours of 0100 and 0300. The operatives had been sent to investigate the suspect undercover this is after the suspect appeared on the antiterrorism radar.

Based on the information and data gathered by the Bureau of Explosives and Weapons (state agency on the suspect and the suspected terrorist act, the task force needs to take the matter as urgent. The threat of the actions of the suspect is high therefore require immediate attention and effort. The task force has already been provided with the data on the explosive materials purchased by the suspect, the chemicals procured as well as the 55-gallon drums of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel oil (ANFO). The information of how the suspect acquired the materials as well as detailed evidence is enough for the task force to take action. The evidence indicates that the suspect intends to use the WMD within his apartment complex. The task force has also been provided with the location of the suspected terrorist act.

The data and evidence collected on the suspect is legally admissible due to the following facts:

The PATRIOT Act signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 2001 provides for wiretaps, a search of business records and conducting surveillance of individuals suspected to be involved in terrorist activities (Doyle, 2002). The act also gives authorities the ability to share with other agencies information and data collected on an individual or an organization suspected to be involved in terrorist activities (Seamon & Gardner, 2004). The bureau conducted surveillance on the suspect for the period stated above where data on his actions was collected. The evidence can be transferred to the task force as well as can be presented in a court of law since it was obtained legally, i.e., within the provisions of the PATRIOT Act.

Reference

Doyle, C. (2002, April). The USA Patriot Act: A Sketch. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE.

Seamon, R. H., & Gardner, W. D. (2004). The Patriot Act and the wall between foreign intelligence and law enforcement. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 28, 319.