Original sentence: If it were true that the USA PATRIOT Act were created in whole in 2001 for the sole purpose of anti-terrorism, there would be a cause for argument.In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the US PATRIOT Act being used to investigate drug trafficers.In the article is mention of a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist crimes.The USA PATRIOT Act amended the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to include search and seizure of records from Internet Service Providers.The USA PATRIOT Act is an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) from 1978, which is primarily, but not wholly, concerned with espionage and terrorism.The USA PATRIOT Act is not limited to "terrorist crimes.The USA PATRIOT Act, Section 314 is a provision to investigate money-laundering activities.The changes from FISA, to the USA Act and finally the USA PATRIOT Act are intended to increase the power of the government to fight terrorism, but not limit other provisions.The misunderstanding about the origins and purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act cause critics and uninformed to believe it is a dishonest anti-terrorism bill that has overstepped its bounds.This is not the case at all
Edited sentence: Beyond the above examples, in September 2003, the New York Times reported that a study by Congress showed hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist crimes.Legal or not, a coherent argument can still be made that making unrelated changes in what was regarded as an anti-terrorism bill is dishonest.Supporters of the Act point out that Section 314 of the act states it can be applied to "money-laundering activities" as well as terrorism.Supporters of the USA PATRIOT Act note that its scope is not limited to "terrorist crimes," and say that the Times report misconstrued the nature of many of the investigations conducted under the Act.The USA PATRIOT Act amended the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, so supporters argue that use of the Act was appropriate.This is not, strictly speaking, the case; many sections list several fields where expanded powers apply, of which terrorism is only one