Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Supreme Court rejects inmates' rights to DNA
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
While my opinion is that no innocent person should be incarcerated, and that we should make every effort to ensure their freedom if wrongly convicted,... Continue reading
0
Comments
There is a debate in the UK at the moment about DNA retention by the police. If anyone is taken into a police station, they are routinely swabbed and a sample is obtained and filed, even if they are not charged or convicted and are allowed to walk.
Many even propose that a national database should record every persons DNA with the justification that, if a person is innocent, then they have nothing to fear.
I personally think it is shocking to see the extent to which people are willing to hand their autonomy over to the state. As a doctor friend of mine, who opposes the idea, said a short while ago; "by the time we fully comprehend why we shouldn't have allowed it, it will be too late".
Our government has a record of losing confidential information. Of shamelessly misleading the public in order to pursue an illegal war. MPs and ministers across all parties have helped themselves to financial perks (some illegal) at the public's expense.
Now these guys are to be trusted with our DNA? I think not. At least the USA has a written constitution and a bill of rights against which abuses of power can be benchmarked.
Gets off soap box!
Personally, I'm against the practice of taking DNA sample from people who aren't charged or convicted of a crime. Even so, it's being done here too.
A federal judge in California, for example, ruled that police have the right to "forcibly take DNA samples, including drawing blood with a needle, from Americans who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime" (Judge: Police Can Forcibly Take DNA Samples Upon Arrest).
The U.S. government is collecting DNA samples from immigrants who've been arrested and detained as well (U.S. to collect DNA samples of arrested immigrants).
I can't say that I don't find the whole thing scary, and I completely agree with your doctor friend that "by the time we fully comprehend why we shouldn't have allowed it, it will be too late."
Jason
Hi bushinoki,
My comments on the legality of the war in Iraq were not intended to diminish the sacrifice or the contribution made by any service personnel out there. My issue is squarely with the politicians, not the military who have also been badly equipped and supported by our government.
The basis for invasion was a dodgy dossier which painted a grim picture of nuclear threat, missile capability and Saddam's dealings with terrorists. In truth Iraq was on its knees and posed no threat to anyone. Okay, a nasty dictator was removed but IMHO Bush senior missed the opportunity when he liberated Kuwait. Democratic forces rose up to help topple Saddam, only to be totally smashed when the allies withdrew. The effect was to weaken the Iraqi military but strengthen Saddam.
Bush Jr went in on the back of false information which Colin Powell was instructed to sell and Tony Blair was more than willing to play poodle.
Afghanistan is a different story. I 100% support all action there. The Taliban permitted Al Qaeda to run training camps and develop its global Jihad unhindered and in truth, it remains the front line. It was an ill omen as the giant Buddhist statues in the Bamiyan valley were blown to smithereens in March, 2001.
Most Guantanamo detainees, as I understand were lifted from Afghanistan and they were not there as tourists, that's for sure. I don't doubt that 99.9% of them were up to their necks in it. It's another matter how you follow the rule of law and your own constitution though. There will always be justification for suspending these but history has shown time and time again that those that deny (even criminals) their rights end up on the wrong side of the argument.
Namaste
And srivijaya, you are right that the public justification of the War in Iraq was shady at best. There are things re: WMD that never came to light, even though Saddam didn't have the weapons '02-'03. I will say this, that Saddam admitted to an FBI agent that while he didn't have the weapons, he feared Iran more, and so intentionally fostered the perception he had something to hide.
I wish sometimes I could say more on the subject, but Coalition lives are on the line in multiple nations, and how we found out what we know is why it's all classified. Let's just say that in the democratic west, if a politician is willing to go down in history for 25 years as "evil" or "corrupt", if not ruin his career, he probably has a good reason.
In 5 years some things are going to come to light about the Iraq war that will make you think. every five years after that, various things are going to declassify, which I urge you to watch every news source possible during those times to see what I mean.
Hi bushinoki,
Thanks for that. I'll be interested to hear about it when it does come out. I guess like any other 'joe public' I can only base my opinions on the information I have.
Namaste