Your DNA or else: Police to collect your genetic material

http://news.com.com/2061-10796_3-5886598.html?part=rss&tag=5886598&subj=news

***Courtesy John Kyl and John Cornyn

The Violence Against Women Act may be about to do violence to Americans' right to privacy.

A U.S. Senate committee has adopted an amendment to the VAWA legislation that would add the DNA of anyone detained by the cops to a federal DNA database called "CODIS."

Note that it doesn't require that you're convicted of a crime or even formally arrested on suspicion of committing one. Mere detention -- might a routine traffic stop eventually qualify? -- will be sufficient for CODISification. (Current law only authorizes blood or saliva swabs and entry into CODIS for people convicted of a crime.)

Ethan Ackerman, a Washington attorney and privacy specialist, notes: " The bill grants states carte blanche to write laws allowing (DNA) collection" even "as a condition of getting a drivers license!"

I'm glad to see it. I feel there are legit concerns, but I think it's going to do more good than harm.

:hi: Thanks for the update.

Here's more from Wellstone Action: http://www.wellstone.org/swinstitute/article_detail.aspx?itemID=6563&catID=3800

But not from the government.

And, legislation that doesn't work in the favor of the people is subject to change.

I don't mind supply my DNA in hopes of keeping women/children safer personally.

and I don't agree about legislation. It would be better if we could get it right the first time without having to sue about it. I'll betting that this will be a lawsuit pretty quickly the first time someone not convicted of a crime is forced to do a DNA swab

willing? Cause that's the question here.

even if someone is only suspected of a crime or detained.

The Government has many pieces of information about me, I don't mind providing a cotton swabbing of my cheek if a greater good comes of it personally.

And as I see the question - it's as I stated to you above. Would you provide your DNA if it meant that the lives of women and children were saved?

If not, that's your perogative.

As I said, I'm willing to take a closer look at this and keep an open mind. However, provided this works as planned, I support it.

second question assuming that the first requisite was voluntary and not mandatory, the statement about "lives of women and children saved" is far too vague.

I don't suppor this, and it's intrusive to tie it to driver's licences.

I think it's an exaggeration of something that is designed to do some good.

if anyone DETAINED (not arrested) can be swabbed for DNA.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I do believe that's a violation of the user rules? And quite a cowardly one at that. If you have something to say to ME, say it to ME won't you?

And, what do you suggest we do to "fix the system" specifically?

with two posts. I figured you were monitoring this whole thread since it seems to be a cause for you so I felt no need to post another. And I don't see what I said as a violation of any rules.

I have no idea what would fix the system at this point but I know that making it mandatory instead of voluntary makes us all less free. I think anyone suggesting that this is a good thing is the cowardly one.

As for the user rules, it's against them to discuss the individuals taking part in a conversation. One is SUPPOSED to actually discuss the subject matter.

Cheers.

Wellstone was not perfect and unerring. He may have been one of the best and brightest but he was fallible, too.

Mzmolly is cheering for the very thing that will prevent VAWA from being refunded. The amendment for the DNA is a republican poison pill put there because they know neither the right nor the left wants this to happen.

The ammendment was approved of by those who voted for and sponsored it.

Co-Sponsors in the Senate:

Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Joe Biden (D-DE)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Hillary Rodham-Clinton (D-NY)
John Corzine (D-NJ)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R- UT)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
John Kerry (D-MA)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Co-Sponsors in the House:

Joe Baca (D-CA)
Spencer Bachus (R-AL)
Charlie Bass (R-NH)
Jo Bonner (R-AL)
Charles Boustany (R-LA)
Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL)
Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
Lois Capps (D-CA)
Ed Case (D-HI)
Michael Conaway (R-TX)
John Conyers (D-MI)
Jim Costa (D-CA)
Jo Ann Davis (R-VA)
Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)
Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Mark Foley (R-FL)
Kay Granger (R-TX)
Mark Green (R-WI)
Jane Harman (D-CA)
Melissa Hart (R-PA)
Stephanie Herseth (D-SD)
Henry Hyde (R-IL)
Bobby Jindal (R-LA)
Sue Kelly (R-NY)
Mark Kennedy (R-MN)
Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)
Ray LaHood (R-IL)
Rick Larsen (D-WA)
James Langevin (D-RI)
John Larson (D-CT)
Tom Latham (R-IA)
Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
Michael McCaul (R-TX)
Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Martin Meehan (D-MA)
Michael Michaud (D-ME)
Jim Moran (D-VA)
Ted Poe (R-TX)
Deborah Pryce (R-OH)
Nick Rahall (D-WV)
Dave Reichert (R-WA)
Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Pete Sessions (R-TX)
Christopher Shays (R-CT)
Louise Slaughter (D-NY)
Christopher Smith (R-NJ)
Hilda Solis (D-CA)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
Heather Wilson (R-NM)

http://www.nnedv.org/default.asp?Page=73

NOW is also onboard.

http://www.now.org/issues/violence/021705vawa.html

I guess you all have lots of calls to make?

More info here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR02876:@@@P

That vote you posted was taken in August. THis just occurred. So it's you who's got some splainin to do.

Amendment Attached to the Violence Against Women Act Would Invade the Privacy of Innocent Americans by Collecting and Storing their DNA

September 29, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


WASHINGTON - Calling the Violence Against Women Act one of the key laws protecting women from domestic violence and sexual assault, the American Civil Liberties Union today urged the Senate to reject an amendment, authored by Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and John Cornyn (R-TX), that would permit the government to collect and maintain DNA samples of individuals who are arrested or detained by federal authorities - even if they are not convicted, or even charged with a crime.

"A DNA sample contains our most private information - genetic codes and information about diseases," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "This extreme proposal would severely undermine continuing efforts to end the victimization of domestic violence survivors. Sadly, unless this poison pill amendment is removed from VAWA, the ACLU cannot endorse the underlying measure."

http://www.aclu.org/CriminalJustice/CriminalJustice.cfm?ID=19188&c=15

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.01606:

I will say it is something we must carefully oversee as others have stated. And, I will consider the ACLU position on this matter.

Violence Against Women Act Passes Senate Judiciary Committee with Amendment
Feminist Daily News Wire
Thursday 08 September 2005

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a mark-up of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization today. The bill, which expires on September 30, passed out of committee, but an amendment was added that could prevent or delay its passage by the full Senate.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/printer_090905WA.shtml

Republicans have been trying to kill VAWA for years and you're helping them.

was introduced.

I guess we could focus on some good news:

Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), chair of the Judiciary Committee, and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) pledged to try to work out a compromise on the amendment before the bill reaches the floor, which is expected before the end of the month.

As I said some time ago, the ammendment in it's current state will not likely stand as both parties will find fault. But, I support the greater idea and I support VAWA.

Violence Against Women Act Passes Senate Judiciary Committee with Amendment

Feminist Daily News Wire
Thursday 08 September 2005

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a mark-up of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization today. The bill, which expires on September 30, passed out of committee, but an amendment was added that could prevent or delay its passage by the full Senate.

From Kyl's own freakin web site:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 8, 2005


CONTACT:
Scot Montrey (202) 224-2206 or Andrew Wilder (202) 224-7705

Judiciary Committee Adds Kyl DNA Bill to Violence Against Women Act
Amendment Would Remove Barriers to Maintaining Data from Criminal Arrests


WASHINGTON, D.C. - An amendment sponsored by U.S. Senator Jon Kyl that would improve the use of DNA to catch violent criminals was added to the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 today by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=245432

posted. The thread was started to discuss this ammendment introduced on 7/29/2005. Check the original article, cause that's what were supposed to be discussing.

Click on the word "ammendment" here: http://news.com.com/2061-10796_3-5886598.html?part=rss&tag=5886598&subj=news

S.1606

Title: A bill to establish an opt-out system for expungement of DNA profiles from the national index and to authorize collection of DNA samples from persons arrested or detained under Federal authority.
Sponsor: Sen Kyl, Jon (introduced 7/29/2005)

I'm with you. Seems to me that the whole "We Have to Give Up Our Freedoms To Keep Us Safer" is the Republican view.

gives me the willies. I swear we as a country are becoming our own worse nightmare sometimes with this shit. I try to imagine what the future will be like and I can't even picture anything I currently know.

sponsored this bill.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR02876:@@@P

America Haters that think that Taser Guns can't kill.

:eyes:

:eyes:

and I fully understand why you may be.

I however am hopeful that this will be a positive for women/children in the long run. However, as others have stated, it's something citizens must keep a close eye on.

:hi:

The US Department of Hehealth & Human Services-

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cmreports.htm

WOMEN are by far the most likely Abusers of children. Soooo perhaps monitoring mothers (video cams monitoring every room of every home)is where the most State effort should be placed if welfare of children is the goal. Sounds silly/intrusive/wacked????? Well thats because it is......... Just like gathering the DNA of innocent men. SAYING a Policy is 'for the Children' is no guarantee that the Policy is not unjust, wicked or even real life harmful to kids.

But I've seen this propaganda before. Women are often single parents for the record.

Most arguments against this appear to be strawmen. I haven't heard many valid concerns only "what if's?" Hey, what if we stopped finger printing anyone and abolished jails and police departments? :eyes:

By the way DNA samples will collected from men and women.

Don't start with those sexist arguements that say only men do bad things, OK?!? :eyes: That is the same crap I hear from "Parasites" Oprah and Dr. Phil. :puke:

:hi:

to frame you for a crime would have a readily available DNA sample?

"Would you provide your DNA so that women and children would be saved" is a fallacious argument, predicated on the idea that everyone who gives a sample stands an equal chance of committing a rape or murder. Obviously, this is not the case. What does the government need a sample of MY DNA for? I'm not a rapist or murderer. By creating a national database of DNA samples, a precedent of sorts is established. Would your life insurance company be allowed to peek at your genetic code, and see what diseases you're susceptible to? As you can see, there is more at issue here than "saving lives".

You're supporting opening Pandora's Box, in my not-so-humble opinion.

MojoXN

going to be framed for a crime you did not commit and/or your insurance company will deny you coverage based upon your DNA sample, and your calling my position fallacious?

Hate to break it to people but Insurance companies can request health data currently.

And, if DNA can predict future health issues I'd like to know where I can have mine analyzed.

And, if DNA can predict future health issues I'd like to know where I can have mine analyzed.
---

even if this means that you have a hard time getting heath insurance because of preexisting conditions?

Can you show me where this has happened in the past? There certainly is alot of talk about being denied insurance based on DNA, but I can't find any indication that has ever happened.

I'll be glad to reconsider if it has.

People, throughout history, have sacrificed their lives to gain the freedom to exercise their human rights, one of which is privacy. (Remember 'privacy'? That's the basis of Roe v. Wade.)

Millions and millions of people have sacrificed their lives to gain those freedoms for their neighbors and for their children.

People, by the millions and millions, DON'T sacrifice their freedoms to save a few lives. If they did, they'd stop driving!

A free society is NOT a 'safe' society. Graves are 'safe.' Mausoleums are 'safe.' Life has risks.

How specifically are you less free because of this legislation?

Is your address on your drivers license? How bout your height/weight. Those are very private pieces of info, and I don't see anyone here screaming a lack of privacy about that. In fact for some time any fool with 5$ could go to our local DMV and find out where I lived if he took down my license plate number.

Sorry, but frankly I feel far more vulnerable providing my name and address, credit card number to the strangers who work at Walmart then I do providing my DNA information to a secure national data base.

An aside: in my banking career I was asked to testify against a dangerous felon. After inquiring I was told that he would have access to my name, address and personal information - as that would be presented in court and to his attorney's. I worked in a secured building at the time and basically hid from those attempting to subpoena me so my privacy would remain in tact. Again, where is the uproar over that!? Apparently it's ok for criminals to have my personal information (for freedom sake) but not for the government to have a bit of my DNA in a national database? :eyes:

I would hope that those who have fought for freedom over the years would have included WOMEN AND CHILDREN in their quest.

Amazing. :eyes:

And, we have one of those already.

As I said, I'm much more threatened by the things I mentioned previously.

This legislation currently suggests gathering DNA from people who are arrested for a crime (not just convicted.) At present, we finger print people in such instances. And, as I see it, DNA is simply another means of identification.

I believe it is a valid concern that states may abuse this legislation and force those wishing to obtain a drivers license to submit to a DNA sample. I personally don't see that happening as doing such a thing would simply cost too much politically and financially.

Ignoring for a moment that one privacy intursion doesn't apologize yet another privacy intrusion or that there's a significant difference between a purely superficial, physical characteristic and the extraction of biological information, DNA collection is potentially the single most intrusive act yet proposed.

Even when such identifiers are collected in concert with some due process when a crime is committed, I have some serious objections to a penalty that becomes a LIFETIME penalty after the individual has served all other sentences for a 'crime' that may be minor and also VICTIMLESS.

Does that make me some kind of civil libertarian? I guess so. :shrug:

Imagine the day when we have national health care. Will it then be a "crime against society" to have the 'wrong' DNA?

that will be used against people.

I honestly think what were experiencing here is a bit of future shock. There seem to be many science fictionesque arguments against collecting DNA as opposed to finger prints.

I do respect your opinion TN.

With that I shall close.

Peace

your every move, would you be OK with that? We could even get rid of cash then. Just swipe your implanted chip.

You are so falling into big brother's trap.

molesters after using the national DNA data base to convict them.

:hi:

If Big Brother can help save the lives of women and children, bravo for him! It's about damn time Big Brother did us women some good I say.

;)

And you are willing to give up your last vestiges of freedom.

Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.

Benjamin Franklin

freedom frankly.

As a women in this society, I don't currently share your particular freedoms and this legislation, will actually afford me a bit more of that "freedom" thing.

However I will not say your concerns are invalid. I realize my position here is likely unpopular as well.

is released to the insurance industry "for the good of the country" and they discover two, or three "pre-existing conditions" that would result in your being un-insurable? Would that be ok?

DNA is MUCH more invasive than a fingerprint, or a glance at a driver license..

DNA swabbing is not akin to a blood sample. If that is the method of gathering DNA, I don't support it.

Also, Insurance companies often require physical exams and refuse covering those with pre-existing conditions.

regardless of the method of delivery or collection. DNA collection would be so easy to misuse. It is indeed the final vestige of freedom to have to give up your DNA. I don't know why you can't realize that.

I am not, and I don't belive it's easy to do so without a vile of it.

Haven't you seen enough of the abuses one megalomaniac and his followers have rained down in the last 5 years. Let's just trust the government, shall we? :sarcasm:

It's a waste of time to argue with you on this any longer if you refuse to see the abuses that could come of this even tho others have clearly spelled them out for you.

And, I take heart that I am in agreement with many good people:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR02876:@@@P

Inluding the honorable John Conyers, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy and so on.

If the DMV and no-fly lists are any gauge of govt accuracy, can we really trust them to process DNA?

but on a much smaller scale.

The theoretical befenits of this legislation to help me and my own child are unproven, but it is a great thing for the currently-in-power fascists to have in place to control every citizen, male and female, in ways we can't even imagine yet.

This is a republican poison pill amendment to sink funding for VAWA. It has nothing to do with protecting anybody and even if it did, it is still unconstitutional and should not be passed.

http://www.wellstone.org/network/article_detail.aspx?itemID=5463&catID=4767

What I fear is the group think I see taking part here without most people even bothering to read the legislation.

to gather DNA info in a data warehouse is someone to fear, yes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4948108&mesg_id=4948607

To collect DNA from anyone detained or arrested goes too far. The logical conclusion of your argument (as I understand it, you say that putting DNA in a data warehouse in order to be referred to when DNA evidence in sex assault cases is available is justified because that evidence will convict a suspect, am I right?) would be to collect DNA from everybody. I don't understand why you don't see why this is too much power for the powermongers.

have a vote no this but Conyers, Boxer and others did. And, they voted to revew VAWA with the ammendment.

I suggest you call them with your concerns.

I've said on several occassions how I envision this working - check the thread.

Given that I have never committed a violent crime, nor will I do so in the future it seems to me that the State has absolutely no legitimate need to add me to a DNA database. No person is helped and I am placed at the mercy of corrupt or incompetent Government technicians in the future.

Don't get arrested and you'll likely not have to submit to DNA or finger prints for that matter.

;)

Only detained. When a cop makes a traffic stop, you are being detained.

But, I doubt that traffic cops will start swabbing us for DNA. As I said, if nothing else it's a matter of economics.

I think it will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

but you can bet anyone that gets pulled over for driving while black in the cities will be the first to get swabbed.

Also, anytime there is a high profile crime, police will be falling over themselves to DNA check everyone in the neighborhood.

As far as economics go, we've been throwing homeland security money at every police department in the nation. I doubt if any department would refuse a grant to do this testing.

I hope it will not come to such a thing. And, I doubt it will, but we're likely about to find out.

"Don't get arrested"... Yeah, we all know how only the gulity are ever arrested...

If you are in the military, they have your DNA. The idea behind that is so they can figure out if that chunk of charred flesh in the road belongs to you...

It's not optional, either--it is a direct order, and one must obey it.

be finger printed. I also worked for the Government part time in High School, and was printed. So, I've been finger printed on numerous occassions.

I'm off to bed ya'll.

Night.

This extends that notion to everyone detained by the police, regardless of why.

mystery.

I do understand your concern, but again as a person of the non-white male persuasion, I see this a step toward equality in a sense. It's a bit of balance from my perspective.

For what it's worth, I really doubt that this portion of the legislation will remain in tact because those on the left and the "right" will take issue.

keep them safer or save their lives? Your posts aren't very clear, but they are dramatic.

Now let's address those who have harmed women and children.

Sorry but rape is a dramatic subject matter.

you are saying it wouldn't?

No argument that rape is a dramatic subject. Let the drug convicts out of jail, incarcerate the rapists and never let them back out. They can feed on one another.

But I don't want my DNA on file, especially if I were never convicted of a crime, simply so some prosecuter can compare it to whatever showed up in a rape kit. Not to say that a woman who got raped is going to have an easy time of it, but imagine the poor person who shows a 'match' only to find out later that they made a mistake (and we all know mistakes happen, even more so in bureaucracies, so please don't tell me that it's foolproof.) Even transposing the last 2 numbers that ID'd a sample could falsely point the finger at the wrong person - ruining several lives in addition to the rape victim.

Peace

but only suspected or detained. And then that DNA evidence kept in a central database. That's not good.

:P

As I said as a women who knows many women who've been victimized in the most brutal of ways, I'm glad to see this legislation.

I can understand your concern though.

I feel this legislation is pro-active and may disuade some from victimizing the vulnerable in our society?

When I think of the secretive and almost certainly improper use of other national registries (like the no-fly lists), the recent stories of corruption/criminality in various crime labs around the country, and my general distrust of the current administration, I feel like this DNA registry has the potential to be a massive disaster. (Quite apart from my personal opinion that it punishes people who haven't been convicted - like those confiscation laws - and seems to be a form of unreasonable search.)

I can understand why you'd feel as you do.

I am optimistic of course that this piece of legislation will have a more positive then negative effect personally.

If it is a system that becomes abused, or I hear a sound scientific argument against it, I may reconsider my position. But, in all honesty the victimization of women hits very close to home for me and it's hard not to embrace this possible deterrent.

The concerns are valid.

It hits close to home for me, too, and I'm all for anything that helps protect women better. CODIS is a reputable database from what I've heard.

I'm not overly concerned about this, but it's worth keeping a skeptical eye on.

Definitely something to keep an eye on.

I think honestly it's a bit of a paradigm shift from women/children being vulnerable to grown men? I can understand why people would have trepidation.

:popcorn:

But, it is a bit "big brother-esque."

I am hopefull the overall impact will be a positive one however.

:hide:

The government has no business doing DNA collection from those who have not committed a crime.

The government has my medical records if they want them. As a non-criminal I remain mainly unconcerned about providing my DNA, as I understand the greater cause.

I can't say I don't have ANY misgivings, however as I do. I simply think the pro's outweight the cons.

forward to seeing lawsuits about this.

in which they are vulnerable, I am heartened.

I think what's happened with this portion of VAWA, is that perhaps white males are now feeling somewhat vulnerable? And, I'm certain that's a bit unfamiliar and uncomfortable for many.

I don't feel we have that much privacy as it is, so I don't see this as a huge deal. I'm far more concerned that a person can be detained without an attorney in this country for an undetermined period of time personally.

I do hope that this legislation will not be abused, however.

the track record of this government shows that once you open the door to abuse, someone will.

I see privacy as a huge deal, precisely because of the inroads into it that some people take from granted.

being vulnerable in our society to men being a bit more so.

I can't say I don't have mixed feelings, but as a parent/woman I'm far more comforted by this direction then I am fearful. Additionally, as you know many people are wrongly accused and released when DNA is examined, thus I feel that this may lead to LESS abuse in many ways.

I will say I very much respect your position. I am certain the ACLU won't be pleased about this, and I support them in most cases.

Peace

is fast becoming a police state. The Bush gov't has shown repeatedly it has no interest in protecting the citizens of this country from anything. Katrina and 9/11 demonstrated this so I don't believe this measure is for protection. What if I'm detained during a protest march? I have to give my DNA? Nope, I'll even donate to the ACLU to fight this.

It already HAS been a police state.

Look at all the men in Illinois who were exonerated, to use just one notorious example.

Read some history books - America's cities have already been a police state for at least a century and a half....only for some people who haven't had much east coast media access, I take it....

never fly once people "get it." There will be Dems and Pukes on the same side fighting this tooth and nail.

n/t

Where have I heard that before....

and place blood on a great big absorbent card (there's a large circle on it where you place your finger).

think that's a huge deal. But, I'd certainly prefer blood not be used at all.

I don't mind the DNA being taken when it's used to link suspects to other crimes. Being able to do it for no reason is a big concern and that opens it up for abuse.

I don't like that this was buried in the Violence Against Women Act, but politicians have a tendency to bury these things and the general public is largely unaware.

This needs to be stopped.

the value of a database with (eventually) everyone's DNA on file will be a financial boon to some private corporations who've used the law to conquer more 'land' (DNA) located within the cellular borders of each and every citizen. Imagine the greedy hands of Monsanto-like clones first getting this data, then later manipulating it to serve their ends.

I bet they'll have no trouble protecting their private interests and intellectual property. They'll probably 'hire' (ahem--donate to) a few legislators and hire some lobbyists, too, for the task of advocating both for the conquest, and later, the protection thereof.

authoritarian feminism becomes the ally of fascism. First Andrea Dworkin and her outrageous alliance with the JesuNazis to fight "pornography" (an alliance enthusiastically endorsed by Catharine MacKinnon and her freedom-is-slavery opposition to the Bill of Rights), now this: further nullification of the protections guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth amendments. What's next? Mandatory drug testing of the whole population? DNA collection at birth?

This would be bad enough in a dependably free society with an incorruptible legal system, but in the fascist state the U.S. is becoming under Bush and the corporations he serves, it's precisely the tool the police need to frame any protester or dissident for any crime imaginable.

As to authoritarian feminism's alliance with fascism generally, in the form of a feminist/Christian Fundamentalist united front it has already given us what the American Civil Liberties Union labeled the most draconian censorship law in U.S. history: an "anti-pornography" initiative passed overwhelmingly by the voters of Bellingham, Washington in 1988 -- so intrusive it permitted police to search even private libraries and art collections for offending material, so zero-tolerance strict it prohibited male participation in college art classes that employed nude female models: Dworkin had repeatedly stated it is an act of rape for a male to even look upon a nude female. The measure was (of course) written by Bill-of-Rights enemy MacKinnon, and the campaign on its behalf was run (of course) by Dworkin herself and a collection of Christofascist preachers -- in terms of the associated vandalism (including the spray-painting of "porn store" on shops that sold Playboy and even Esquire), then the most violent political campaign in Bellingham's history: not surprising considering the censorship-advocates' book-burner mentality. Thank all the pagan gods that are, the Washington State Supreme Court stepped in immediately after the election and voided the law. (Unfortunately you won't find any of this history on the Internet; in the past couple of years it has all been swept down the Orwellian memory hole. I know the history because, as an ACLU member, I was one of the initiative's opponents.)

Liberty is always fragile, and American liberty has never been in anything approaching the jeopardy it's in today. The forces of oppression have long been seeking mandatory DNA sampling -- the doorway to forcible DNA testing at birth for everyone and the police ability to arbitrarily convict anyone of anything. The very last thing we on the Left need is some of our own joining hands with the fascists.

By the way, I scanned the entire Wellstone site and though I found the predictable support for the Violence Against Women Act in general and the undeniable need for its renewal, I could not find a single word in support of mandatory DNA collection -- which leaves me wondering if the Wellstone people (who are typically fierce defenders of constitutional freedom), are even aware the DNA provision has been added to the bill. Sneaking the DNA collection requirement into such vital legislation is typical of the present-day corporate/fascist campaign against liberty: use a Left/liberal cause as a cover for oppression, then blame the Democrats when the velvet slipper falls away to reveal the jackboot beneath.

I forget where, but I read the GOP was slipping a poison pill into VAWA, so it doesn't surprise me the Wellstone site gives its approval of VAWA and doesn't mention the DNA collection

Well said! Here in Az. every police officer has a finger print kit they carry in their vehicles now. It is policy for them to ask EVERY person they pull over to submit to finger printing. I'm sure a lot of people getting pulled over prescribe to the "I'm helping" mentality...and "besides, I have nothing to hide" mentality, so they submit their prints.
But you're right, all this info can be used AGAINST innocent people.

So, if I get pulled over for making a wide left turn (which I have in the past) I may be asked to give my prints! What most people don't know though is that giving prints is not mandatory...yet. They sold this bullshit to the public after a few weeks of reporting EVERY identification fraud scandal they could drum up...to me it was so fucking obvious.
Anyhow if they think they're getting any DNA from me they better be ready to knock my ass out! It's not gonna happen!

Like "I'm going to search your car now, OK?"

Many people have no idea that they "consented" to a search.

I can't believe they are fingerprinting drivers in Az. That is disgusting!

mandatory DNA collection. The attorneys who fear so called "authoritarian feminism" tossed out that strawman as a so called possibility.

Authoritarian Feminism??? Don't you mean "Feminazism."

It's very heartening to see the bond of PORN bring men on the left and right together in their quest for freedom. :eyes:

Some food for thought:

1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.

61% of all rape cases are victims less than 18 years old. 22% are between the ages of 18 and 24.

Only 16% of rapes are ever reported to the police. In a survey of victims who did not report rape or attempted rape to the police, the following was found as to why no report was made: 43% thought nothing could be done, 27% felt it was a private matter, 12% were afraid of police response, and 12% felt it was not important enough.


I don't have the stomach to post statistics on child victims, but I would ask if women and children are FREE in a society such as this?

I will close by posting the First Ammendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Somehow I doubt PORN was the larger concern of our fore fathers. I also find it very interesting that you took the time to mention porn in this thread? This thread is not about prohibiting your right to view pornography. But, I do find it interesting that you made the connection between the victimization of women/children and pornography.

I think this mandatory DNA provision is utterly unconstitutional and is BS. It will not stop one rapist and even if it could, it's not worth the price tag. Sorry.

But I will say this is not about mandatory DNA collection #1. That is a strawman, it's about allowing the DNA collection of people who are arrested vs. only convicted of a crime. Currently such people are finger printed anyhow. This is simply another means of identification.

Agreed this will likely not deter a FIRST offense, but it will mean less future victims of a rapist who's placed in jail because his DNA is on file and he's nabbed.

The average rapist doesn't stop until they are apprehended.

The presumption of innocence exists because many people are arrested who are not guilty. And the reasons rape convictions are so few and far between is because of the reasons you cited in an earlier post. Mostly because women don't report them or wait until DNA evidence is lost, so it doesn't improve matters if there is a DNA database.

I won't post my personal story either. It's not germane anyway. As TAhiti Nut said in an earlier post, I want to live in a free society, there is no guarantee of safety in a free society. I feel more victimized by unchecked government power than by the man who raped me.

;) Heck they lose the stuff anyway.

In all seriousness, I believe Women might report more rapes in a society where they feel supported. Further, many women who do report live in constant fear because the person who victimized them remains at large. Women don't report often times because they are afraid. I hope legislation like this will be a step toward empowering victims. And, I hope that it will be a step toward LESS victims.

Further, I was printed because I wanted to work for a certain company. I wasn't arrested for anything.

People are finger printed under many circumstances, DNA is simply another form of "printing" as I see it.

I do respect your position on this matter as I've said to others.

:hi:

Only 16% of rapes are ever reported to the police. In a survey of victims who did not report rape or attempted rape to the police, the following was found as to why no report was made: 43% thought nothing could be done, 27% felt it was a private matter, 12% were afraid of police response, and 12% felt it was not important enough.

A database will not have an effect on any of these stats, and even if it did, it doesn't mean we should stomp all over the constitutional rights of our fellow citizens. DNA is a lot more intrusive and reveals a great deal more than fingerprints. It can be used in ways that would make us vulnerable to much worse things than sexual violence.

I hope it goes down in flames. :hi:

I hope it's successful in making women/children less vulnerable.

But, I respect your right to disagree MMA.

:hi:

And the whole 'save the women and children from harm' rationale is just a bogus attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

here, I will be.

Here's how it will lead to more arrests.

A person who is a rape victim goes in for an exam and DNA is routinely collected. That DNA is run by the data base and a match is found.

It's quite simple, and I don't think in the least bit unjustified. Fingerprints are used in this manner all the time.

When I read the legislation I envisioned this act working as such:

A rape suspect who is picked up - currently may be released due to a lack of evidence. With this legislation they can gather DNA before making an arrest which can become evidence. I don't foresee the mass abuse that others fear. If this works as designed, it can be a positive thing IMHO.

An aside regarding the "save the women and children excuse."
I am certain that Wellstone Action read the legislation before putting their name behind it, no matter how many people here would LIKE to believe something to the contrary. And, I have no personal agenda other than to see people (especially women and children) become less likely victims of crime.

Show me where it says they approve of DNA collection for all persons detained by police, which is a republican poison pill put in to prevent VAWA from passing.

Most rape victims don't report it and the majority of rapes are done by acquaintances. It won't change the fact that women won't come forward and report it. Your logic is the same used by fundies to take away my reproductive rights. We must do this to protect the weakest among us.

No thanks.

people to contact their legislators.

Puleeze, don't equate me to an anti-choice zealot, it's yet another straw man.

I fail to see how your personal life is deeply effected because you might have a pin prick or some saliva swiped on a fargen q-tip someday? And, I would venture to guess YOU will never have to subject yourself to such an "intrusion" in spite of all the bogeyman analogies here.

As for Wellstone Action their position is quite clear:

http://www.wellstone.org/network/issue_page.aspx?catID=4767

"Specifically, Wellstone Action will be working to build the movement against domestic violence by encouraging our members to raise their voices in support of the Violence Against Women Act, both by lobbying legislators and within their own communities. Be part of the movement to strengthen VAWA in 2005!"

in its original form. It does not support a republican poison pill. If VAWA fails to be refunded it will be because of this unconstitutional amendment. If that's the case many, many more women are going to suffer and yet you cheerlead for the very thing that will prevent the gains women have made since VAWA first passed years ago. Hello!

I fail to see how your personal life is deeply effected because you might have a pin prick or some saliva swiped on a fargen q-tip someday? And, I would venture to guess YOU will never have to subject yourself to such an "intrusion" in spite of all the bogeyman analogies here."

You fail to see a great many things. And despite your denials, this is the same argument anti-choicers make to take away my right to make decisions about my life and choices.

VAWA act, but his son certainly does.

I can also show you who co-sponsored VAWA 2005 in congress alone:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR02876:@@@P

And in the senate:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN01197:@@@P

You may want to check the related bills as well.

You just keep digging and digging....The vote took place in August before the poison pill was put in.

ACLU Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Regarding The Violence Against Women Act of 2005

September 29, 2005

We support many of the provisions in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 2005, S. 1197, particularly those measures aimed at broadening services and outreach to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. VAWA is one of the most effective pieces of legislation enacted to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It has dramatically improved the law enforcement response to violence against women and has provided critical services necessary to support women and children in their struggle to overcome abusive situations. Because VAWA remains an essential tool for combating domestic violence, it is important for Congress to continue the programs established under the 1994 VAWA and build on the success of the law. The Violence Against Women Act of 2005 improves current law in several important ways. It would broaden services and outreach to victims of domestic violence; enhance victims’ privacy protections; expand housing and economic options; provide immigration protections to victims; and improve economic security for victims.

However, we strongly object to the DNA provisions added to S.1197 during the committee mark-up. This amendment raises important questions concerning the constitutionality of compelling thousands of arrestees and detainees to submit samples of biological materials for analysis and inclusion in the Combined DNA Index System (“CODIS”), a nationwide DNA database operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Given the serious nature of the DNA amendment and the widespread implications we are withdrawing our support for VAWA at this time.

http://www.aclu.org/CriminalJustice/CriminalJustice.cfm?ID=19185&c=15

eom

Poison pill amendment Sept. 8th.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/printer_090905WA.shtml

You're on quite a roll.

government database. The truthout article states it was "upheld" on 9/8.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 8, 2005


CONTACT:
Scot Montrey (202) 224-2206 or Andrew Wilder (202) 224-7705

Judiciary Committee Adds Kyl DNA Bill to Violence Against Women Act
Amendment Would Remove Barriers to Maintaining Data from Criminal Arrests


WASHINGTON, D.C. - An amendment sponsored by U.S. Senator Jon Kyl that would improve the use of DNA to catch violent criminals was added to the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 today by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=245432

And try to discuss the matter in a civil tone ey?

amendments. He said Sept. 8th and I'm taking his word on it.

Oh, and who is being uncivil? Incredulous? Definitely. I usually have that reaction when somebody refutes a proven fact.

And I checked your link too. Here's what it says:

Latest Major Action: 7/29/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

It was read and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on 7/29 but wasn't added as an amendment until 9/8 which means that all those dems that you claim support this amendment voted on a bill which did not contain it.

Sheesh. Your own source proved you wrong.

won't likely fly in the final form, because both parties will take issue.

And, I stated I understood that there are valid concerns with this issue and that I respected the opinion of those who did not agree.

It was read and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on 7/29 but wasn't added as an amendment until 9/8 which means that all those dems that you claim support this amendment voted on a bill which did not contain it.

I said the dems I noted supported VAWA, and there are groups who oppose IT as "anti-freedpm" with or without the added ammendment.

and dems supported this amendment every bit as much as you did. The only co-sponsor of this bill is another wingnut Cornyn. From your own posts upthread. (134& 143) :eyes:

The ammendment was approved of by those who voted for and sponsored it.

Co-Sponsors in the Senate:

Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Joe Biden (D-DE)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Hillary Rodham-Clinton (D-NY)
John Corzine (D-NJ)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Mike DeWine (R-OH)
Chris Dodd (D-CT)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin Hatch (R- UT)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
John Kerry (D-MA)
Herb Kohl (D-WI)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

And that I supported vAWA with or without the legislation in question.

You said these dems supported and cosponsored the amendment. You have been utilizing the argumentum ad populum fallacy throughout this thread to shout down those who disagree with you.

I'm the one who pointed out the distinction that support for VAWA has nothing to do with support for this filthy, fascist amendment. You're now trying to say you're the one who made the distinction all the while you've quite blatantly been trying to conflate the two throughout this entire discussion.

It's the same conflation of Saddam Sept. 11th that Bush used to declare war on Iraq.

I also said that I support VAWA with or without the ammendment period.

I have company arriving, but will check back later.

which is that they supported and co-sponsored the amendment and you used that to try and justify your position.

Enjoy your company. We'll miss you here.

I said "ammendment" as opposed to "bill" I guess you got me. :eyes:

enjoys wide support to bolster your position thoughout this thread. If VAWA doesn't pass, it will be because of this amendment which you fully and enthusiastically support but which is so blatantly unconstitutional that the right and left for once will be united against it.

Oh, and if it does, I'm sure the funding that supports women who are victims of domestic and sexual violence will be funnelled into this massive database project of dubious benefit to anybody but republican corporate donors. :eyes:

And, I can't see all the uproar after looking this over noting it has one cosponsor.

My position is/was that I respect VAWA and it's DEM supporters. I trust their judgement and will await the final verdict. I suppport VAWA with or without this ammendment and can see some positives if it passes.

attention, you said, "I can't see all the uproar after looking this over noting it has one cosponsor."

However, you're the one who very erroneously stated that this amendment had the support of Wellstone Action and a majority of Dems. Had you not repeatedly made that assertion to bolster your very unpopular stance supporting the DNA database, it wouldn't have caused and uproar.

prove as much.

And I'd ask you to note the thread title when speaking about the so called uproar:

"Your DNA or else: Police to collect your genetic material" :scared:

As you've stated the title is not quite accurate at this point is it?

A more accurate title might have been, "Will VAWA pass in full with new add on legislation?"

Note that I indicated that this would not likely fly in it's current state but that I am not opposed to giving it a whirl. See my post #42:

For what it's worth, I really doubt that this portion of the legislation will remain in tact because those on the left and the "right" will take issue.

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4948108&mesg_id=4950408

For a little perspective, here is what I'm used to dealing with regarding VAWA:

http://www.womenssupport.org/news/issue1111.html



So you see, I know people personally who are opposed to VAWA without the so called "poison pill" so I apologize for being confused about the agenda here, and for being over-zealous and even rude at times.

Multi tasking and DU don't always mix.

Peace

Besides the HUGE potential for abuse of the DNA database.

The great thing about America is supposed to be freedom and liberty. Even the liberty to commit a crime.

Our ability to move freely, exchange cash for goods and services, to arm ourselves, and yes to commit crime is what has kept us free from tyranny for over 200 years. The fear of a citizens revolt is the ONLY thing that has kept our government in check. Our founding fathers knew this, which is why we have our bill of rights.

If this DNA testing were ever upheld by the supreme court, it would certainly make the 4th amendment null and void. Not to mention the implied right to privacy, which is the basis for Roe Vs. Wade.

If the government has the right to take a DNA sample without justification, then where does that leave Roe? What basis can be found to uphold the right to abortion if we do not have the right to be left alone in our personal affairs?

A rape suspect who is picked up - currently may be released due to a lack of evidence. With this legislation they can gather DNA before making an arrest which can become evidence. I don't foresee the mass abuse that others fear. If this works as designed, it can be a positive thing IMHO.

If there is any probable cause that this person is suspect, then it is easy enough to get a court ordered DNA test today. There is absolutely no reason to effectively track the DNA of ALL Americans.

But you have nothing to hide...

So, tell me....how 'free' are you if someone can lay claim to your body or, (to put it in terms that might help 'some people' understand better) your property? Hey, did you hear that ladies? 'Shit happens'! I mean, it's not like corporate America is contracting these things or anything...oh no, let's not go there!

Dualism....hmmm, subversive reactionaries (those who would seek to poison the idea of liberty by subverting from within the institutions of liberty) often make the 'you can take your pick' argument. 'Shit', i.e. 'rape' happens....

This misogynist argument goes something like this: it's more important to have 'freedom' than to have 'safety', implying that women can't have both, and what's a rape or two in the large scheme of things.

Rape is not just a 'security' issue, it's a privacy issue. Does the ACLU not take an interest in privacy issues as well?

For your information, I was raped, too. It was a hired hit, too, by someone who publicly claims to be a guardian of 'free press'. I don't particularly care people who use the fact that 'they were raped' to subtly intimate that other rape victims should be willing to 'pay the price' to live in a 'free' society - because that is what you are essentially arguing, with your curious 'I'd rather be raped than censored' argument. Please. Try again. I'm sorry...but as a rape victim, I'm really confused as to why you feel the need to pit rape vs. the right to read porn. Nobody said anything about pornography before you went on your paranoid 'authoritarian feminism' rant. If you rape someone enough, or control someone enough, they ARE essentially a 'slave', like the Ivy boys back east like to make of troublesome women....and don't you dare deny it, you hired flack. Don't speak for everyone...at this point, I'm begging for the government to take my DNA, with all of the shit I've been given. Don't you DARE shove your ugly, ugly, deliberate PR right under my nose where you KNOW I will read it.

:grr:

And I wouldn't bring up 'authoritarian feminism' if I were you. I personally am piling up LOADS of evidence on the stalking 'games' some corporate MEN back east (or their 'point men' in 'flyover' country) like to play on unsuspecting women. 'Authoritarian feminist' society, MY ASS. It appears that a lot of middle-aged men on Wall Street have a little problem with women going to college, or with having to share the workforce with women. If you don't believe me, check with your local fraternity or all-male 'secret society'. Are you covering for them - or WHAT?

Rape is a privacy issue. Maybe those paranoid MEN who think that merely raising the issue of rape is a threat to their 'freedom' ought to recognize that.

:grr:


For what it's worth - and I'm sorry I even have to defend myself here - I AM a civil libertarian and was a member of the ACLU for a long time.

You boys don't have the market cornered on the first amendment or any of the other amendments. And by the way - the Bill of Rights is a heck of a lot more than 'the right to consume porn'. You might want to read the rest of the Constitution.

teens. My parents sent me to one of the first ever "boot camps" for "unruly" kids. I was raped on several different occasions in less than 6 months. I still don't think this is a good idea. I value my freedoms, and the freedoms of my brothers and sisters, and I will be the first in line to fight this at any chance I get. Parts of this are a good idea, but the DNA issue is way over the line.

That is so brutal, and you were only a teenager.

I agree that rape is a brutal crime and it impacts the psyche of the victim pretty much forever, but we have to put our own emotions aside and see this amendment for what it is: a blatant intrusion on the privacy of innocent citizens for the alleged benefit of safety. I not only don't see how the benefit will be derived, but even if I did, I can't justify such a trampling of privacy rights. This is the same kind of emotional argument the fundies make about abortion. We have to protect the babies! :eyes:

Besides, this was introduced by republicans and they are not ever on the side of individual rights, or making our lives better, particularly women.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and I don't see my prior victimization as a justification for eroding the privacy rights of others. I still have an emotional reaction to any discussion of sexual violence, since my assailant was never arrested or even investigated, but I refuse to let that cloud my judgment of what the criminal justice system can and should do about these types of crimes. I was merely congratulating another survivor for putting her personal feelings aside when confronting these hot-button issues as well.

If that person thinks I owe her an apology I will certainly make one, publicly. You, however, can stick your accusations and insults where the sun don't shine. :-)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

consider yourself alerted upon. :hi:

of our bill of rights.

But as long as you bring it up, the number of rapes have gone down in America while the availability/mainstreaming of porn has gone up.

So, basically there is no connection.

However, one could argue that perhaps the change in statistics is due to DNA technology being used in sex crime cases along with tougher sentencing laws? ;) I highly doubt it's because porn is more available, but it's an interesting anecdote. I thank you for that information.

And I quote, "It's very heartening to see the bond of PORN bring men on the left and right together in their quest for freedom."

I know that this was intended to be sarcastic, but as the old saying goes, you know the wolf by its fangs.

You, madam, are sexist. Plain and simple. You also buy into the stereotype that all men are obsessed with sex, and enjoy pornography.

"1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime."

Where is this statistic from? Because I don't believe it for one second, unless the definition of sexual assault is so broad as to include such innocuous acts as an unwanted kiss. One of three? Preposterous.

"Somehow I doubt PORN was the larger concern of our fore fathers."

Whether that was the case or not is moot. What gives the government the right to decide what I may or may not see, hear, or read? Nothing. This is beside the point, but important nonetheless.

MojoXN

What I said was that men on both sides of the political spectrum bond over the issue of "freedom" as it relates to porn. I don't personally wish to prevent any one who is an adult from engaging in whatever they wish to sexually, including viewing porn. I simply don't care to see the first amendment trotted out every time someone wishes to engage in a discussion about porn per se.

As for the data - it varies slightly depending upon the year etc. :

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~ad361896/anne/cease/rapestatisticspage.html

http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html

http://endabuse.org/resources/facts/

I could suggest that you sir are sexist for denying the truth about the situation women and children are subjected to - in your own country. But, I shall refrain from doing so.

Look at this thread alone, and note the number of women who've been victimized. Many of said women do not agree with this legislation, but it's interesting you would dispute the statistics.

although it has nothing to do with porn.

In fact, the first law against pornography (the constock law) was used against Margeret Sanger, and her pamplet on birth control.

brought up in the context of a so called feminist crusade, I commented on it.

:hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

8. Slaughter #3
Requires the Office of Victims of Crime working with national, state, and local authorities and in collaboration with other federal agencies to develop and implement a plan that allows law enforcement officials to gather evidence of a crime during times of emergency even if the crime occurred outside of their jurisdiction. Furthermore, it requires OVC to coordinate, inform, and educate victims, service providers, and law enforcement officials of the process and mechanisms available for reporting violent crimes and gathering evidence during emergencies. (10 minutes)

http://www.rules.house.gov/109/specialrules/109rulehr3402.htm

Anyone?

The Attorney General may, as prescribed by the Attorney General in regulation, collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested or detained under the authority of the United States. The Attorney General may delegate this function within the Department of Justice as provided in section 510 of title 28, United States Code, and may also authorize and direct any other agency of the United States that arrests or detains individuals or supervises individuals facing charges to carry out any function and exercise any power of the Attorney General under this section.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1606:

(For the link to work, add a colon to the end. The forum software separates that last colon for whatever reason)

random attacks on women and children.

Do we really think that people who commit these kinds of crimes look at the risk of getting caught?

Sociopaths and psychotics are going to keep commiting violent attacks against women and children regardless of if their DNA is on file.

They do not think like a rational, sane person.

You're right! But hey....What have you got to hide?!! Huh? Why do you hate Amurika?!! :crazy:

one individual? It's not so much a deterrent for the FIRST crime as it is for later offenses because more people who commit such crimes will be in jail because of DNA based evidence.

The average pedophile victimizes about 200 children before being "caught." DNA samples may reduce that number?

no thanks! So what are you suggesting? We ALL SUBMIT to being suspect? So now its' "Guilty until DNA proven innocent?"

What are you suggesting?

Let's be clear, this law wishes to replace finger prints with DNA collection. Some fear it will be taken farther, I don't believe that is the case.

They have abused every extra inch of power that has been given to them. Look at the Patriot Act for starters. But this is different, right? They wouldn't abuse this power, even though they have abused every extra ounce of power we have given them in the past. Riiight.

The question is are the most vulnerable in our society going to be safer?

As I said I respect your position on this and I've said as much to others as well.

I knew when I took this position I'd be "beat up" here in a sense and that it would be an unpopular one. But, I've decided to stretch people here a bit on this issue as I think there are a number of ways to view it.

this issue. I don't agree with signing my rights away, over this, or any other safety issue. Sorry. Even as a women that has faced sexual violence, I do not want this done. I will fight this tooth and nail to make sure it does not happen.

As I said, I won't bring up my history of victimization to justify my position, but I will defend your right to disagree with me.

Peace

:hug:

You really want to defend me? Defend me from the people that want to take what's left of my privacy rights away.

The only arguments against this so far are what if's.

Isn't your name and address on your drivers license? Can anyone driving down the road in your state gain access to where you live via your license plate number? When you cash a check at the supermarket the cashier has personal information about you does he/she not? Your credit card numbers are floating around everywhere they are used. This is the "information" age.

I see this legislation as far less of a threat then the afore mentioned personally.

I have the same right to my opinion on this as you do. The only difference apparently, is that I respect your right to differ with me?

I'M OUT MAN. :hide:

Peace all.

To have your fingerprints taken you have to be arrested, which requires probable cause that you have committed a crime.

Anyone can be detained at any time by the police for any reason.

myself to a criminal backround check under similar circumstances. Also, women/children who testify in court against their rapists are required to state their name, age, address and other personal information. Seems a bit backwards to me. I am far more concerned about that.

However, if the police start swabbing people at traffic stops, I'll join you in your opposition.

This law would allow the police to collect DNA samples from anyone who was merely detained.

To illustrate the difference, one is not fingerprinted at a traffic stop. Under the provisions of THIS law, a sample of one's DNA COULD be collected at a traffic stop. An important distinction.

MojoXN

that it could. But I don't think that's what is meant in terms of this legislation.

2. I highly doubt that police will begin gathering DNA at said traffic stops. And as I said, if they do, I'll likely join you in protest.

It'll be there in ten years. Driving is a privilege, must have DNA to get a driver's license. Don't kid yourself. A chip will be put right on your driver's license with your DNA and medical info, for security and "your own good". And your credit rating, for good measure because people with a bad credit rating or more likely to be criminals. Maybe it'll even have a sensor so people who have committed a crime or ever been evicted won't be able to get out of the 5 block radius they've been herded into, that'll keep the good people of America safe.

Well if you're an honest law-abiding citizen, what are you worried about it for?

This whole DNA collection stuff reminds me of the stories where some horrendous crime had taken place in a small community and law enforcement/government officials sought to collect the DNA samples of males living in the community.

Of course it's "voluntary" and for the public good.

Only someone who was guilty or had something to hide would refuse to cooperate. :sarcasm:

"UK police to DNA test 1000 villagers
24 January 2002

UK police have announce another mass DNA screening in the Fife village of Methil in which boys as young as 12 will be tested in an attempt to solve the rape of a local schoolgirl, reports Ananova.com.

Although the victim described her attacker as being in his early 20s, Detective Inspector Alan Small has indicated that over 1000 men aged between 12 and 40 living near the crime scene will be expected to 'volunteer' samples.

Police assured the media that samples would be destroyed "once someone is eliminated from the investigation" but made no guarantees about the data obtained from the testing.

More...

so how is collecting DNA of random Americans going to make a difference?

If you are suspected of commiting a sex crime, your DNA will be taken already.

The average pedophile victimizes about 200 children before being "caught."

I really doubt the accuracy of that statistic. Do you have a source?

The vast majority of pedophiles gain the trust of a child they know, to molest them. The reason that these creeps can get multiple victims is that a large number of these crimes go unreported.

The random attack by an unkown stranger is not the norm here.

feel supported. It will make a difference if DNA is on file and a person is jailed because of it.

As for the statistic I've seen it many times. However, it's likely skewed because of some notables in the clergy who've victimized thousands of children.

I've heard the over 200 on the tele quite often. I'm not sure of the source. What we do know is that people don't stop because they've had a sudden awakening, they stop when they're put in jail.

This sort of government intrusion is inexcusable.
They'll just have to find another way of "protecting women and children".

chance in hell. You think the freepers will support this? You think the Dems in our party will let this fly? No way. I'm not saying parts of this isn't a good idea, but the DNA part is way, way over the line. It has less than a snowballs chance, thankfully.

Come and get it!

....instead of a Republican. I can not abide things like this coming from the Republican party, any more than I can abide the fiscal policies of either party.

be put in the future.

Obvious uses: correlating certain genes with criminal tendencies
predicting susceptability to medical conditions
generating lists of suspects for unsolved crimes
criminals framing innocent parties by leaving hairs and
skin flakes at crime scenes
identifying persons of interest from hair samples left on a subway car or in a restaurant chair
correlating genetic types with behaviors and likely job success

So think out to the future when things get tough. Your health insurer
decides not to operate because your swab shows you're likely to die in
your sixties anyway. An employer refuses to promote you because your
genotype has a tendency to burn out. Cops can frame you for sex
crimes, using synthetic DNA. Your children are sent to inferior
schools because of their genotype. Your local police chief tells your
fiancee's parents that your DNA profile indicates criminal tendencies.

History shows that if power can be abused, it will be abused.
Emotional arguments about the safety of women and children were used
to justify the jailing of jews in Germany--after all, everybody "knew"
that jews eat stolen gentile babies in their secret rites.

Put science like DNA typing in the hands of lunatic theocrats? Never.

But wouldn't it be fun to compare genotype data with astrological charts? :> )

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm down with that. ;)

Welcome! :toast:

Some folks seem more interested in the attention than the details.

Enjoy the rest of the conversation.

:hi:

First, traffic stops are indeed detentions and the people who wrote this had to have known the difference between arrest and detention. It is literally unimaginable that this power won't be used by at least some, and likely many, police departments to either intimidate or collect data from their citizens (or likely non citizens of a different race).

Second, a DNA database would be of at most minor help in solving rape cases. It would be of even less help in cases of molestation. Molestation cases are either of people known by and often related to the victim and are long term or they are short term stranger cases (much, much rarer). In the first case DNA is never, ever, the issue. The molestation is either never reported or reported well after the fact. The few cases of stranger molestation which gets reported in a timely matter are the only cases where DNA might help. I would be astonished if even 1 out of 100 molestation cases fell in that category. Rapes would be a slightly different case. But how different is an open question.

Conversely, the DNA could be abused in all sorts of ways. Ways that cops have been known to abuse us in the past. DNA could be given to people who have no business having it. DNA might be able to tell orientation or race of potential employees via backround checks. Giving police this power for any reason is giving it to them for all reasons. Today it is sex crimes, tomorrow it is terrorism.

Never know when Cheney or some well-feed republican will need a new heart or liver. Harvesting organs from 'volunteers' could be the next rave republican thing, probably profitable too. If you are a valuable person, society will take care of you.

Looking to the future brave new world. Nobody should be upset if it saves women and children's lives you know, anything to protect the women and children from evil. How can it be a bad thing if its "to save the women and children lives".

You know, maybe it would also be a good idea if all traffic stops included a full body search to check for dangerous narcotic substances, including probing all orifices. Combating narcotic trafficking cannot be a bad thing, and you know, what do you have to hide? It is only the criminal that would object to this.

To hear some, even on this board, parrot 'law enforcement' at the expense of privacy and the right to be left alone by agents of the government, it is no wonder the republicans are running all over us.

What the police are getting away with today, in the interests of greater security, makes me say "you get just what you deserve".

Edit to add: You know the insurance companies will love this also.

The set up: We live in a world where everyone's genetic information is on file. An evil, famous leader needs a new organ--heart, liver, whatever. They search the databases and find the perfect match who is also an organ donor, and find a way to kill that person so the organs stay fresh, and the powerful individual can go on being nefarious.

He then realizes there is money to be made, and in concert with other evil types, hands out organs like candy to all his sick pals, and money is made hand over fist. People with the "right" DNA keep dying in odd accidents.

Enter the hero, who has suspicions, and finds out about the conspiracy...

If I remember right, Three Mile Island just about popped its cork right after this movie came out.

As for fictional stories, one thing in this universe to remember, if it is possible and not prohibited by some specific natural law, it will happen no matter how remote the odds/chances.

By the same reasoning, if people that are in power are unchecked, they will do whatever they want. If its profitable and they are able, it will happen.

It is not a far stretch to imagine wealthy and powerful people harvesting organs from the poor. Who will stop them? You?

Three hijacked planes had already been slammed into buildings, and 93
had been known to have been hijacked since 9:28. But according to the
9/11 Commission, at 9:46 FAA was still woffling about whether to call
NORAD for an air defense.

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript337_full.html

FAA COMMAND CENTER: Do we want to think about scrambling aircraft?

FAA HEADQUARTERS: Oh, God, I don't know.

FAA COMMAND CENTER: That's a decision somebody's going to have to make probably in the next 10 minutes.

FAA HEADQUARTERS: You know, everybody just left the room.

And according to the 9/11 Commission FAA never did notify NORAD about
flight 93, even though calling in for interception of off-course (or
otherwise suspicious) aircraft is standard procedure and took place
100 times a year before 9/11.

We need a new investigation.

That Americans are agreeing, for whatever safety concern/strawman argument, to the worst, un-American intrusion of our privacy, tells me that we are royally fucked.

I can't believe my cousin had to go to Iraq to fight for our 'liberty' when some Americans just discard it, or can be easily manipulated to think it's a necessary for a safe society to collect all our DNA. Fuck this!

The US Army took samples back in '94... you know for identification of my remains... though this fact does not bother me... I'm still disturbed by the desire of our government to build an extensive database... there is the possibility of unforeseen abuses.

And maybe the excuses cited are not the true reasons for the "remedies"
proposed.

Using the issue of rape is a real good political arm twister... much like the war on drugs uses "the children" as the excuse to reduce our constitutional protections. I'm still perplexed by drug sniffing dogs being a source of probable cause to conduct a search... the dog is a biological searching tool as it were... so an unwarranted search provides reason for a second search... but I digress.

Big Brother sucks and I don't like this shit one bit regardless of what reasons they propose for it.

How can there be so many supporters here? :wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:

This is Facsism! :grr: We must defeat KKKYL next year!

:argh:

and she's a little confused about the facts.

:eyes:

Thanks for the support "Mandate My Ass"

love that name! ;-)

This amendment is going to kill a great bill that's helped women for ten years now and people who should know better are cheering the republicans on for doing something that will most likely kill it.

Sheesh. :eyes:

DNA Corp has now gained exclusive rights to the National Archive of American DNA. Remember, it is your job as a citizen to report anyone known who refuses to give DNA...what are they hiding!?!?!

We now store the DNA of more than 200,000,000 American citizens, each with a modified strand that allows us to produce unlimited supplies of 'them'. That mother in law driving you crazy? Frame her! Got a co-worker itching for your job? Frame him! Their DNA is your play thing. Call now and shipping is free!

who cares if it's a merit promotion or a kafkaesque frame up? It's the results that count. :rofl:

This amendment is going to kill a great bill that's helped women for ten years now and people who should know better are cheering the republicans on for doing something that will most likely kill it.


Too true, I'm afraid - and a shame. But I hope that this bill comes back through without the DNA madness.

Thanks Mandate My Ass for pointing out the sad truth underneath the covers of this flamefest.

the DNA source, that can not be done with fingerprints.

For example, DNA from John Doe may be similar to a crime sample suggesting the crime sample came from a relative close to John Doe. Combined with other evidence it could focus criminal investigations on likely suspects.

By the way, that logic also applies to DNA samples taken from children for whatever purpose.

There are several labs that do DNA tests and one already has over 2,200 surname projects, see Surname Projects. Those projects report on 12 to 37 DYS markers but a DNA sample collected by law enforcement would be more extensive.

There is NO chance in hell that this section of the bill will remain constitutional for long. Hell, I'm sure the ACLU already has a team of lawyers lined up ready to go for the day after it passes both house and senate.