I Thought Democrats Were For Privacy
by Big Dog on May 20, 2010 at 22:14 Political
The House voted to allow the DNA of people to be taken from them if they are arrested even if they are never convicted of a crime.
Millions of Americans arrested for but not convicted of crimes will likely have their DNA forcibly extracted and added to a national database, according to a bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday.
By a 357 to 32 vote, the House approved legislation that will pay state governments to require DNA samples, which could mean drawing blood with a needle, from adults “arrested for” certain serious crimes. Not one Democrat voted against the database measure, which would hand out about $75 million to states that agree to make such testing mandatory. cnet
The politicians who voted for this believe that it gives law enforcement the tools it needs to fight crime and it will help solve cold cases. That is a bunch of baloney. This is nothing more than the government allowing more interference in your life. People are arrested all the time and released when it is discovered they did not commit the crime or there is not enough evidence. Some go to trial and win the case. Why should their DNA be drawn from them in these cases? If it is drawn then why should it be kept? What allows them to run the DNA of a person against a database to solve cold cases when that DNA was obtained from people not guilty of a crime?
What happened to the Democrats who got their panties in a wad when we wiretapped people suspected of terrorism? What happened to the so called party of privacy? What happened to standing up for people against the tyranny of government.
I have no problem with the government taking DNA from people convicted of crimes. I have a real problem when it is taken from people who have not been found guilty of anything. The problem with collecting any information is that it is seldom used in the manner stated. The information from the Census has been used in the past to do some nasty things like find Japanese Americans and lock them away. The military collects DNA and the stated and written reason for the collection was to identify remains. However, military DNA has been searched in criminal cases and used against the people who provided it for identification in the event of their death.
If the military was only going to use it to identify dead service members then why does the military keep the DNA after people leave the service?
Never trust the government and never trust the Democrats when they talk about their support for our privacy. They want control and they want it in all aspects of our lives.
Perhaps we should collect the DNA of all politicians and run it against the national database to see how many love children are running around. Maybe we can use it to identify the ones whose epithelial cells are all over bribe money…
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Democrats, dna, house of representatives, illegal collection, lies
Dog the civil libertarian. I love it. Just say no to DNA samples! Where have you been the past nine years on this stuff, Doggie? You know some people would sure as hell call you soft on crime and d@mn sure soft on them terr’sts for this principled stance of yours. What would you tell them?
PEACE
Soft on crime? What crime is committed if a person has been acquitted? What crime has been committed if the charges were dropped? Why is it right to use information collected from someone when they should never have had it collected?
Democrats? Privacy? If you’re a 13 year old who wants an abortion, sure. For the rest of us, maybe not.
If we accept the nominal partition of human activities into “economic” and “personal,” the Democrats are absolutely opposed to privacy in the economic sphere. They regard every decision about commercial association (e.g. hiring and firing), pricing, product design, marketing, advertising, working conditions, and so on as subject to their intrusion. If they don’t like your notions, they can and will self-righteously bankrupt you.
In the “personal” sphere, where do Democrats show any respect for privacy? Education? Medicine? Recreation? Diet? How you water and fertilize your lawn? Nope: only abortion. (No, not even sex; there are “environmentally correct” ways to go about it, don’t y’know.)
I could be wrong. We might someday see Democrats defending pederasty as a private personal choice. They way things are going for them, they could soon need the votes.
Ha ha ha! Poretto you made my day!
“…even sex; there are “environmentally correct” ways to go about it…” I am going to put that on my face book great quotes page!
White man on top, Not PC!
Black on Blonde, boy on boy and dog on tender chicken w/strap-on arse beads and rank-de-la-rank…PC!
But we miss the point, and BD, I don’t call you on this very often but here you need to be curbed, you dog;
Why do we, as law-abiding people need fear the collecting of our DNA? It is like an elaborate finger-print but if we haven’t been sticking-up banks or sphincters, why need we fear?
Well I am going to tell you; it isn’t the information we need to fear but what liberals, those same liberals that Poretto details like they are Grand Torino’s in a wax-job, that is what we need to fear.
But notice, it isn’t the collection of information that is bad. What is scary is who will have access to it.
And that brings up the real problem; this goes to a bigger and more universal truism; liberals should not be allowed access to governmental power, no access to any situation where they have control over other people in any way shape or form.
Because they always abuse it. Always. Like sex-fags in the sperm bank they can’t keep their hands off.
Wow Dog. You might wanna think about moderating this morons comments. You would never let me talk like that. I guess you have different standards for haters like this. Black on Blonde? Boy on Boy? Dog on chicken? Sex-f@gs in the sperm bank? This guy is stranger even than any of Rick Santorum’s wildest fantasies. What a freak.
PEACE
Did he say that about YOU or did he make the comment about how the PC crowd feels? Big difference though your offense to it says a lot about you…
What does it say about me, Karnak? That I have no objection to black on blonde sex? Guilty. That I consider myself of above average intelligence yet have no idea what the term “sex-fag in the sperm bank” means? Guilty.
You’d never let me talk like that, Detective Dog. And you don’t know much about me at all. Or anything else really.
PEACE
You have had wide berth when it comes to your constant obsession with the sex lives or the alleged homosexuality of conservatives. You are constantly mentioning those things. The only thing I told you I would not allow is the word tea bagger. Your issue is the way you refer to people and what names you call them.
I know as much about you as I care to but what does it matter. You know little about me and yet you are always willing to make assessments about me.
I am glad you consider yourself above average intelligence. That at least makes one person here.
As far as me not knowing much about anything, people only have to consider the source….
Why worry if you did nothing wrong? How about if the government decided to use the DNA to see what hereditary diseases you have and then used that with regard to providing health care? There are many ways to abuse the information that is gained and it should not be taken from people who have not been found guilty of any crime.
Suppose they decided that everyone had to submit a DNA sample under the guise of solving cold cases or catching people that got away with something? Your DNA could be used against you even if you committed no crime. Bad precedent.
Dog- do you oppose black on blonde sex? Because I’ve had it (I have blonde hair), and let me tell you, it is nothing you should be opposed to.
What is a “sex-fag in the sperm bank”? I’m not trying to be funny. I can’t figure out what it is supposed to mean. Maybe Francis W. Porretto can explain it, as the articulate newcomer appears to be a friend of his.
PEACE
I don’t oppose any sex between 2 consenting adults. You missed the point Francis made about PC.
Note how eager “Bunny” — what serious adult would travel under a moniker that childish? — is to associate me with a remark he / she / it regards as objectionable. Well, you have to expect that sort of thing from left-liberals; their positions are so weak and their argumentation skills so poor that rote denunciation and slander are all they have left. They’d condemn that were it coming from us, of course. But they consider themselves so infinitely superior to us, both morally and intellectually, that whatever they say or do simply must be all right.
Right, “Bunny?”
Bunny is always right. If you are unsure ask him and he will tell you so…
Hey Porretto- since you won’t let me comment on your blog, please answer the question here. What is a “sex-fag in the sperm bank”?
Oh, and “what serious adult would travel under a moniker that childish?” Hmm, let me think. You have a “Esteemed Co-Conspirator” listed on your site named Colonel Bunny. So, you tell me genius. What serious adult would travel under a moniker that childish?
PEACE
The DNA question has many facets, Buns- I am surprised that a liberal such as yourself would not see this as a violation of privacy rights, because if you think that the government won’t hand over those records to the insurance companies so they can troll for “illness exemptions” such as a “predisposition” to cancer, down syndrome, and parkinson’s, you are blind.
This is how rationing begins, and the true eugenics kick in.
I have no problem with the DNA registry as it applies to CONVICTED sex offenders, but just as I have a real problem with forfiture laws if a person ISN’T CONVICTED, so do I have a problem with DNA collection on people not convicted of any crime.
It is too easy to misuse this- just say no.
Blake- can’t you read? For once, I DO agree with Dog. This IS a violation of peoples rights. You don’t even give me credit when I agree with you. I can’t debate with you. You have no credibility. It’s like trying to argue with someone that doesnt speak English. It’s just a waste of time. I suspect Dog realized this and that is why you no longer post on his blog.
Porretto- answer my questions please. I have no problem with you prohibiting me from commenting on your blog. But if you’re gonna get snippy with me here, then don’t hide when I bust you. I’m starting to think that you are as much of a fraud as Blake.
AGAIN, I fully support DOG’s stance on the DNA sampling issue. (As if this wasn’t already clear to anyone with a fifth grade level reading proficiency).
PEACE
My Esteemed Co-Conspirator the Colonel has a war record that would make you want to hide in a broom closet. And I happen to know the Colonel’s real name. It’s not “B. Bunny,” as if you couldn’t guess that. So: Is your real name “Bunny,” Bunny? If so…?
As for not permitting you to comment at my site: Say something sensible and it will appear. Ask me to explain someone else’s comments, and I’ll treat you like the left-wing moron you are. I don’t allow my server space to be consumed by such.
Buns- the reasons I no longer post on his blog have nothing to do with BD, although it is true that this is his blog, and he would be correct IF HE CHOSE TO OMIT ME- no, this was my doing-
As for logic, excuse me- you are SO OFTEN on the wrong side of an argument, that this took me by surprise- as it must have for any intelligent reader.
So, you admit you are soft on crime and terrorism? (note that I know how to spell “terrorism”)- and you would not even register DNA on CONVICTED rapistsand murderers?
You must not have children-
Porretto- Tell the Colonel that I thank him for his service. I don’t hide in broom closets. They are too overcrowded with gay republican “moral values” politicians.
Let me refresh your memory, Francis. You asked “what serious adult would travel under a moniker that childish?” I’ll answer this question for you because you seem to somehow not have understood it. You said that Col. B. Bunny is not the Colonels real name. Nor is mine Bunny Colvin. So, to answer your question, both the Colonel and myself are serious adults who travel under childish monikers. I hope this clears it up. Next time you ask a question in an attempt to insult me, please make sure that one of your “Esteemed Co-Conspirators” doesn’t fit the same description that you are attempting to use as an insult. You’ll look like a lot less of a jack@ss if you follow this simple advice.
PEACE