Well this can certainly be abused......

[Natoma]

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,58270,00.html

I am not looking forward to a DNA database that you can be forcibly entered into because you're protesting against the government, or because you're of middle eastern descent, etc etc etc... :?

 

[kyleb]

tracking devices would be more effective. :?

 

[Sharkfood]

Interesting article, even though it takes the extreme left point of view.

A couple chucklers I got from this article-

The concern is that police could round up people of Middle Eastern origin and other targeted groups to force them to contribute genetic samples to the database.

Nowhere in the act does it state they can go around, "rounding up" Middle Eastern people or peace protesters and forcing them to give samples of DNA. lol.

It states pretty clearly they must be suspected of carrying out acts of terrorism. I would think to declare one a "suspect of terrorism" they would be required to have some sort of a thing known as "evidence"- not just "rounding up" people because of their skin color or political idealism.

People with "flawed" DNA have already suffered genetic discrimination at the hands of employers, insurance companies and the government.

These people need to stop watching the movie Gattaca and start paying attention to current events.

At current, the ACLU is also against the cataloging of DNA from repeat convicted criminals. This is a valuable tool for collecting sperm, blood or other genetic material at crime scenes and quickly finding a match amongst known criminals that have past histories. As far as I am concerned, people that have committed and been convicted of crimes have no rights- they gave them up when they decided to rape, kidnap or kill another person.

So it really comes down to what level we decide when a person's rights are no longer withheld. If they are caught funneling money into Al Qaeda terrorist funds, or building car bombs/explosives, or trying to acquire radioactive goods to make a "dirty bomb" and have other suspected ties to terrorism, I'd also argue they have also voluntarily waived their rights.

All this act needs is some more clear wording on what kinds of levels of evidence is needed to declare someone a "suspect", but this is pretty well dictated in other laws which set precedent. As this act does not contain the massive clauses to define what a "suspect" is, it is therfore an easy target for extreme-left/liberal organizations as yet another example of civil rights your average American should be concerned about, even though it will have absolutely no impact on law abiding, non-terrorist citizens.

 

[Natoma]

Actually Sharkfood, in the current Patriot Act, you can be labeled an "Enemy Combatant" and jailed indefinitely, with no access to a lawyer, no habeas corpus, or even told why you're being jailed.

Obviously this hasn't been abused yet (as far as we know that is), but the potential is there for the government to abuse it. History shows that when the government has had this power, it has been abused. See the CIA and FBI circa 1950's - 1970's. See McCarthyism, etc etc etc.

One more thing. It is the ambiguity of the wording that leads people to question the possible abuses. It should be concrete in its wording so it cannot be used against lawful american citizens. As history has shown, given too much power, the government has abused it.

 

[Sharkfood]

you can be labeled an "Enemy Combatant" and jailed indefinitely, with no access to a lawyer, no habeas corpus, or even told why you're being jailed.

Being a US citizen clearly states the opposite. You will notice that no law or act can deny the constitutional rights of a US citizen.

This seems to be the contextual failure of a lot of people that seem to think that new acts or laws can somehow remove (without ammending or annulling) previous laws in place when they all very clearly state they cannot.

You can create this mythical "evil machine" that will grab a legal citizen, jail them as a "combatant" and disallow the contact with an attorney but this would lead to a retired "combatant" from all the massive damages they would win in a court of law after the fact from the breaking of several rights and laws imbued by the constitution. They would either have to eventually allow the combatant to have access to legal representation (then pay the price HEAVILY), or silently kill the individual, which would likely lead into an investigation and even heavier penalties.

If you want to paint the US government as a covert and greasy entity in your adaptation of the world, so be it. I don't see alot of people dissappearing though and I would think people as well educated as our public services and intelligence branches are smart enough to know when they are staring down the barrel of a legal shotgun and the ramifications are well known.. especially in a society where the commander in chief can't even get a blowjob without being impeached.

 

[Natoma]

you can be labeled an "Enemy Combatant" and jailed indefinitely, with no access to a lawyer, no habeas corpus, or even told why you're being jailed.

Being a US citizen clearly states the opposite. You will notice that no law or act can deny the constitutional rights of a US citizen.

I agree. However, you do realize that Jose Padilla, a US citizen, has been detained as an enemy combatant, with no access to his lawyer, family, et al. Why? Because Abu Zubadah (sp?) happened to mention his name. No other reason. Padilla had basically done nothing but go to Afghanistan and return. He had no money, no plans for a dirty bomb, has committed no crimes against the US that we know of, etc etc etc. How many people have we *not* heard about that are being detained as enemy combatants?

Someone like John Walker Lindh, who was caught fighting against the US with the Taliban. That I could understand. Under those circumstances, he forfeited his rights as a citizen. But Padilla is a completely different story.

There is a difference between holding someone for questioning, and holding them indefinitely, with no hope of being released, until the 'conflict' has passed. It could take decades for us to 'beat' terrorism, if the possibility even exists. Is someone like Padilla going to be held all that time?

The provisions under the Patriot Act allow it to be so, habeas corpus be damned. Btw, in previous times of war, the US has indeed broken the constitutional rights of its citizens.

See the internment of Japanese Americans in California during WWII as a prime example.

And lets not even get into the whole slavery bit........

 

[Silent_One]

I agree. However, you do realize that Jose Padilla, a US citizen, has been detained as an enemy combatant, with no access to his lawyer, family, et al. Why? Because Abu Zubadah (sp?) happened to mention his name. No other reason. Padilla had basically done nothing but go to Afghanistan and return. He had no money, no plans for a dirty bomb, has committed no crimes against the US that we know of, etc etc etc.

You make it sound as if he's just a swell guy who's just got picked up off the street. You should at least acknowledge some of his suspicious activities.

 

[Sharkfood]

do realize that Jose Padilla, a US citizen, has been detained as an enemy combatant

From what I have read, I agree about the Jose Padilla case. He was fingered and has the travel logs and shared "friends" to back-up the suspected nature of his involvement.

See the internment of Japanese Americans in California during WWII as a prime example. And lets not even get into the whole slavery bit........

Guess we should hold France accountable for Napoleon too. And because of Hitler, Germany cannot be trusted to any extent. Seriously- if you have to dig up ancient history to try and make a case for today, this should be a serious indicator of validity of such claims.

I agree that governmental powers need to be kept in check, but that's the real beauty of an open and free society and press. There are enough watchdogs to counter-check suspect activities. If they are in the majority viewed as wrong, there is hell to pay. In the case of Padilla, if there was a movement that actually disagreed with his handling, it would surely be getting more precedence than it has. As it stands, many folks take the evidence before him and consider him untrustworthy and his actions and associations do not draw a pretty picture.

 

[kyleb]

so it is guilty until proven innocent now eh? :?

 

[Crusher]

I agree. However, you do realize that Jose Padilla, a US citizen, has been detained as an enemy combatant, with no access to his lawyer, family, et al. Why? Because Abu Zubadah (sp?) happened to mention his name. No other reason. Padilla had basically done nothing but go to Afghanistan and return. He had no money, no plans for a dirty bomb, has committed no crimes against the US that we know of, etc etc

Conspiring to commit a felony is still illegal, last time I checked.

 

[Sharkfood]

Being detained for the purpose of investigation does not deem one "guilty"

Tell me kyleb, where did you read about Padilla being lined up on death row for execution? I'd be interested to hear your sources that somehow state that Padilla has been convicted as "guilty" of the crimes he is suspect of.

 

[Natoma]

I agree. However, you do realize that Jose Padilla, a US citizen, has been detained as an enemy combatant, with no access to his lawyer, family, et al. Why? Because Abu Zubadah (sp?) happened to mention his name. No other reason. Padilla had basically done nothing but go to Afghanistan and return. He had no money, no plans for a dirty bomb, has committed no crimes against the US that we know of, etc etc etc.

You make it sound as if he's just a swell guy who's just got picked up off the street. You should at least acknowledge some of his suspicious activities.

Silent_One: He most certainly has a criminal background in this country. However, if it's a crime that he's being picked up for, charge him with something. Don't just haul him off and don't give him access to a lawyer or his family while he's god-knows-where.

That's what I disagree with. Suspected criminal, suspicious activities aside, we have a rule in this country that says Innocent until proven guilty. If the government had suspected him of terrorist activities, I'm sure they could have easily tailed him. But to arrest a citizen of this country on suspicion, and hold them indefinitely. That is what I have a problem with.

 

[Natoma]

Here's another instance of the government trying to use our personal information in the name of 'terrorism'

http://www.msnbc.com/news/893360.asp?0dm=B13LT

Civil-liberties advocates on the left and the right say the tactic could lead back to the bad old days when law-enforcement agencies like the FBI conducted routine, unfettered surveillance on law-abiding citizens like civil-rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.

“People in the government, very much so in the Justice Department, have been playing out a lust for information that is not consistent with who we have been as a nation,â€￾ former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey said recently.

I bolded that in particular due to some people assuming that the quest for defending civil liberties is simply a 'leftist' ideal or whatever.