A little detail in the SOTU. Do you read this meaning as I do?

[MadHound]

As I was watching that travesty that is the President, fuming at his lies over Social Security, taking note as he started to rattle the war saber at Syria and Iran, one sentence struck me hard: "In America we must make doubly sure no person is held to account for a crime he or she did not commit -- so we are dramatically expanding the use of DNA evidence to prevent wrongful conviction." My initial thought, and the one I've retained upon further reflection, is that with this bit of code speak, Bush is going to push for a national DNA database. It has been the wet dream of authoritarians and fascists for a decade and more, and now it seems like it is going to come true.

What is your take on this? Am I simply being overly paranoid? Or is this truly the opening salvo in the DNA database wars? And if this is so, if this is what Bushco is truly going to push, how can we stop this?

[bryant69]

1. How do we stop them from using DNA evidence ?

I'm not sure we do. Are you opposed to them having a fingerprint database, as well? What's the difference?

Personally I think this section is more about claims that he was too cavelier about the death penelty back in the day, although why he woudl address it now is beyond me.

Because one of the main sources of our national unity is our belief in equal justice, we need to make sure Americans of all races and backgrounds have confidence in the system that provides justice. In America we must make doubly sure no person is held to account for a crime he or she did not commit -- so we are dramatically expanding the use of DNA evidence to prevent wrongful conviction. (Applause.) Soon I will send to Congress a proposal to fund special training for defense counsel in capital cases, because people on trial for their lives must have competent lawyers by their side. (Applause.)

At least it reads that way to me.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[carpediem]

10. I agree it does sound like it is about the death penalty

I couldn't watch the sotu for more than a few minutes ( I was getting too angry) but, reading the snippet above I agree that it is about the death penalty. I think that death penalty proponents are nervous because of all the overturned sentences that have been happening and this is *'s way of reassuring the public about the death penalty - as in, now that we are working with DNA you can trust that we will only execute guilty people. or something like that.

However I am sure if there is a way to get everyones dna into a national database - they will do it.

[PEmboli]

24. that's how I look at it too

it's regarding the death penalty.

[MadHound]

12. Big difference between fingerprints and DNA friend

You can't use fingerprints to deny people insurance, or a job, or a security clearance, etc. etc. With a national DNA database, it can easily be determined if you are prone to cancers, addictions, a host of various diseases, mental illness, etc. With such information, a person can be denied a lot of things. Want to go out and buy an extra $100,000 in life insurance? Sorry pal, your DNA says that you are prone to heart disease. Want to get that security clearance so that you can get that big promotion and raise? Sorry pal, looks like your due to come down with a bipolar disorder.

Then there is that notion that was formerly held dear in this country that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Yet with this kind of database, one is going to be held guilty until proven innocent. I liked how the old America worked in this respect. And yes, this is why I would also be opposed to a universal national fingerprint database.

And I doubt that this has a damn thing to do with the death penalty. I'm sure that Bush is just fine with the ease of use of the death penalty as is. After all, he was simply in love with the death penalty as a govenor in Texas, why would he change?

[bryant69]

15. So you are opposed to the police

having the tools they need to fight crime? Particularly when this tool can have such an obvious positive effect at weeding out the innocent.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. First of all, will said DNA database be used on a national level in the manner you proscribe? It might be or it might not be. But certainly that's not what Bush says. What if, by law, use of the Database was limited to law enforcement?

Do you favor having cops at all? I mean if we have police forces isn't that based on the assumption that some people are guilty?

Bryant

[MadHound]

18. I have seen such tools used by the police to convict innocents

Way too often. The rollout of a DNA database represents the same kind of threat, perhaps an even greater one, since it is supposedly so bulletproof.

And your analogy about police is a false one. Police are charged with the mission to protect and serve, even though they seem to be forgetting that mission. A police force is neccessary, though I do favor that there be more restraints being placed on them, as it seems that they are increasingly getting out of control.

And I noticed that you failed to address my concerns about DNA use in insurance screening, job screening, securtiy screening, etc. etc. How would you feel if you didn't get that big promotion and raise due to something found in your DNA? Or your wife didn't get that insurance policy due to her DNA history of heart disease? Or you wouldn't be allowed to drive, for your DNA shows a predisposition to alcoholism? Care to address that friend, rather than recycling the old arguement of "If you're not guilty, you have nothing to fear" Sorry friend, that arguement goes against the very nature of what this country was founded on, but I suppose I shouldn't be suprised when people toss out that tired old chestnut. The old America is gone, and people are welcoming their new oppressors with open arms:eyes:

[Sydnie]

21. slippery slopes

What makes you think they would restrict the use even if they tell us they would restrict the use of this information?

It is a very slippery slope. I have no problem with law enforcement doing their jobs at all. I do have a problem with having my DNA on file when I have not committed any crime or ever been suspected of having committed a crime.

Look at the newest technology at the grocery stores these days. They are "testing" fingerprint debit pads at the checkouts. Rather than presenting your debit/credit card to pay for your groceries, they now have fingerprint keypads that trigger the information on your account and allow access to your bank through this keypad. No signature, bank card or ID required, just your finger.

All things will get tied to this finger print, your bank statements, your credit history ... anything you can imagine could be filed with that fingerprint. Do you think that database would never been used by law enforcement for what would appear to be a "just" reason, opening the door for it to become SOP?

Fingerprints, eye scans, DNA ... it's all the same once they get the files started.

Lexis Nexis is on the cutting edge of this as well. Not just a repository for news articles anymore with the new database company they just purchased either.

[MadHound]

25. And what is scary about these fingerprint databases

Is how easy it is to fake a persons fingerprints. Grab somebody's print, throw it into the computer, a little latex, and poof, stolen identity.

[Sydnie]

17. You said what I was trying to say below in my post

much more eloquently and clearly than I did, however. (Took meds last night for a migraine and can't shake that morning after fog!)

It is not about the death penalty at all. blivet** could care less about who he sends to their death, American citizen or other, makes no difference to him at all.

I thought insurance connection as well as selective breeding possibilities.

Thank you for articulating what was in my head and just couldn't make it to my fingers this morning!

[ewagner]

2. I suspect it was

"code" for something........not sure what....

The problem with Bush* is he mumbles something that SEEMS to be pure nonsense and we find out weeks later that it was indeed code for something else........

[MuseRider]

3. Who knows these days

what to expect to happen or what is lip service to keep his supporters from bolting. As far as being overly paranoid, these days I think it might be advisable to be overly paranoid as long as you see it for what it is. It never hurts with these guys to wonder what they are really trying to do since it is rarely what it seems. It is up to us to question them now since the press has been dismantled.

I don't know what to think, probably you are correct. There were just too many alarming things said last night and I don't have the heart to look at a transcript just yet.

[wug37]

4. Good question - I was wondering too.

I was wondering what he was talking about when he said that, and the DNA database is a good explanation. But since he didn't give any specifics or clues as to what he was really talking about, I guess we'll just have to wait and see if anything is going to come from that. It could fall just as flat as when he proposed going to the moon and mars.

[kedrys]

5. You're not paranoid if it's true

and they ARE out to get you.

I couldn't sit through any of the State of the Idiot address, but if this is a direct quote, I read it the same way you do. Chilling.

The other aspect of this "project" - less malign but still of concern to the mad bioscientists in the audience - is that they can use your DNA to develop whatever cures and such that they want, and rake in major dough from patents (if any), and they can essentially steal YOU without ever having to notify you, much less compensate you.

I'm sure the pharmacoms are wetting their undies just thinking about it. I, on the other hand, am soiling mine.

It's all bad.:grr:

[SnowGoose]

6. Why would you need a database to protect innocent?

It seems to me that if you take DNA from a crime scene, compare it with the accused, then you can draw your conclusions. You might want such a database to hunt down anyone who left DNA somewhere, but not to rule out the innocent.

After all, that's what he *said* he wanted to do. What reason do we have to mistrust him?

Oh yea.... nevermind.

[Quakerfriend]

7. You are not paranoid. This has been in the planning for

many years.

Read "Full Disclosure" by Dr. Gary Glum to understand the full intent of our gov'ts actions.

[utahgirl]

8. hmmm

Wonder how the detainees at Gitmo fit into this vision of justice and democratcy?

</sarcasm off>
utahgirl

[riverwalker]

9. it confused me as well

and knew it was code for something. Since when is bush concerned about wrongful conviction?
You are on to something there.

[SmokingJacket]

11. I'm sure you're right.

Whenever something off-topic shows up in these speeches, you have to look at it pretty closely. Suddenly, now, he's worried about false convictions?? What is that all about?? That has never been part of his agenda or part of the right's agenda: not even close.

But yes: a DNA database is very much up their alley: not to free the falsely convicted but to keep track of everyone. They're going to get a national driver's license/ID card -- this is the next step.

A little paranoia is healthy, these days.

[MadHound]

13. Frankly, I've found that a little paranoia is a good thing

Keeps you one step ahead of the bastards. Now if I can find out how to fake my DNA, hmmmm . . .

[Sydnie]

14. I thought the exact same thing

This is his way of presenting a national DNA database, making it seem like a safety net when all he really is doing is creating a database that could be used against us.

It's a bit like the movie Majority Report actually. Imagine the government determining just who might be likely to commit a crime based on a national DNA database? You might even see that collection for the government happening at birth -- Imagine, before your baby is named, they already have a file with their DNA in government hands!

Take it another step -- what about disallowing people to reproduce because they carry a "suspect" gene combination or anomaly? Selective breeding doesn't seem that far fetched if you take this to it's full implication. Or worse, breeding people like they do food animals -- creating the better suited for combat/slave group or any other type of header you could imagine. Building a better society through science?

Sound familiar?

[MadHound]

16. Or it could simply be as sinister as

Disallowing people insurance based on their DNA profile, or a job or housing or security clearance. There are already companies out there who are basing hiring desicions based on credit reports:wtf:, you know that they're salivating at the chance to add a person's DNA profile to their hiring equation.

[merh]

19. The DNA database is a scary thought, but I am sure so were

fingerprints in their day. It probably will happen and just like fingerprints, if you are arrested or apply for a secure position or a position in government, they will probably take your DNA.

[MadHound]

20. And that little DNA swab will make it's way elsewhere

To your employer, to your insurance agent, to your bank, etc. etc. Companies are already basing hiring decisions on your credity history(which makes very little sense to me), now they could add a person's DNA profile to the mix, yipee.

This is so wrong, and flies squarely in the face of what America once stood for. But apparently the old America is a fading dream now. The sheeple have been innoculated to accept piss tests, illegal searches, the Patriot Act, and so many other things that were hardly dreamt of when I was a child. Very sad, and really quiet disheartening, and makes me wonder what will it take to wake the sheeple up? It seems that each new outrage is greeted with a yawn and a ho-hum.

[JHB]

22. You might be right. He certainly didn't display much concern...

...about wrongful convictions when he had direct authority over such things.

[MadHound]

23. Actually the little twit mocked at least one of his death penalty victims

Bush was heard to sort of mimic Karla Faye Tucker on the day of her execution, putting on a high squeaky voice "I don't wanna die". Some compassion there:eyes: In fact there have been a couple of studies done(If I remember correctly there was one in Mother Jones a few months back) of Bush's speech patterns. It seems that while he stumbles and bumbles his way through any talk on helping his fellow man, he is articulate, clear, concise and quite animated when talking about death, executions and war. Of course this is to be expected from a sociopath who blew up frogs and tortured other creatures in his youth.

Yeah, I take his concerns about wrongful convictions with a grain of salt the size of my barn.