The Essence of DNA Identity
Do you intrinsically possess individual privacy rights, based upon natural
law authority, or are your civil liberties arbitrarily defined by the current whims of government? How you answer, this question
speaks loudly about your understanding of the nature of your very being. Those who deem that natural law is a myth or a superstition
are poised for voluntary surrender of their vital identity. The cataloging of individual essence is aberrant. Your deoxyribonucleic
acid is the core element of personal uniqueness and human dignity. If your DNA is subject to government collection and storage,
the right of personal privacy is destroyed.
The dramatic proliferation
of coercive police powers has little correlation to an improvement in public safety. The precedent that convicted criminals
lose constitutional rights has gone virtually unchallenged in a society enamored with obedience to state authority. The practice
of the law and the judicial review that provides the arbitrary and capricious rulings that incessantly favors the expansion
of a greater level of state control, consistently violates common law and inherent principles.
It seems that civil liberties are an underreported topic by most "so called" conservative venues. Alas,
the folks on the left at Democracy Now undertake the task of covering the implications and debates the merits of greater police
powers in an interview, Supreme Court OKs Unfettered DNA
a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the police can collect DNA samples from people they arrest even before
they are convicted of a crime. Supporters of the swabbing method call it "the fingerprinting of the 21st century"
that will help nab criminals and break open unsolved cases. But privacy advocates say the ruling is vague because it does
not define what constitutes a "serious crime," and could create an incentive for police to make more arrests. The
Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 ruling will likely fuel an expansion of DNA swabbing nationwide."
Background on the legislation that mandates DNA mining is a very slippery
slope. The DNA Identification
Act of 1994 authorized the establishment of a national index of: (1) DNA identification
records of persons convicted of crimes, (2) analyses of DNA samples recovered from crime scenes, and (3) analyses of DNA samples
recovered from unidentified human remains. Justice for All Act of 2004 instituted material changes to the DNA Identification
Act of 1994, including the:
creation of a new indicted persons index;
of the offenses for which federal and military offender samples are collected;
of the criminal penalties for unauthorized use of NDIS;
of one-time keyboard searches by all NDIS participants of samples not normally included in NDIS (except for voluntarily submitted
deletion of the separate requirement for semiannual
external proficiency tests (although it retained the separate requirement for biannual external audits);
requirement for state and local forensic laboratories to be accredited by a nationally recognized
program within 2 years of enactment (October 30, 2006); and
for the FBI to report to Congress any plans to change the "core genetic markers" 180 days prior to that change taking
"Garrett also said
that simply adding a DNA sample from everyone who is arrested might even make it harder for police to identify criminals,
increasing the likelihood of false positives without adding any perpetrators to the system.
lot of innocent people will have their DNA in these databases," he said. "That dilutes the databases and weakens
their power." He argued that since many criminals have prior convictions, taking samples only from convicts would be
Making the case for privacy rights,
David Gusella argues in the Boston Collage Law Review, No Cilia Left Behind: Analyzing
the Privacy Rights in Routinely Shed DNA Found at Crime Scenes.
"The purpose of DNA databases is to prevent
future crime and to combat recidivism by using the information to catch repeat offenders. The government’s purpose in
maintaining DNA samples does not outweigh the privacy rights of individuals because maintaining these samples ostensibly serves
no governmental purpose. Despite the fact that many courts have found that convicted felons have a reduced privacy interest
due to their past crimes, this privacy interest is diminished, not non-existent. In addition, because innocent people may
be included in this database, their right to privacy in their genetic information should outweigh the minimal governmental
interest in having access to non-phenotypic information. As a result,
states should adopt some sort of limits on the duration of retention of physical DNA samples."
DNA from defendants is not equivalent with inking fingerprints into a database. Courts, routinely rubber-stamp the broadening
of government authority. The calculated assault on liberty is accelerated when the function of peacekeeping morphs into intimidating
The outrageous Supreme Court decision in MARYLAND
v. KING violates "due process" and demolishes the principle of innocent until proven guilty. The risk is obvious
as stated in the article, Stockpiling
of innocents' DNA.
"The policy of indefinitely retaining the DNA of anyone arrested
– but not necessarily convicted – has meant that hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including thousands
of innocent children, have had their DNA permanently retained."
there limits to a national DNA database? If any citizen arrested is subjected to a non- consensual DNA swabs sample, does
it end with just suspects? In an age of hyperbolic criminalization of disputed infractions, giving greater discretionary power
to an all-pervasive police state is sheer lunacy.
report in the Texas Tribune revealed the Department of State Health Services
was giving hundreds of infant blood spots to the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL). According to information
obtained through open records requests, AFDIL was in the process of building a national mitochondrial DNA registry."
the same piece Twila Brase, president of the Citizens' Council on Health Care, warns of the consequences of allowing involuntary
DNA samples databases.
"Government ownership enables
the state health department and future legislatures to use newborn DNA as they see fit," Brase said. "There is a
potential for eugenic strategies, especially in this era of cost containment. Governments and legislatures could implement
policies that use the genetic screening data to reduce the bearing of children with costly medical conditions, mandating the
kind of decisions you’ve seen with Downs’ Syndrome children."
the inception of DNA science, the practice of biological engineering has gone wild. Extracting a DNA exemplar at birth is
much different from forcing an arrestee to give up a saliva sample. The entire foundation of Western Civilization, based upon
the inborn natural human rights of personhood, is violated when state mandates claim their license over your singular essence.
Assembling a massive DNA database on untold millions of Americans is
an existential threat to the sacredness of life itself. The government is not our jailer, but is supposed to be our servant.
Caution and vigilance oversight of government abuses is a cardinal duty of every American. Reasonable people should never
trust the state to be the gatekeeper of your biological building blocks.
sense concludes that ownership of your DNA cannot morally be transferred into a communal retrieval system. Big Brother wants
to dispatch the Grim Reaper when defective or unacceptable genetic traits are deemed detrimental to the socially collectivist
The "PC" misinformation declares, "Eugenics is the applied science of the bio-social movement which advocates
practices to improve the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population." The true reality is that government
sponsored research projects are seeking ways of culling the herd. DNA collection is the route to dissention elimination. Purging
the general population of political undesirables is a goal that most courts would eagerly uphold. As the police state intensifies,
the selection process for isolating individuals that resist the tyranny will increase.
If your DNA is in the possession of the illicit authorities, the effortless
framing of targeted nuisances becomes a distinct probability. The ease of charging a rebel against the state as a terrorist
comes out of a master database. Do you trust the government to obey constitutional precepts and restraints?
Unless the public develops a defiant attitude towards the inhuman incarceration culture,
the DNA collection scheme will just inflate the population of embattled captives. The solution is to defend civil liberties
at every opportunity. This is not a phony left-right canard. The kernel of universality rests upon the certainty that each
individual is sacred. Your DNA is the quintessence of your person and no government can legitimately enforce the theft of
People need to learn a greater respect for their own
privacy and practice its defense accordingly.
SARTRE – June 9,