ACLU....again!!

D

DasBoot

Moderator
Once again this group of trash puts up a stink on something that will help both law enforcement and the country/society on the whole.
As per the front page article in this weekends USA Today, the Feds could add tens of thousands of immigration violators (aka:Illegal aliens), captives in the war on terrorism and those accused , but not convicted, of federal offenses to the FBI's crimefighting database.
Immigration violators would stay on file permanently while the DNA files of those NOT convicted of a federal crime can be deleted.
ACLU director in Washington says it violates privacy and will do little to improve law enforcement.

Maybe they're right!
Maybe we shouldn't broaden the scope of a technique/tool that is probably the most foolproof way we have to date of whether someone is guilty, or innocent, of having committed a crime.
An awful lot of ACLU poster children have been freed because DNA results showed that they were innocent of the crime they were accused of.

Can anyone tell me.....Was the ACLU in existence when fingerprinting came about?
And if so, what was their stance on the issue (as if we don't already know!)?
Can you imagine if the use of fingerprints was eliminated!!:eek:
Same with DNA.
We have gone from the Model T(fingerprints) to the Ferrari (DNA), but the ACLU would rather keep us using a hand crank!
They are pathetic!
 
DasBoot,

Not sure what you are upset about. Is it that the DNA of innocent people will be removed from the database?
 
Therein lies the problem..not everybody agrees on what is best for the country. For example only: Some people believe that drug laws are a good thing and benefit the country while others believe that they are an infringement on our freedom and that they should be abolished.

The ACLU goes wrong in it's anti gun stance, not in it's support of freedom.
 
Therein lies the problem..not everybody agrees on what is best for the country
Click to expand...
.
True.
But can you explain how, like fingerprints, the benefits of a DNA database for keeping track of criminal/terrorist activity does not outweigh any perceived "privacy" issues?
I mean, following that logic, we shouild abolish speed limits also.

The article also quoted a Justice Dept.study that the DNA database revealed 100 illegal immigrants arrested in '04 were later re-arrested.
Being able to check such things via the use of DNA sounds like a great thing to me.
Again, if you equate it to fingerprinting, the benefits are obvious.
Yet there is the ACLU, ready to TRY and block it.

Nobody knows where they stood on fingerprinting?
 
in case someone wants to read said article

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-19-detainee-dna_x.htm


First of all it clearly says that those "accused but not convicted" of said crimes will be added to the database. It's in the very first sentence and that alone is enough to worry about.

Fredrickson says the law that defines federal detainees is so broad that it could apply to hikers stopped by park rangers or airline passengers selected for screening.
Click to expand...
And maybe...certain gun owners? Hmmmmmmm.....

Genetic profiles from people arrested for federal crimes could be removed from the database if they are not convicted.
Click to expand...
Kinda like how names from gun registrations could be removed from a database, right?

It's a legitimate complaint. There's no reason someone's DNA should be added to a database of criminals until one has been convicted of a crime. Period.
 
Aren't fingerprints taken anytime someone is ARRESTED?

Is someone implying that those fingerprints are discarded if nothing comes of the arrest?

Is there some reason that DNA should be handled differently than fingerprints?
 
First of all it clearly says that those "accused but not convicted" of said crimes will be added to the database
Click to expand...
.

To echo JohnK, how is this, in any way, different than taking someones fingerprints when they are taken in after being accused of a crime?
None that I can see.

And maybe...certain gun owners? Hmmmmmmm.....
Click to expand...
And just how does expanding the database put "certain gun owners" at any more "risk" than they/anyone is now?
We are already on file as per our license, are we not?

More "Big Brother" paranoia at play here!:rolleyes:

Nothing yet on whether the ACLU was against fingerprinting when it was first introduced?
GOOGLE time I guess!
 
I don't agree with the ACLU 100%, but I'm glad we live in a country of laws where people can still seek redress for their grievances instead of other means. I don't understand why folks get so choked up about the ACLU. I would get worried if the government came in and shut them down. If you want to live in a free and democratic society you don't always get everything your way.
 
Don't ask the ACLU to help you with a "gun" rights problem. When the instant federal check first became law I was denied for an arrest that happened over 25 years ago. I was released the next day and never went to court. Therefore the case was never, Resolved, adjudicated? sorry I can't remember the correct legal term. I called everyone from the state Atty. Generals on down and finally even the ACLU, who wouldn't even talk to me about it. So much for their fairness in helping with your rights. Unless it fits into their agenda. Took me three months of calls, letters, fingerprinting, etc. to fix it.

Far as I am concerned the ACLU can kiss me where the sun don't shine.
 
There's a lot of mouth frothing about the ACLU and its position on guns. Several years ago I thought I read their position was that a Federal Court (possibly the Supremes) decided many years ago that implementation of most gun laws were to be on a state by state basis because the 'right to bear arms' is a collective one the purpose of which is to maintain military-militia-type organizations. The ACLU have people who agree with and others who disagree with that decision.

They neither seek to resist or enforce that position, RATHER the ACLU works directly in areas which to them MORE CLEARLY relate to INDIVIDUALS' protection from the inappropriate behaviors by the government related to those individual rights expressed in the most sacred document on the face of the earth...OUR 'BILL OF RIGHTS'.

That said I also think they sometimes do some really anal and stupid stuff...but other times fight the authoritian tyranny of radical conservatives and liberals.
 
The ACLU should really be named the American Communist Legal Union since it was started by a communist activist and intended to get his fellow activists and rabble rousers out of jail. There are ample "biographies" of the beginning of the ACLU to document this.

With that said, one can look at the cases they take on in a new light. If you are some poor schnook accused of a crime and offer an ACLU lawyer that your mother beat you with a switch when you were bad, they'll try the "abused child" defense. If you offer that you were never disciplined by your parents they'll put up the "neglected child" defense. :rolleyes:

But if you are a gun-owner accused of any crime, your chances of ACLU representation are slim & none, especially against any gun-related charges. Likewise if you are a business owner attempting to establish the right of a business to enforce its own legitimate rules or policies, it's most likely the ACLU will tell you where to shove it.

As to the DNA database... My thinking is the same as JohnKSa's -- fingerprints are taken at the time of arrest. Why should DNA be any different?

Answer: For current technology - no reason to be different
Concern: Future technology may (or may not) identify certain genetic characteristics or predispositons to various disorders. For example, we know there are genetic markers to can tell if someone is more likely to get cancer than someone else. Might there be a gene or three that show a predisposition for paranoid schitzophrenics? Or for bi-polar disorders? Or brain tumors? Could it be possible that once such a gene is identified, people identified as having the gene might have their rights limited for public safety reasons? Despite the fact that a predisposition does not automatically mean you will develop the disorder or disease, might not the what if... liberal crowd get their way? You could lose your 2-A rights because one of your ancestors passed on a gene to you, one that may never cause you a problem.

ACLU & Fingerprinting -- the ACLU was formed after fingerprinting was an established method of identification. Fingerprints are well regarded as reliable, even though there have been a few documented examples of duplication (in one case, an entire family of children had the same prints, inherited from one of the parents - a very rare and unique case).
 
I suppose if they bean finger printing after the DNA samples then I suppose ear photo's are out of the question? Where will it stop, is my point, when will be able to have somthing useablt o identify a previous offender who may be a habitual? The first time is the hardest but after that there can sometimes be no limit.

Edit: I know! just remove the possibility we will have any differences! Clone someone and kill off the population. I nominate Chuck Heston
 
I have mixed feelings about the ACLU, but in general I think they do a lot more good than harm. Freedom should be much more important in America than safety, since no one is ever REALLY safe regardless of what laws are passed anyway. (Think of car accidents, heart disease, stroke, and cancer, for starters. How many people do those kill every day? Compare that to the number of Americans killed by terrorists every day. Now, which is the greater threat?). Giving up freedom for safety is pointless and somewhat weak, and it goes against the "Liberty or Death" attitude this country was founded upon.

They definitely need to get with the program regarding the Second Amendment, though. Whether we or they like it or not, only FORCE can guarantee rights. Without combat-capable weapons, American citizens have NO rights -- only privileges. This is an incontrovertible fact. So if the ACLU is really concerned about civil rights, then they will get off the fence on the gun issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top