Seriously, however, I do object because of the principle, not because of the specifics. Take Padilla, for example. He, an American citizen, was held for three years without charge and without access to counsel, effectively scraping the notion of habeas corpus for Georgie-Porgie's short-term political gains. Johnny Ascroft, he of the "no-boobs" fame, caught him, almost single-handedly btw, with all the materials for a "dirty bomb." Funny how he was never charged with anything related to a dirty bomb.
When Napolitano and Obama declare some right-wing schmuck an enemy combatant, all those who cheered Johnny and Georgie need to remember that they gave them this power without objection.
England's blanket retention of DNA profiles on criminal suspects was declared unlawful today. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the human rights of two British men to enjoy respect for their private and family lives had been violated.
The landmark ruling is expected to force a policy change in England, Wales and Northern Ireland where police retain indefinitely the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of people suspected but not convicted of crimes.
Approximately 4.5 million samples are currently stored on the UK's DNA database. More than 850,000 of these samples are from people with no criminal record, according to reports.
A more restricted policy applies in Scotland, an approach that may become a blueprint for UK policing after today's ruling.
There kind of is a way, if they get hold of a good hair sample off a suspect's clothing. But there would be logistics of proving that the sample is truly that person's hair, and that would likely lead to problems in court.
For paternity tests, they now take swabs of cheek cells. It works well, because then they don't have to get a blood sample from a crying baby or small child.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|