Monday, March 24, 2008

Who Would Have Thought?

Who would have thought that I would ever find common ground with the NAACP?

There is an outstanding editorial in today's Salisbury Daily Times by state and local NAACP leaders who are leading the charge against warrantless DNA searches, an item of great interest before ever-more facistic General Assembly. While I don't agree with all the reasoning in the editorial, we have a common goal: to derail the police-state facist tendencies of our state government to make every Marylander the police become involved with a "suspect" in any crime.

The rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution did not suddenly appear out of the ether when our founding fathers sat down to draft the document. Our rights are not created by princes, or noble people, or government. They are inherent in our existence. They were created by God long before man existed and they will exist long after man is gone. Those rights are unalienable. They cannot be separated from us through the mere action of some government.

Government is not created for the benefit of itself, but to secure the blessings of liberty for those that formed it. And one of those blessings-- one of the unalienable rights -- is to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

And collection of our most fundamental biological identity without our consent is a breech of the very freedom and liberty that my forefathers -- from Colonel William Wallace (4th Maryland Regiment, Continental Army) to General Lew Wallace, Major General (Brevet) US Volunteers and military Governor of Maryland, to Private Beatty, 8th US Volunteers (Cavalry), to Airman Doug Patterson, US Air Force -- fought to protect, defend, and bequeath to you and me.

The Government of the State of Maryland has no right to require or expect me to surrender my DNA unless and until such time as they are willing to secure a warrent to do so. There is no jutification under heaven why we should deny the majority of our citizens their freedoms and liberties in order to catch the minority who are commit the bulk of the crime.

And to ANY Republican in the General Assembly -- Delegate or Senator -- who sees fit to vote for this legislation: I will make my sole goal for 2010 to make sure you are out of office in 2011. You either stand with the free-born citizens of Maryland on this issue, or you WILL stand in "out of office" line.

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. And I will go to every extreme possible to hold any self-serving Republian in this state responsible for a vote in favor of this monstrous and facist bill.


Crossposted at www.gunpowderchronicle.com

5 comments:

Roger B said...

Can you say Gestapo tactics? This is nothing short of a violation of anyone’s rights and will be overturned the first time a legal challenge is brought. It just goes to show what O’Malley really wants, total control. This is communism as it’s finest. Take your money and your personal data so if you complain, you can be sent to Siberia. Or in our case, you will be exiled to Baltimore City to live under the thumb of Shelia the Shoe.

Daniel said...

If this bill passes (to collect DNA from suspects, not convicted felons) then it absolutely must be challenged in court.

Mistaken identity cases happen quite frequently, which means this database is likely to be retaining dna needlessly.

Bismarck said...

Hasn’t law enforcement fingerprinted every person arrested during the booking process for many decades now? These are people who are merely suspects. No constitutional question has been raised about the practice. The military fingerprints everyone at the time of induction. How is collection of DNA any different? Both fingerprints and DNA are unique to each individual.

Daniel said...

The claim is that this added function (of collecting dna) will 'catch' the criminals that got away in the first place (unsolved crimes).

So, if collecting fingerprints was supposed to do that too - why is this being considered??

Bismarck said...

Daniel said...
The claim is that this added function (of collecting dna) will 'catch' the criminals that got away in the first place (unsolved crimes).

So, if collecting fingerprints was supposed to do that too - why is this being considered??


I would say that in the case of rape, often no fingerprints are left at the crime scene. However, DNA evidence usually can be obtained from the rape kit. Also, sometimes an offender will leave blood or other biological material at the crime scene but no fingerprints.

ShareThis