@Bob McBride....To be perfectly honest, I don't know of any particular instance to back up my F.U.D. statement. I am generally pretty practical in my approach to issues and am fully supportive of DNA use in the "Innocence Project". However, I am opposed to this measure on the same grounds that I am opposed to the Patriot Act and action without extra-judicial review. I want law enforcement to go before a judge to get a search warrant and explain to him or her why they need to take an invasive sample of DNA. They would have to show enough probable cause to warrant the search. If there is enough evidence to establish probably cause, then a judge will authorize the search warrant; and, in this case the taking of the sample.

Fingerprints are similar, but still significantly different. Finger prints are not invasive requiring either a blood sample or mouth swab. The finger print is used for identification and by itself will most likely not convict in a criminal trial. DNA contains so much more information and can be used in a manner way beyond just criminal proceedings.

Once the DNA is in the system, it is unlikely that the information contained can be maintained in a secure state, preventing entities with no interest in criminal activities, from gaining access for different purposes. Once the government has the information, open records allows access by the general public.

Lyle, I think sans a concrete example of how this might be exploited, the argument doesn't hold a lot of water. The advances in the use of DNA evidence have proven to be a boon to seeing that justice is done, rather than the opposite.

Lyle, with respect to the DNA issue, there is judicial review. You will not have such information collected from you if you are not convicted of a felony. You have the opportunity to present a defense and go to trial in order to avoid that conviction - that's more than can be said about your fingerprints (which enter the database at the moment of ARREST). To deny the DNA database means to deny the fingerprint database.

The other question that may be relevant is whether, after conviction, any harboring of evidence on the original crime is against the fourth amendment. That evidence might be enough to show pattern, practice, motive, or a host of other things that would make someone a suspect in future criminal activity. By throwing out DNA evidence collected post-conviction, your argument would have the officers destroy this other evidence as a violation of the fourth amendment.

In short, I'm not sure the fourth amendment argument holds on the DNA collected post-conviction.

@Craig...If you hadn't noticed, I was addressing issues specific to Wisconsin. I am in complete agreement with you about tyrannical executions of Americans without due process. Depending on what's uncovered, we may be looking for an impeachment. Also, the Patriot Act needs to be done away with. We have laid the ground work for loss of more freedoms and it must be reversed.

"tyrannical executions of Americans without due process"?

Haven't seen any strange fruit hanging in my neighborhood. Have you guys got anything on this? Or is this, again, a fear you have...

I think Lyle is referring to the recent declaration that it is legal for drones to take down US citizens for the 'crime' of being a suspected terrorist.

Lyle sorry I went off topic.. This surpasses the Patriot Act by leaps and bounds.

Are the criteria for doing so via drone any different than they are for some other method we're less afraid of because it doesn't remind us of something from a science fiction movie?

I think I'd feel just as uncomfortable with a guy using a high powered rifle instead of drones to assassinate people. The part that I find troublesome is that the person only has to be 'suspected', not necessarily someone that has or is in the process of carrying out a terrorist strike.

Bob: At issue is the Executive order to assassinate US citizens.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/07/poll-americans-back-drone-attacks-but-not-on-u-s-citizens-abroad/

@Bob McBride....I was making direct reference to American citizens that are being targeted for their involvement with Al Qaeda. these citizens have been denied due process and executed. A trial in absentia would be all that was needed to guarantee rights and due process.

Let's be clear here. We're not talking about the US Government flying drones over Brookfield and mistaking someone in their backyard shooting off fireworks for an Al Qaeda operative engaged in terrorist activities and blowing them to smithereens.

This is in reference to American citizens involved in anti-American terrorist activities abroad. Again, I have to ask, aside from the methodology employed, how does this differ from other policies we have in place regarding American citizens involved in these same sort of activities, taken out by targeted "assassinations" via other methods (sniper fire, special ops forces, mortars, manned aircraft, etc)?

Don't be so sure. From Craig's link:

"Brennan forcefully stood by the U.S. drone campaign during an April address at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, saying the government acts fully within the law "in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States and save American lives." His comments, however, did not specifically address American citizens abroad. "

I'm not so concerned about what someone did or didn't say in relation to drones in a speech he gave. Again, how do the restrictions on using drones in this fashion differ from those for other methods utilized to accomplish the same thing?

As I stated earlier, it doesn't matter if it is drones or a rifle. Killing US Citizens without convicting them of a crime isn't a good thing. The distinction I would make is that the drones make their kills in cold blood, not in the heat of battle or actual combat situations.

If they can justify doing it abroad, it's not a big stretch to justify doing it here. How are they defining 'terrorist'? If a guy is stockpiling weapons or ammo, can he be labeled as a suspected terrorist and killed?

Actually, I think it is a big stretch. The Patriot Act has been in force for over 10 years. The capability to perform assassinations of this nature, both on foreign soil and here, have been available for that entire period of time. The argument seems to be that, since this is an unmanned method (not the only one, btw, but one that seems to scare people significantly), there is going to be more of a propensity to utilize it in this fashion and start down the slippery slope of systematically taking out perceived terrorist threats.

In other words, they've had this ability all along and, frankly, a drone isn't the least obvious of methods that could be used for this. Do we have documented cases of this happening since the introduction of the Patriot Act via other methods? Is there something unique in this legal opinion that would tend to lead someone to rationally believe that this is now a realistic possibility - i.e., how does this vary from (known) legal opinions of the past and their subsequent application?

I'm not sure that I'd agree with you that the Patriot Act had made assassinations of US citizens legal, otherwise the recent Executive Order would not have been necessary.

The patriot act dealt a lot more with surveillance and the various techniques that could be used to identify terror suspects. Those suspects could then be dealt with through the legal system--they get their day in court.

By declaring that it is legal to kill terror suspects (with drones or any other means), the suspect can officially be denied their right to defend themselves against the charge of being a terrorist.

I'm not saying it made it legal. I said the Patriot Act has been in force for over 10 years and that, despite the capability (as in ability, not legal authority) to do so we've not seen anything remotely resembling an assassination attempt by the US Government on one of its citizens here due to a belief that they were a possible terrorist suspect. Drones, or not, I don't see that changing. Are you suggesting it will?

Could you please post a link here to the "Executive Order"? I'm seeing a legal opinion that, apparently, the Obama administration is using as guidance. It specifically relates to drones being used on foreign soil in that fashion.

http://www.fiscalconservatives.com/videos/7I_GWl8E-b0.html?w=i

Bob: The order was given back in 2010. Now the DOJ is extrapolating the order to include any US citizen they deem a threat.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/04/pers-a08.html

I think Bob is correct--it isn't an Executive Order authorizing it. It's a legal opinion from the Obama administration.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite

Craig, we're still talking about opinions and interpretations here. There was no "Executive Order" given allowing the president or anyone else to mow down any American citizen or citizens they deem a threat. That's an interpretation of an interpretation. I sincerely hope you're not suggesting that this is going to turn into Obama or anyone else blanketing the countryside with killer drones taking out political enemies under the guise of thwarting a terrorist threat. Frankly, that seems to be direction both those pieces were headed.

On the other hand, if there is a terrorist act in progress and there exists the possibility of it involving a US citizen working into conjunction with those involved, I don't want people crossing "t"s and dotting "i"s while casualties mount or the threat of it coming to fruition in its most horrific form continues on unabated.

Originally it was Obama in 2010 who authorized the “targeted killing” of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born Muslim cleric who was reported to be in hiding in Yemen.
I believe it was this order that led to the DOJ interpretation.
My concern would be some ranch owner in perhaps Wako, Texas who owns a stockpile of firearms and ammunition. No trial, no warrant, just a drone and a single shot to solve whatever problem - all under the protection of a terrorist threat.

I don't share your concern, Craig. I don't see this as being a catalyst for unjustified attacks.

On the other hand, if it's some nutjob in Waco who thinks he's God's 2nd son and who's intent on taking a bunch of innocent kids with him as he ascends to his rightful position at the right hand of the Almighty at some final showdown, if we can strategically knock him off without recreating a WWII Panzer invasion in the process, I'd consider that an upgrade.

That being said, it's not too hard to imagine the enormous lefty outrage had this legal opinion not come from Obama & Co, but rather some Republican administration. Other than Lyle, I haven't seen one expression of concern whatsoever about this from those on the left.

Bob, I agree I do not see it as a threat to the typical American at this point.
But it opens the door. Police now have small toy sized drones, and I can't see any reason why they will not be equipped with firepower in the near future.

@Steve....You missed the point completely. You're hung up about the environmental objections, my primary concern is the collection and allocation of taxes. As far as business from the mines, S.E. Wisconsin will probably get a portion of mine equipment wherever a mine is constructed. What we have to worry about is not giving away the farm in a bad deal with the mining company. If you don't think infrastructure support is important, then look at the problems that North Dakota is having.

You mean a bad deal like the pact we entered into for casinos?

@Rik Kluessendorf....DNA collected post conviction, in my opinion, is not protected by the 4th amendment.

@Rik Kluessendorf....Exactly! A bad deal is a bad deal.

Lyle, my apologies. I didn't catch the distinction because I was unaware of any pending movement to take and collect DNA pre-conviction. The news reports that I have been reading involve collection from convicted felons, not those awaiting conviction. If there is no such movement, and I'm open to correction on that, then I'm not sure to what your argument above is referring?

I would still argue that there are circumstances when pre-conviction collection is appropriate, but those are protected by the Fourth Amendment. And retaining that pre-conviction evidence is no different than retaining any other evidence.

@Rik Kluessendorf....It is the pre convection collection of DNA that I am objecting to. AG Van Holland has specifically asked for and has legislative support to collect samples on arrest for felonies and certain misdemeanors.

You are insane Lyle if you think a mining company will come here and pay a per tonnage tax. I don't pay business taxes on my gross receipts.

Bam Bam, easy on ole Lyle there. He has a right to his opinion, and hasn't degraded the thread to insults. Save the insults for when they are warranted.
Though I do wonder how he would feel if Obama was making this push?

@Steve....For someone who claims to know so much about mining, this comment indicates you don't know about resource extraction fees. You are comparing two different types of businesses. Of course you wouldn't pay taxes on gross receipts. However, it is common to pay resource extraction fees for non renewable resources. It's time to start googling.

Lyle Ruble... Do you know how the taxes/fees are structured in other states, for taconite mining? I would expect that both Minnesota and Michigan would be reasonable comparative models, as virtually all current taconite mining in the USA occurs in these neighboring states.

http://www.revenue.state.mn.us/businesses/mineral/Documents/2011_mining_guide.pdf

@Steve...Thanks, page 9 is what I am referring to.

One only has to watch some Occupy videos and read about how the FBI was involved in suppressing protesters to know that "freedom of speech" and the "right to peacefully assemble" only go so far. When we don't pay attention--that's how legislation passes that threaten our freedoms. I'm very concerned about the direction anti-terrorism legislation has taken, from the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (Uniting [and] Strengthening America [by] Providing Appropriate Tools Required [to] Intercept [and] Obstruct Terrorism Act) and going forward.

Not long after this bill was signed, police started video recording protesters. In response, protesters started video recording the police. When the Occupy movement started in 2011, police began brutalizing peaceful protesters and video recordings taken by offended bystanders and other protesters were circulated around the globe. In escalation/retaliation, the police now arrest/brutalize people with recording equipment. Even a few journalists covering Occupy were arrested. Other than a few black bloc infiltrations, Occupy was a nonviolent movement meant to open the dialogue about wage/wealth disparity in the U.S. Setting up Occupy camps (a la "Hoovervilles" during the Great Depression) was an intriguing idea. Now several Occupy groups raise money to purchase debt and forgive it, others help people stave off foreclosure. These are good people. Why were they treated the way they were? Yes, I'm concerned.

The occupy movement was, in most cases, a joke. For every instance of the police over stepping their bounds, there were 1000 protesters over stepping theirs. Occupy protested for the sake of protest, nothing more. If a group wants real change they should be able to define what that change is.

@Greg....Occupy Oakland was a particular bad case of police brutality as well as on the campus at UC Davis. Did you forget about the Wisconsin vet that caught in the middle of it and wound up in the hospital with serious injury?

@Greg....To specifically address your question; on other blog posts, people who have adamantly defended the 2nd have gone to the other side to support the collection of DNA upon arrest for certain misdemeanors and all felonies. It's not a cheap shot, but is specifically targeting those who want to support the constitution selectively. I personally, would not want to see the right to own and bear arms abridged because that is an alienable right we have given ourselves. Same goes for the fourth amendment. I object to stopping vehicles for random searches or stopping people on the street for random searches.

There is no connection between the right to choice and the second amendment. I know plenty of people who support choice and support the second amendment.

Bren- Have you flagged this for being off topic?

#brenisamoderate

Steve,
The blog is about "musings", therefore the post, while stupid, may be on topic. We'll let Bren be the judge, as I am not a expert on musing. I think it's kinda like talking to yourself, but i'm not real sure. Did I say that last part out loud? Damn, I did it again!

Fox could always hire Olbermann, he should be available as soon as he is done cleaning Gore's bathroom.

Although this may indeed be off topic, I feel compelled to express the same implicit satisfaction with Palin and Morris being voted off the island.