Can You Keep A Secret?

The answer in a word NO!

I now firmly believe that SCOTUS has become irrelevant, their rulings seem to be either very politically motivated or just plain goofy. Take for instance what Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority vote: Kennedy described DNA testing as a logical and more effective successor to the longtime practice of fingerprinting criminal suspects.

“An individual’s identity is more than just his name or Social Security number, and the government’s interest in identification goes beyond ensuring that the proper name is typed on the indictment,” Kennedy wrote. “Identity has never been considered limited to the name on the arrestee’s birth certificate. In fact, a name is of little value compared to the real interest in identification at stake when an individual is brought into custody.” http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/supreme-court-upholds-dna-testing-felony-arrests-92140.html

To me, what Kennedy and the rest of the Supremes who voted for this Police State ruling neglected to address is DNA does not only identify an individual it also identifies his or her whole being into existence and discloses family and ancestral genes prone to mental or physical syndromes.

Nearly every major mental illness has been identified with a gene(s). This would include anxiety, depression, ADHD, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. http://psychiatristscottsdale.com/genetic-mental-illnesses/ (Wouldn't Adolph Hitler have loved to have DNA testing as a tool.)

Brave New World has become somewhat of a reality and real soon this fictional tale will be a way of life and our Republic will be no more. Why isn’t there someone in power who can say ENOUGH ALREADY; let’s keep some things sacred and revered like the privacy of our genetic make-up (unless we volunteer it to be exposed or a warrant is issued to take it by force) for goodness sake... Not SCOTUS that’s for sure. If no one speaks up, Democracy and our Republic will someday just become a footnote in a history book. thethinkingblue

SCOTUS upholds DNA testing for serious arrests

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the police practice of taking DNA samples from people who have been arrested but not convicted of a crime, ruling that it amounts to the 21st century version of fingerprinting.

The ruling was 5-4. Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative, joined three of the court's more liberal members — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — in dissenting.

Scalia, who typically sides with the court's conservatives, expressed deep reservations about DNA swabbing at the oral argument. The purpose of the practice, he acknowledged, was "to catch the bad guys." But he added: "The Fourth Amendment sometimes stands in the way."

---

Well, as the story goes on to say, if it's just to catch the "bad guys", then I'm ok with that.

But is that likely? What will they do with the information if you are not charged or convicted? Keep it, like fingerprints?

What say you, ATS?

On the other hand, how many times have they picked up a "suspect" in a crime, release him/her only later on to find DNA linking them to the crime?
Meantime, they had committed more crimes.

From: abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread951267/pg1

---

Brave New World is a masterpiece of science fiction. Huxley has imaginatively employed scientific facts and theories to produce a classic of its kind. This novel is in the tradition of Jules Verne, the French novelist who wrote Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea and Journey to the Center of the Earth, and H. G. Wells, the English novelist who wrote War of the Worlds. Few writers of science fiction have equaled Huxley's ability to make the unbelievable seem believable and to make the improbable seem probable. His own interest in science, its use and misuse, its peril and its promise, contributed to the accuracy of his presentation and to the horror of his envisioned Utopia.


Huxley qualifies as a social commentator by reason of his diversified interest, his acquaintance with the great, the near-great, and the not-so-great. His comments are always perceptive, sometime biased, but never dull. He sees little chance of mankind saving itself; he sees mankind inexorably moving toward self-destruction. He sees himself as a voice crying in the wilderness - but crying to no avail, for the deaf refuse to hear.


The prophetic elements in Brave New World contribute much to its continuing popularity because year by year we see more and more of Huxley's fantasy becoming reality. Huxley himself later commented that we are moving in the direction of this Utopia much more rapidly than anyone could have imagined. At the time the novel was written only a comparatively few research scientists were concerned with conditioning, the importance of heredity and environment, and the effect of chemical imbalance on physical and mental development. Today, governments, educational institutions, and industries are exploiting the results of research in these areas. Read more: http://www.huxley.net/studyaid/