Janet's Conner

This Blog tell the Truth and will never not tell the Truth. Impeach Bush

Friday, July 21, 2006

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S FBI APPROVES USING DNA TO FIND SUSPECTS' RELATIVES




The FBI is allowing crime labs to use DNA databases to locate family members of suspects who appear to have left DNA evidence at crime scenes but for whom a complete genetic match cannot be made, a controversial practice that alarms privacy advocates.

The interim policy, which went into ffect last Friday, applies to federal investigations and situations where a crime has been committed in one state but the DNA of a potential relative is contained in another state's database. States are free to set their own policies for purely in-state investigations.

State and federal investigators routinely compare crime scene DNA to the genetic profiles of more than 3.2 million Americans, most of them convicted criminals, contained in the nation's computerized DNA databases. In federal and interstate investigators, the FBI allowed labs to report only exact DNA matches.

But, sometimes DNA left at a acrime scene shares several---but not all---of the genetic markers of a DNA profile already in the database. Such a partial match could indicate that the perpetrator of an unsolved crime is a close relative of a known criminal.

Under the plan, the FBI will allow state crime labs for the first time to tell investigators the names of people who DNA partially matches that found on evidence at a crime scene. Thomas Callaghan, who oversees the DNA database system, and Joseph DiZinno, director of the FBI crime lab, told U.S. News. Police then would investigate the close relatives of the known offender. "This is a very significant change. It begins to maximize the potential of the database," says Chris Aspien, the former director of the National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, and now an attorney at Smith Alling Lane. "It helps police zero in on the real perpetrator."

But critics and privacy advocates call the practice tantamount to lifelong genetic surveillance. Critics charge that partial matches turn potentially innocent people into suspects simply because they are related to someone whose DNA is already on file.

The searches could also lead to people who are unrelated, but still share some of the same genetic information.

The changes come amid a rapid expansion of DNA technology in law enforcement. While it's now common to keep DNA profiles of convicted felons, more and more states track people convicted of misdemeanors---in some cases as minor as shoplifting and vandalism---or those simply arrested. The idea of using databases to track close relatives has been discussed with the law enforcement community for several years, but has been used rarely.

Under the interim policy, the FBI must approve each request to report a partial match. Even if given approval, state labs may opt not to report the match if state law or lab policy prevents them from doing so. Callaghan and DiZinno said the bureau's scientific advisory board would review the plan before any final policy is set.

Prosecutors said partial matches would help only a handful of cases. But the FBI's actions may prompt states to allow partial matches more often. State crime labs have always been free to conduct partial matches for purely in-state investigations. But, most state laws don't address the issue and many labs don't report them, citing the old FBI policy.

Callaghan and DiZinno say the FBI has no plans to use a more controversial technique known as "familial searching," in which investigators deliberately search the DNA database for a list of people most genetically similar to crime scene evidence. "That is very different from what we are currently doing," said Callaghan.

But, says Frederick Bieber, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School, "relatives who are potential suspects will still be 'identified' through the FBI's appraoch. "Regardless of what you call the various approaches, they all have the same goal."


Source of Information: USNews-Inside Washington
July 20, 2006

WHERE ARE BUSH'S CRITICS NOW?




When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unleashed his navy and air force on Lebanon, accusing that tiny nation of an Act of War," the last pillar of Bush's Middle East policy collapsed.

First came capitulation on the Bush Doctrine, as Pyongyang and Tehran defied Bush's dictum: The world's worst regimes will not be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons. Then came suspicion of the democracy crusade as Islamic militants exploited free elections to advance power and office in Egypt, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Iraq and Iran.

Now Israel's rampage against a defenseless Lebanon---smashing airport runways, fuel tanks, power plants, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges, roads, and the occasional refugee convoy---has exposed Bush's folly in subcontracting U.S. policy out to Tel Aviv, thus making Israel the custodian of our reputation and interests in the Middle East.

The Lebanon that Israel, with Bush's blessing, is smashing up has a pro-American government, heretofore considered a shining example of his democracy crusade. Yet, asked in St. Petersburg if he would urge Israel to use restraint in its air attacks, Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights.

What Israel is up to is described by its Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz when he threatened to "turn back the clock in Lebanon 20 years."

Israel seized upon Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers to unleash the IDF in a pre-planned attack to make Lebanese people suffer until the Lebanese government disarms Hezbollah, a task the Israeli army could not accomplish in 18 years of occupation.

Israel is doing the same to the Palestinians. To punish these people for the crime of electing Hamas, Olmert imposed an economic blockade of Gaza and the West Bank and withheld the $50M in monthly tax and customs receipts due the Palestinians.

Then, Israel instructed the United States to terminate all aid to the Palestinian Authority, though Bush himself had called for the elections and for the participation of Hamas. Our Crawford cowboy mekely complied.

The predictable result: Fatah and Hamas fell to fratricidal fighting, and Hamas militants began launching Qassam rockets over the fence from Gaza into Israel. Hamas then tunneled into Israel, killed two soldiers, captured one, took him back into Gaza, and demanded a prisoner exchange.

Israel's response was to abduct half of the Palestinian cabinet and parliament and blow up a $50M U.S.-insured power plant. That cut off electricity for half a million Palestinians. Their food spoiled, their water could not be purified, and their families sweltered in the summer heat of the Gaza desert. One family of seven was wiped out on a beach by what the IDF assures us was an errant artillery shell.

Let it be said: Israel has a right to defend herself, a right to counterattack against Hezbollah and Hamas, a right to clean out bases from which Katyusha or Qassam rockets are being fired, and a right to occupy land from which attacks are mounted on her people.

But what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people, to force them to do something they are powerless to do; disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and comports neither with our values nor our interests. IT IS UN-AMERICAN AND UN-CHRISTIAN.

BUT WHERE ARE THE CHRISTIANS? Why is Pope Benedict virtually alone among Christian leaders to have spoken out against what is being done to Lebanese Christians and Muslims?

When al-Qaeda captured two U.S. soldiers and barbarically butchered them, the U.S. Army did not smash power plants across the Sunni Triangle. WHY THEN IS BUSH OPENLY SUPPORTIVE WHEN ISRAELIS DO THIS?

Democrats attack Bush for crimes of which he is not guilty, including Haditha and Abu Ghraib. (*That's only one opinion!) Why are they, too, silent when Israel pursues a conscious policy of collective punishment of innocent peoples?

Britain's diplomatic goal in two world wars was to bring the naive cousins in, to "pull their chestnuts out of the fire." Israel and her paid and pro-bono agents here appear to be determined to expand the Iraq war into Syria and Iran, and have America fight and finish all of Israel's enemies.

That Tel Aviv is maneuvering us to fight its wars is understandable. That Americans are ignorant of, or complicit in this, is deplorable.

Already Bush is ranting about Syria being behind the Hezbollah capture of the Israeli soldiers. BUT WHERE IS THE PROOF?

WHO IS WHISPERING IN HIS EAR? THE SAME PEOPLE WHO TOLD HIM IRAQ WAS MAYBE MONTHS AWAY FROM AN ATOM BOMB, THAT AN INVASION WOULD BE A "CAKEWALK," THAT HE WOULD BE CHURCHILL, THAT U.S. TROOPS WOULD BE GREETED WITH CANDY AND FLOWERS, THAT DEMOCRACY WOULD BREAK OUT ACROSS THE REGION, THAT PALESTINIANS AND ISRAELIS WOULD THEN SIT DOWN AND MAKE PEACE?

HOW MUCH MUST AMERICA PAY FOR THE EDUCATION OF THIS MAN?


***Israel is in Lebanon for America! Bush couldn't go because the elections are coming up. If he did go into Syria and Iran like he's planned ever since Iraq, the people would never forgive him and the Republicans. So, Bush found a back door into Syria. Lebanon! Just like Bush found a back door for Dubai Ports World with the hidden language in the Oman Trade Deal that was voted on yesterday. Specifically, the language allows a "right of establishment" to any company based in Oman. That presented an avenue for Dubai Ports World, or any other company with dubious ties, to set up a small operation in Oman and then lay claim to a U.S. port. In other words, the Bush administration lied to the people "once again" when he said that the DPW deal wouldn't go through when the people complained about possible terrorist attacks that may come with the agreement. This vote was not so much about trade as about security. Our homeland security and our national security regarding threats of terrorism against our nation and our people, was pulverized when the Republicans and 14 Democrats voted in favor of this trade agreement. Evidently, they are not serious about keeping this country safe and not one of them should be re-elected!


Commentary By: Patrick J. Buchanan
July 19, 2006


'CUT AND RUN' CAN CUT BOTH WAYS




An emeritus professor of philosophy at the University of Illinois at Chicago has written one of the best answers I've seen to Karl Rove and the rest of the Bush Administration's latest campaign to portry those who want us to get out of Iraq as "cut and runners."

W. Kent Wilson wants to know if the Bushies would use that term to describe Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, whose first act in office was to get the country the heck out of Korea back in 1953, or Richard Nixon, another GOP chief executive, who got combat troops out of Vietnam in 1973.

Or, for that matter, was Republican George H.W. Bush's decision to get out of Iraq and not go after Saddam Hussein when the first Gulf War ended an example of cut and run?

Wilson answers his own questions by saying he doesn't think so, but then "a virulently partisan person might make the claim in each of these cases."

"What is cut-and-run policy anyway?" the professor asked in a letter to the Chicago Tribune. "Surely there may be times when a country's objectives are better served by ending a conflict rather than continuing a course of violence where a favorable outcome is increasingly unlikely.

"What event in recent history can lay claim to being a paradigm example of what is a case of cut and run? I submit that it was the 1983 withdrawal of the Marines from Lebanon after their barracks were bombed. No serious retaliation for this attack was taken, and it has been widely reported that failure to respond forcefully led to the U.S. being regarded in the Mideast as unwilling to sacrifice our soldiers in a difficult conflict," he added.

Wilson pointed out, of course, that the president responsible for that cut and run was a Republican named Ronald Reagan.

In other words, either Democrats or the Republicans can accuse each other of being cut and runners, but it is all beside the point.

The real question is, what is in our country's best interest?

My favorite historian, the late Barbara Tuchman, wrote a masterpiece called "The March of Folly," in which she described four instances where leaders ignored all warnings and blindly went their way, ending with disastrous results. King George's insistence to get tough with the American colonists was one of them.

Now a U.S. president named George is embarked on a path of his own making that threatens to not only weaken us economically, but is spreading terrorism and Mayhem throughout the Mideast and beyond.

As Professor Wilson added in his letter, "The Bush administration as well as its congressional allies who put party ahead of country and Constitution are well along the way to ruining us. Our country faces many serious problems, ranging from huge deficits; a problematic health care system; security of our ports, transportation centers and borders; to our system of public education, a trade deficit and a failing energy policy, to list just a few."

KARL ROVE CAN CALL IT CUT AND RUN IF HE WANTS, BUT THERE'S NEVER BEEN A MORE IMPORTANT TIME TO GET OUR COUNTRY'S HOUSE AND PRIORITIES IN ORDER THAN RIGHT NOW.


Commentary By: Dave Zweifel
Madison.com
July 19, 2006