The Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement agencies can collect DNA of people arrested for "serious" crimes without waiting for a conviction. How did the justices make their 5-4 ruling? Then, should we have an all-out ban on killer robots or research the technology before someone else does? Also, the trial begins today to determine if Bradley Manning should be charged with Espionage for leaking military documents to Wikileaks, and LAUSD wants high school students to get tested for STDs and get texted the results. Later, a judge allows the Fort Hood shooting suspect represent himself in court. All that and more, on AirTalk.
SCOTUS rules 5-4 in favor of law enforcement agencies collecting DNA of arrestees
In a 5-4 decision split not along the usual political lines, the Supreme Court ruled this morning that both state and federal law enforcement agencies have the right to collect DNA of people arrested for “serious” crimes, regardless of whether or not they are eventually convicted of the crime.
The State of Maryland argued that DNA collection has become a powerful tool for law enforcement and that collection upon arrest does not violate our Fourth Amendment right protecting us against warrantless search. But Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in the dissent, suggested that the founding fathers wouldn’t have consented “to open their mouths for royal inspection.” Currently, 27 states collect DNA material from arrestees in felony cases, and this ruling allows them to continue to do so.
Is DNA collection upon arrest a violation of individual rights? Or should law enforcement not be denied an effective tool in crime solving? How will law enforcement define “serious crime” in order to collect DNA? How will DNA be stored? DNA is different than a fingerprint, but should the use of DNA be limited to a simple identity tool?
Guest:
Lisa McElroy, Associate Professor of Law, Earle Mack School of Law, Drexel University; Supreme Court scholar
UN calls for moratorium on ‘Killer Robots’
Governments around the world should stop research on lethal autonomous machines before it’s too late, according to a United Nations human rights expert. A group of researchers, including experts on drone technology that work for the Pentagon, warn that killer robot technology could arrive before nations have time to think through the implications.
Christof Heynes, a UN special rapporteur urged world leaders to press pause on research, saying “Time is of the essence.” Speaking to reporters in Geneva, he said programming machines to kill without humans making decisions could encourage more wars and make it more difficult to hold anyone accountable for war crimes. Autonomous, non-lethal systems are being developed by the Pentagon already. Their envisioned use includes crowd control while delivering humanitarian aid to danger zones.
Human Rights Watch wants an all-out ban on killer robots. But a different camp says the Pentagon ought to continue research and development because the U.S. can’t anticipate what it will need in future conflicts.
How quickly is the technology moving? Can a machine with artificial intelligence make the same battlefield judgement as a human soldier? Why can’t a human be kept in the loop, as occurs with current drone technology?
Guests:
Bonnie Docherty, Senior Researcher, Arms Division, Human Rights Watch; Lead author on "Losing Humanity: The Case against Killer Robots," a joint publication on fully autonomous weapons that was jointly published by Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic
Christopher Harmer, Senior Naval Analyst, Institute for the Study of War; Previously, Harmer served for 20 years as a career officer in the U.S. Navy
Bradley Manning trial begins Monday
On Monday Bradley Manning, the 25-year-old former U.S. Army intelligence analyst, begins his military trial three years after being arrested for his involvement in the biggest leak of classified information in US history. Manning faces 22 charges, including violating the Espionage Act and a charge of aiding the enemy, which could bring a sentence of life in prison without parole.
Manning has already admitted to leaking over 700,000 government and military documents to the website Wikileaks and has already offered to plead guilty to 10 charges related to tampering with classified information which could put him behind bars for 20 years. But the prosecution is intent on pursuing the two biggest charges.
In his opening statement, Capt. Joe Morrow said, “this is a case about a soldier who systematically harvested hundreds of thousands of documents from classified databases and then dumped that information onto the internet into the hands of the enemy.” Manning, meanwhile, when releasing the classified cables wrote that he hoped to spark “worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms.”
While the letter of the law might find indeed Manning guilty of treason and of aiding the enemy, the decision of the court carries symbolic weight over the future of secrecy and transparency in military and foreign policy affairs. The Wikileaks cables have indeed sparked a public conversation, and it’s understandable why so many people consider Manning a hero.
How should the court rule? Do the ends justify the means? Are supporters of transparency and civil liberties naive about how much Manning’s actions endangered our security? What’s an appropriate punishment?
Guests:
Jeffrey Addicott, professor of law at St. Mary's School of Law in San Antonio, where he is also the director of the Center for Terrorism Law
Faiza Patel, Co-Director of the Liberty & National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice
Why is LAUSD helping high school students get STD-test results by text message?
The Los Angeles Unified School District and the STD-test sharing site Qpid.me have joined forces to encourage students to get tested for sexually-transmitted diseases and share those test results with potential partners.
The site provides users with STD testing center locations, then assists them with requesting that their results get sent to Qpid.me. The results of the test are then sent to the user who can choose to send their results to potential partners via text message or a link.
The LAUSD is targeting seventh through twelfth grade students and demonstrating how to use Qpid.me in health classes. They say the service will hopefully encourage teens to demand to know the STD-status of potential sexual partners.
"We like to think of it as a modern flirtatious version of 'I'll show you mine if you show me yours' to encourage people to have that talk if they're going to go down that road," said Ramin Bastani, Qpid.me founder and CEO, on AirTalk.
Critics like Dr. Diane Foley, however, say that the site could provide a false sense of security.
"My concern would be that students would think, 'Wow, I've been tested. I'm OK now,' without recognizing that there are certainly other health risks to them in this situation," said Foley, a board member at the National Abstinence Education Association and practicing pediatrician in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Because the site doesn't collect personal information like names and ages, there are no current statistics regarding who is currently using the site.
Does a service like Qpid.me encourage promiscuity? How do users protect their privacy? Does the site stigmatize users with negative test results? Will users receive accurate information?
Guests:
Ramin Bastani, Founder & CEO Qpid.me
Dr. Diane Foley, board member at the National Abstinence Education Association and practicing pediatrician in Colorado Springs, Colorado
With contributions from Nuran Alteir
Fort Hood shooting suspect will represent himself in court
A military judge has allowed Maj. Nidal Hasan to represent himself in court. Hasan is charged in a 2009 Fort Hood shooting rampage that killed 13 people and wounded more than two dozen. Hasan has asked for another three months to prepare his defense and said he will use a "defense of others" argument, according to the Associated Press.
How common is it for suspects to represent themselves in military court? Why would he be allowed to defend himself? What could Hasan be considering as a defense?
Guests:
Ray Locker, National Security Editor for USA Today
Geoffrey S. Corn, Professor of Law at South Texas College of Law; retired lieutenant colonel and veteran army prosecutor