DNA samples of thousands of suspected terrorists from Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere have been collected and preserved in a little-known U.S. government database that is intended for forensic intelligence and counterterrorism purposes.
As of 2005, seven thousand detainee samples had been processed into the Joint Federal Agencies Antiterrorism DNA Database. Ten thousand more were “inbound” at that time from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a public presentation. See “The Department of Defense DNA Registry and the U.S. Government Accounting Mission” (pdf) by Brion C. Smith, August 2005 (at page 14).
The Joint Federal Agencies Antiterrorism DNA Database working group is comprised of representatives of the Department of Defense, the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community.
Disclosure of DNA and other medical information for intelligence purposes is explicitly authorized by government regulations.
“Under U.S. and international law, there is no absolute confidentiality of medical information for any person, including detainees,” according to the new DoD directive 3115.09 (pdf) on intelligence interrogation. “Medical information may be released for all lawful purposes… including release for any lawful intelligence or national security-related purpose.”
Update: See, relatedly, this new report from the Government Accountability Office, which curiously refrains from mentioning the term “DNA”: DOD Can Establish More Guidance for Biometrics Collection and Explore Broader Data Sharing (pdf), GAO-09-49, October 2008.
No one will be surprised if we end up with a continuing resolution to push our shutdown deadline out past the midterms, so the real question is what else will they get done this summer?
Rebuilding public participation starts with something simple — treating the public not as a problem to manage, but as a source of ingenuity government cannot function without.
If the government wants a system of learning and adaptation that improves results in real time, it has to treat translation, utilization, and adaptation as core functions of governance rather than as afterthoughts.
Coordination among federal science agencies is essential to ensure government-wide alignment on R&D investment priorities. However, the federal R&D enterprise suffers from egregious siloization.