Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn collect. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn collect. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Ba, 7 tháng 5, 2013

Holocaust memorial races to collect victims' names

REHOVOT, Israel (AP) — With a hand on her chest, 82-year-old Rivka Fringeru battled back tears as she reeled off a list of names she has rarely voiced in the past 70 years: her father, Moshe, then her mother, Hava, and finally her two older brothers, Michael and Yisrael.

All perished in the Holocaust after the Harabju family from Dorohoi, Romania, was rounded up in 1944 and sent to ghettos and camps. Only Rivka and her brother Marco survived, and like many others, they spent the rest of their lives trying to move on and forget.

Now, Yad Vashem, Israel's national Holocaust memorial and museum, is asking them to remember.

Decades after the Holocaust, experts have documented the names of about 4.2 million of the roughly 6 million Jews who were killed by the Nazis in World War II, and officials are going door-to-door in a race to record the memories of elderly survivors before their stories are lost forever.

It is a painstaking process, complicated by trauma, attempted cover-ups and limited record-keeping.

The Names Recovery Project has been Yad Vashem's flagship mission in recent years. It's a vigorous campaign to complete a central database of Holocaust victims' names by encouraging survivors to fill out pages of testimony about those they knew who were killed.

The outreach effort has taken on a greater sense of urgency, with volunteers spanning the country to engage the fewer than 200,000 remaining survivors in Israel and etch the names of their dead relatives into the pages of history. Elsewhere — primarily in the United States and the former Soviet Union — testimony also is being collected from those unable to do so online.

With the passage of the years, Fringeru's recollection of the details of her traumatic past has become sketchy, but the emotions remain raw. Her voice quavered as she tried to trace her memory, often taking a break to compose herself with a sip of water. Her voice was low and her gaze was pained as she stared at her lone memento — a faded family portrait on a cracked piece of cardboard. When she recalled the last time she saw her brother before they were separated in the Mogilov ghetto, she grabbed her chest again.

"It's hard. I never thought we were going to part so quickly," she said, her voice cracking. "I wish I would have wondered with them. I wondered on my own."

After the war, she moved to Israel and later married, had a daughter, two granddaughters and six great-grandchildren. On occasion, she would bring up an old memory with Marco, who died 10 years ago, but largely kept them to herself, even shielding stories from her immediate family. The memories mainly surfaced in her sleep, she said, as nightmares, and she saw no reason to delve further into them.

"Why suffer? Why go back into that trauma?" Fringeru said.

Now widowed, she lives with her partner Baruch Bruner, 88, a widower and fellow Holocaust survivor. Only after he sought out Yad Vashem and filled out pages of testimony about his extended family did she relent and do the same.

To help them through the process, the director of the names project, Cynthia Wroclawski, made a pair of house calls to their modest home in this city south of Tel Aviv.

Wroclawski, who oversees a staff of some 300 volunteers in Israel, held Fringeru's hand, hugged her often and patiently waited for the details to emerge. Eventually, some did. Fringeru's father owned a grocery store, one brother was a shoemaker and had six young children who also died. The other brother's wife was named Malka. Wroclawski added each smidgen of data onto the single black-and-white page.

"This is a virtual tombstone, this is a place where we can remember the person," she said. "We are bringing that person back to life in a sense, their memory at least, in the act of recording and gathering information."

Yad Vashem's goal is to collect the names of all 6 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust. The memorial's very name — Yad Vashem is Hebrew for "a memorial and a name" — alludes to its central mission of commemorating the dead as individuals, rather than mere numbers like the Nazis did.

It hasn't been an easy task.

The project began in 1955, but over the following half century, fewer than 3 million names were collected, mostly because the project was not widely known. Many survivors refrained from reopening wounds, or they clung to hopes that their relatives might still be alive.

Later, Yad Vashem began incorporating names from other collections around the world. A big boost in names came from archival sources, such as prewar census records and data derived from analysis of books, documents and tombstones.

The names are commemorated in the museum's Hall of Names, a cone-shaped room whose walls are lined with bookshelves containing folders upon folders of testimonies. Still, until 2004, more than half of the allotted folders remained empty.

That year, the online database was launched, providing easy access to information in English, Hebrew, Russian, Spanish and German. The number has since surged to 4.2 million names, and the Internet search function has allowed tech-savvy grandchildren to research their families, leading to several emotional reunions between relatives who had thought the other to be dead.

Yad Vashem hopes that in the next five to six years, it will be able to reach the 5 million mark. Even the most optimistic, however, don't believe it will go much higher.

Contrary to popular belief, the Nazis did not keep meticulous records. They kept tabs on the identity of Jews in Germany, Austria and elsewhere in central Europe, but ordered the wholesale murder of communities elsewhere that were not documented. They also tried to cover up many of their crimes.

Yad Vashem has essentially completed its database on German Jewry during the Nazi era. Its main struggle has been documenting the victims in Poland and eastward, primarily in the former Soviet Union, the site of large scale executions and mass destruction of villages where records were not kept. Limited archival material has allowed researchers to retrace some of them, but the names of many have probably been lost forever.

Because of these difficulties, the actual number of victims remains unclear. Based on records, census data, deportation orders and other documents, most scholarly research estimates the number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust at 5.5 million to 6 million. More estimates run higher, and some lower.

The figure of 6 million that is commonly used is attributed to Adolf Eichmann, the mastermind of the Nazi "Final Solution" to destroy European Jewry.

"Our goal is to keep collecting name after name to get as close as we can to 6 million and we will continue to invest time and resources into getting there," said Yad Vashem Director Avner Shalev, whose voice is often heard in radio ads beseeching survivors to come forward. "This has huge historical and emotional significance ... it makes the historical record more accurate and by having a name it helps give a human face to those who weren't treated like humans."

While the main goal is for commemoration and research, Yad Vashem says the database also serves to combat Holocaust denial. The emphasis on filling out a signed testimony in person, rather than submitting a name, gives the database more detail, depth and authenticity — like sworn testimony in court.

"It is of incredible importance that we have the documentation," Wroclawski said. "Usually when we are finished, you can really see that it's almost like a stone has been lifted from their hearts. They know that it is being passed on."

Despite the draining effort, Fringeru said she was pleased she did it and left behind a remnant that would outlive her.

"It's important that people know," she said. "I hope that now they (my family) won't be forgotten."

___

Online: The database for Holocaust victims can be searched and updated at www.yadvashem.org. For more information contact names.outreach(at)yadvashem.org.il

____

Follow Heller on Twitter (at)aronhellerap


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 26 tháng 2, 2013

Can police collect DNA when someone is arrested? Supreme Court to decide

The US Supreme Court heard argument Tuesday in a case testing whether government officials can routinely collect a person’s DNA at the time he or she is arrested and then use that DNA sample to try to link the individual to unsolved crimes.

At issue in the case, Maryland v. King (12-207), is whether taking a DNA sample from an arrestee without first obtaining a court-authorized warrant is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

DNA has become an essential law-enforcement tool, not just in its ability to conclusively identify an individual but, more important, through its ability to conclusively link suspects to cold cases.

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

In effect, DNA is becoming in the 21st century what fingerprinting was to the 20th – except better.

But there’s a problem. Unlike a fingerprint, DNA material contains a plethora of highly personal information bound within a person’s genetic code. When the government seizes DNA material, it is taking control of more than just the ability to isolate an identifying pattern unique to one individual. With advances in genetic science, DNA might someday reveal information about an individual’s susceptibility to future diseases and perhaps even personality traits, scientists say.

Several justices expressed concern that seizing a DNA sample from an individual to solve cold cases is a search under the Fourth Amendment. What justifies the state taking such action without a warrant?, they wanted to know.

Want your top political issues explained? Get customized DC Decoder updates.

Katherine Winfree, Maryland’s chief deputy attorney general, told the justices that the state did not need to obtain a warrant to collect DNA samples from arrestees because people in police custody have already surrendered a substantial amount of their liberty and privacy.

“That can’t quite be right,” Justice Elena Kagan countered. “Assume you’ve been arrested for something; the state doesn’t have a right to go search your house for evidence of unrelated crimes.”

She added: “Just because you’ve been arrested doesn’t mean that you lose your privacy expectations ... that aren’t related to the offense that you’ve been arrested for,” Justice Kagan said.

“What we’re seizing is not evidence of crime,” Ms. Winfree responded. “What it is is information related to that person’s DNA profile.”

One issue in the case is the purpose of collecting the DNA. Maryland uses it to help identify the arrestee, Winfree said. But the state also uses it to solve unsolved crimes.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor picked up the same line of questioning. “You are going to have to tell me why searching their person is different than searching their home or car,” she said.

Winfree replied that people in police custody have a reduced expectation of privacy that eliminates Fourth Amendment protections for a person’s DNA. Collecting the DNA sample, she added, is minimally intrusive, involving a buccal swab from the inside of an arrestee’s cheek.

Michael Dreeben, deputy US solicitor general, told the justices that taking a DNA sample was substantially different from searching a home for evidence of a crime. “It is far more like taking a fingerprint,” he said.

Both federal and state laws bar agencies from using stored DNA samples to analyze data for anything other than the identifying information, Mr. Dreeben said. An individual would retain a reasonable expectation that the rest of the DNA sample would remain private, he said.

According to Kagan, verifying a fingerprint match can take a matter of minutes, while Maryland’s DNA tests take on average 11 to 17 days to complete.

Dreeben responded that the expectation is that within two years, police will have DNA analyzers in police booking stations capable of completing an identification within 90 minutes.

Not all justices were skeptical of Maryland’s DNA statute. Justice Samuel Alito observed that police had long been permitted to routinely take fingerprints of suspects upon arrest, and it wasn’t clear why the same couldn’t be done with DNA swabs.

“I think this is perhaps the most important criminal procedure case that this court has heard in decades,” he said.

“The attorney for the state began by listing a number of crimes just in Maryland that had been solved using this,” he said. “So this is what is at stake: lots of murders, lots of rapes that can be solved using this new technology that involves a very minimal intrusion on personal privacy.”

Kannon Shanmugam, the lawyer challenging the Maryland statute, countered that DNA testing involves a far greater intrusion into privacy than fingerprinting.

DNA contains significantly more information and significantly more personal information than a set of fingerprints, he said. In addition, no one has an expectation of privacy in his or her fingerprints, which are left on surfaces wherever the person goes. So unlike taking a buccal swab, collecting fingerprints at the police station is not considered a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, he said.

Forty-nine other states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the federal government filed briefs in support of Maryland’s DNA collection statute.

The debate over DNA collection stems from the case of Alonzo Jay King, who was arrested in Wicomico County, Md., in April 2009 after he was accused of pointing a shotgun at a group of people. Police charged him with first- and second-degree assault.

Under the Maryland DNA law, as a recent arrestee for a serious crime, Mr. King was required to submit to a buccal swab from his cheek to collect a DNA sample.

The sample was sent to the national DNA database, where it matched DNA collected at the scene of a 2003 rape in Wicomico County, Md.

King was charged with rape and robbery in the 2003 unsolved crime. He was later convicted of first-degree rape and sentenced to life in prison.

King’s lawyer challenged the collection of the DNA evidence, arguing that police should have first obtained a warrant. The trial judge rejected the argument, but the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed. It ruled the police must first obtain a warrant before collecting DNA from an arrestee.

If King wins at the Supreme Court, it won’t necessarily mean an end to DNA testing of those within the criminal justice system. King’s lawyer concedes that the state has the power to collect DNA without a warrant from convicted criminals since a convicted criminal has a diminished expectation of privacy, below that of an arrestee.

A decision in the case is expected by June.

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

Related stories

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community


View the original article here