Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm with Scalia on this. DNA is much much more than a fingerprint or picture.
It's not like they can take your DNA and analyze it for traits that are undesirable by the government or use it for death panels if they know you aren't going to live much longer anyway.
I agree, I don't even know why we got a Bill of Rights to begin with.
Me either. Since innocent people don't have anything to fear, I believe the government should be allowed to implant tracking devices into citizens so that they can monitor them at all times. Government should also install surveillance (video and audio) in all public spaces in order to prevent crime and, in case crime occurs, to easily identify and catch the perpetrators. Since the perps already have tracking devices implanted, there will be no longer any need for detective work, car chases, or physically fit cops.
This, in turn, improves public safety and tremendously reduces the costs associated with having crime, solving crime, and arresting perpetrators.
Since government is inherently good, there is absolutely nothing to worry about. Abuse might happen, but we'll quickly nip it in the butt.
All of us innocent people will be much safer. How could anyone be opposed to this?
Let's see how long it takes conservatives to admit that it was mostly the conservative justices that voted yes. There are 5 conservative judges and 4 of them voted for this law that is 80% of them.
There are 4 liberal judges and 3 of them voted against it that is 75% of them
conservatives in general support giving more power to police officers and the state to surveil, arrest, detain, lie to, etc and always have. This is why conservatives enthusiastically supported giving GWB those war powers to fight the war on terror.
The ruling produced an unusual alignment, with Justice Stephen Breyer, a Democratic appointee, joining Kennedy and three other Republican-appointed members of the court in the majority. Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.
I agree with Kennedy, a cheek swab of the arrestee DNA is, like fingerprinting, which is not unreasonable search. I don't believe a cotton swab is any more intrusive than a fingerprint.
Things can be done with your DNA that cannot be done with your fingerprints or iris.
I seriously don't see what's unreasonable about a cheek swab and keeping your DNA on file just like fingerprints. It's on the same level in my opinion.
Taking a sample to determine if you're involved in a crime, in my opinion is reasonable. Keeping that DNA info on file after you're found to NOT be involved is the problem. That info should immediately be destroyed if you're cleared of wrong doing.
Monsanto WANTS your DNA.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
