BS: DNA Why shield criminals?

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Bert
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 06:06 PM

Ye Gods Ythanside, we can't even trust our government to issue building permits without corruption and bribery. OR run an election fairly for that matter.

If you want to give them your DNA, go for it; but I don't trust them with mine.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 06:26 PM

It was felt that there was too great a chance that it would be used, for instance, by insurance companies to refuse to insure those who showed a genetic propensity to breast cancer or other genetically-linked disorders.

That's not a valid argument now (it once was I think), for it is possible to store only the information of those parts of the DNA that can identify the person but tell nothing at all about personal risks of any kind. So if you are against it, think of something else for an argument.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 06:27 PM

I ain't that complicated. They have no right to that information. So, they ain't gonna get it!

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 06:38 PM

Since I haven't done anything wrong, why should the government be afraid that I will?

No. To paraphrase, if they want my DNA for a general database they'll get it from my cold, dead body.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 06:50 PM

Rapaire, that sounds like 'if they want to take away my gun they'll have to prise it from my cold dead fingers', doesn't it?
Nothing you've said thus far makes a reasonable case for failing to implement a system that would make society safer for everyone but crooks.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 06:54 PM

How would it be made safer for everyone but the crooks?

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 06:54 PM

Peace, we all have the right to feel safe in our homes. All of life is a compromise, as you know. This one further small step for mankind(you watchin', Rapaire?) is a giant leap towards a more crime-free existance.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 07:04 PM

Glad you're there, Wolfgang, but I think we're surrounded by Luddites, cynics and sophists. I'm just going outside, now. I may be some time. Hold the fort while I'm gone.
Ythanside

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 07:04 PM

True. But a government having access to my DNA isn't going to make you safer in your home, or me safer in mine for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 07:05 PM

And just what was wrong with Nedd Ludd? HUH?

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 07:06 PM

Sorry, Peace, I meant 'safer for everyone but some crooks'.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 07:11 PM

Peace, Ludd tried to halt progress, a hopeless aspiration pretty much in line with the general tone of responses here. He, like yourself, Rapaire and the others, had damned good reasons for his stance. Didn't make him right, though, did it?

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 07:14 PM

Aye, and there's the rub. Governments having access to the DNA of innocent people does nothing to further progress. From this paranoid guy--and yes, even paranoids have enemies--it would be a step backwards. I live in Canada. A free country, and we're happy to have it. I do NOT trust government. Not at all. The standing joke: "Hi. I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 07:16 PM

Yup. Sure does.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 07:40 PM

Bert,please read the reply to your earlier posting.

Rapaire, quotations, stonewalling and paraphrasing do not a reasonable case make, it just sounds like you have no credible argument.

Peace, Ludd was a good guy, but he was wrong. I admire his sentiments and sympathised with his struggle, but he was misguided.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 07:45 PM

The fact that I might not agree with you, or you with me, does not invalidate either's agrument.

Like Peace, I do not trust government.

Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers....

Section 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

The Constitution was intended to prevent the US government from doing things. Other countries may have, and do have, other views. Here, unlike in France, someone is innocent until proven guilty. My county just spent nearly a quarter of a million US dollars to prove two people guilty of murder, even though the criminals had videotaped themselves talking about committing the crime and discussing the crime afterwards. The jury was brought from another part of the State and everything was done to insure fairness and justice.

To my mind it was money well spent. (And no, the prosecution did not ask for the death penalty, although they could have done so.)

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 08:03 PM

Rapaire, I didn't mean that your case was invalid, merely that you have not supported it as comprehensively as I had expected.

DNA exists and is used in legal cases. All I'm suggesting is that it be exploited fully rather than piecemeal. It must, inevitably, become part of the standard criminal investigation toolkit, and civilisation as we know it will NOT crumble when this is implemented. I believe that if this is commissioned sooner rather than later then many lives will be saved as a result and much suffering will be prevented.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 08:31 PM

No one thinks your heart is in the wrong place.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 08:36 PM

Year back I went into a store, purchased some stuff--can't remember what--with a credit card. Then duly signed it. And they called to see if it was OK. The clerk then asked me to write my phone number. I refused. Clerk said, "But it's store policy." I replied, "But it's MY policy not to give my number to anyone, and that includes your store." Poor bugger. Instead, I wrote 555,1234. Whta bullshit it all was. Anyway, I don't provide answers for people to satisfy their idle curiousity. Nor will I provide DNA to satisfy a government's curiousity. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 09:13 PM

Thanks, Peace.
I suspect that this thread has about run its course, having reached a state of entrenchment with neither side willing to give ground or concede a point. It's a no-win debate, of course, as is any proposition concerning personal freedom, but it does encourage some soul-searching among the undecided. Had hoped to hear more from those but they're probably still thinking it over. It's been hugely enjoyable, nevertheless, and the pros and antis fell almost exactly as expected, antis generally holding stronger views and being more willing to put them forward.
So it's thanks again to you guys, and look forward to further light-hearted skirmishing at a later date.
Have fun, be happy,
Ythanside

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 09:42 PM

One more point: when I bring in scientific evidence to convict you, then you bring in evidence just as scientific to prove mine is bull. I bring in experts, you bring in experts. Pretty soon it's a pissing match between expert witnesses (e.g., the OJ trial). This has gone on in the US and the UK for years -- and it should. It was, after all, this sort of thing that led to the discoveries of bad technique and bad science in Houston and elsewhere.

It is not limited to DNA testing, either. You'll find that ballistics specialists, forensic odontologist, forensic entomologists, chemists, and even fingerprint experts have had their conclusions examined and challenged.

I think that right now we're doing just about enough. If the situation changes I'll rethink my position -- I've changed my mind before.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 12:01 AM

"There are 300,000,000 people in the US and the odds are great that someone has DNA or fingerprints so similar to mine that nobody can tell them apart. "

The highly complex methods for fingerprint and DNA 'matching' are 'statistically based' - by looking at only part of the whole for a certain number of 'matches' - not by checking the wholes against each other - there have been many such documented cases of both being 'wrong' - even a case where a Policewoman allegedly had her prints found at the scene of a crime where she had never ever been!


"any evidence can be planted, and DNA is neither easier nor more difficult to plant than most other types"

Interestingly some case on review, have been found to have very amateurish faking of fingerprinting 'evidence' such as prints being lifted from surfaces and placed on other surfaces with a different surface grain - not only is it necessary to 'match the prints', but also to check that the prints have been placed on that surface 'properly'.



"No, the tyrants of the past didn't need evidence once they'd decided who to go for. But if they'd had this kind of information it would have been so much easier for them to identify anyone who might be any kind of problem to them."

There is a true story of a young Jewish boy being adopted by and living with the SS. He would have been easily caught out with this idea.


There was a recent murder case in Bundaberg - where I used to live - a female was found underneath a bridge.

The Police managed to convince several thousand 'volunteers' to give DNA samples. He was not caught that way - but just by normal 'good policing ' techniques. It was either a big waste of public resources or the paranoid would say a plot to create a 'database' - I never heard that all the volunteers had their sample and data destroyed!

I've just been inducted into a Govt programme 'to help disabled pensioners find jobs' - in Australalia there is now no distinction between part time and 40 hour a week jobs! The contracted private company in the letter advising me of my interview wanted to know (among other things) 2 specific things -

1) My Tax File Number
2) Photo Identification

1) Unless they are paying me - they have no legal need to know this!

2) The only photo id I have is my drivers licence - and they have no legal power to record that number!

AS it turned out, when I turned up for the interview, I was not asked to supply either... still don't understand why they need to prove that the person they are going to 'help' could be anyone else but me... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Bert
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 01:58 AM

It is not being paranoid to observe that corruption exists in a local Building inspector's office.

It cost me a lot of money because I wouldn't hire the guy's relative to do the electrical work. Facts are not paranoia.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 06:42 AM

And in conclusion, while it may increase the conviction rates, it sure won't reduce the crime rate. It will however increase the prison population by a chunk.
However crime is committed mainly because of need greed, or lack of heed, and is not amenable to reason. There will always be people who think they won't get caught, whether they are right or wrong in that assumption, it doesn't stop them committing the crime, and it never will.
Of course one of the fastest growing offences nowadays is cyber crime, where they going to take DNA samples from at an IP address?
Giok.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 06:56 AM

A young Aussie father has been arrested after he turned himself in tonight - he drove a car into a tree - both his children died and wife injured. he ran away, twice, once from the scene, and the next day did not turn up at an agreed time at the police station.

The car contained alcohol and cannabis. He was allegedly drunk at the time, cannabis use unconfirmed at this time.

A crime, several in fact - no need for any DNA.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 10:30 PM

Rapaire, yeah, for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. So? What, precisely, has that got to do with any point under discussion here?

Foolestroupe, by some coincidence you refer to two cases I happen to know a little about. The voluntary DNA sample donors in the Bundy backpacker murder case would hardly be likely to include the perp, now would it? As a means of eliminating suspects that method was haphazard, slow and expensive. With a database, however.. (Oh, look, you're supporting MY case, here!) DNA technology, like most sciences, is improving daily. If you're waiting for perfection to be achieved in this field or any other you'll outlive Methuselah. However, 'normal policing' techniques would surely be enhanced by the database proposal.
The case of the Scots policewoman was settled financially out of court, most probably(according to the grapevine) to hush up the the alarming level of stupidity prevalent among senior police officers. The Peter Principle seems to be the real cuplprit there, and as soon as the police locate Peter I'm sure he will be arrested and charged. :-) The fingerprint lab used in that case was/is regarded as alarmingly ill-run, (allegedly).
The third case, that of the father resposible for the death of his children, is too unspeakably tragic to comment upon.      

Giok, so it will increase the conviction rate and the prison population while failing to reduce the crime rate? Would you like to take another shot at that, perhaps phrase it so that it makes sense? And the DNA/internet fraud comment? You're struggling, now. What's up, no genuine argument to support your case?

Bert, you obviously feel aggrieved over a matter you perceive to have involved corruption. See a lawyer, tell him everything, and listen to his advice. If you don't like what he tells you get a second opinion. Once the situation is resolved you'll feel better, honest. Good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 10:37 PM

The name of this thread is a real give-away to the lack of understanding inherent in the position. An alternative would be "DNA -- why not shield the individual citizen? "   What you are missing is that when a government seeks to manage its whole populace as though they were criminals before the fact they violate the strongest resource they have, as well as the trust of their people. The risk of NOT catching a criminal is much, much less dangerous than the risk of destroying the spirit of a civilization and its highest standards of civic recognition of the individual as the source of all power.

A

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 10:50 PM

Dealing, as I am, with trying to maintain a house, fight for a library budget that will permit us to actually serve the public, open up a new closet at work, go to work for 3 hours on one of my days off to help up up shelves in the garage, work out storage shelving in the room next to my office for Tech Services, write up a Records Retention Policy, try to start and maintain an archives, and all the while try to maintain my own sanity -- well, I haven't had time to offer you the research I would like.

I'm opposed to it for what seem to me to be good and sufficient reasons, and Amos and Peace have stated them quite well. But I also would like to know how this will prevent identity theft, computer crime, cyber-piracy, embezzelment, and other such crimes. For that matter, it's highly unlikely you'll retrieve usable DNA evidence from a bullet removed from a corpse, especially if it has traveled some distance before hitting the target (granted, a match of bullet to gun can be made in other ways).

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 03:53 AM

No initiative undertaken by any government in many years of trying different initiatives, has yet reduced the crime rate which continues to rise inexorably.
Therefore on an historical basis at the very least my statement is validated.
It also remains the fact that cyber crime is the fastest rising crime sector at the moment, and solving that will not involve the use of DNA. I'm sorry if my arguments don't fit your prejudices Ythanside.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 04:40 AM

Unfortunately governments have always used fear of crime to strengthen their own powers. When governments tell us that, "We need a DNA database to help us catch criminals" what they're also saying is, "It will come in very handy for catching dissidents as well" and some may be adding, "Criminals, what criminals? Don't you worry your pretty little heads about them - we've got their DNA on file".

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 10:16 AM

"by some coincidence you refer to two cases I happen to know a little about. The voluntary DNA sample donors in the Bundy backpacker murder case would hardly be likely to include the perp, now would it? As a means of eliminating suspects that method was haphazard, slow and expensive. "

Funny, that's what a lot of average Aussies said at the time... :-)

You are in fact only supporting the case against your thesis.


"The case of the Scots policewoman "

Yeah, well hushing it up only convinces the paranoid like me that Authority is NOT to be trusted... with ANYTHING - in Aust at the moment is the 2nd woman to be sentenced to death (for decades) in the USA - a fascinating case of Police, Juridical and other corruption that had her jailed for 17 years, her children stolen from her by authorities, and her boyfriend sentenced to and executed wrongfully for the murder of 2 policemen by the guy who later on was boasting about it to other prisoners - but all the attempts to bring this up were also destroyed by the same corrupt officials - one of who used his 'success' in the case to run for higher public office...

DNA evidence would have been of no use - as all the forensic evidence was corrupted by the 'public officials' in the case anyway...



Today in the centre of Melbourne, a guy pulled out a handgun and killed one, and seriously injured two others in front of hundreds of people. He discarded the gun, and jacket after he walked away - both were found quickly.

There are strict controls of the legal possession of handguns in Oz - of course his was not legally acquired.

The Police know exactly who the guy is - he is allegedly the member of a bike gang who was himself shot some months ago at a boxing match.

An expensive DNA database is also of no assistance in a crime like this. And it would have had no 'preventative' effect either.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 12:16 PM

when I said there already is an existing database..
I meant that police have been known to use one of those genetic ancestry database.(where people voluntarily submit dna samples in order to ascertain whether they might have distant relatives in the database ie. with the same or close surname) -

The police submitted a suspects dna to the ancestry database and got a surname.. by the surname they were able to narrow the list of suspects..
(the case was only in the last couple of years and I know there was a fuss raised over how they got it) But ultimately someone was caught and convicted.

Im not sure about the UK dna database, but from what ive read of it
I dont think that the dna is destroyed afterwards.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 01:45 PM

I have not made up my mind, but I find the arguments against an identifying DNA database incredibly weak.

(1) Evidence can be planted. Yes it can, but so can other evidence. Each case will have to be considered by its own strength.
(2) It only increases the prison population. Firstly, I do agree with an increase of prison population if that means more correct convictions. Secondly, it's simply wrong. A conviction is the best predictor for further crime committing in many crimes. If the probability increases that the first crime leads to a conviction serial perpetrators can commit less crimes. Serial murder and serial rape cases will be solved much easier and earlier.
(3) Can be abused for health risk identification. Simply wrong.
(4) Examples of cases that have been solved without DNA. I grant you that there are many more of these, but I could list you a lot of cases that have been solved by (mass) DNA tests. Single cases make bad general arguments.
(5) There are lab errors. Yes, like with all other types of evidence. DNA analysis is easy to repeat if there is demand or doubt.
(6) There are crimes that cannot be solved with DNA (cyber crimes for instance). Yes, these crimes also cannot be solved by voice analysis or fingerprints. So what? Does that argument mean that only a method should be allowed that can be used in all types of crimes? Than we can shred all methods at once.
(7) The criminals will try to avoid leaving DNA (condoms etc.) It is easy for instance to avoid leaving fingerprints, but it is extremely difficult to avoid leaving any DNA.

You may be right with your opinion (I'm undecided), but your arguments are not yet convincing to me.

BTW, in a recent German murder case, DNA points to a serial killer being female, against all odds. Would the police in your countries be allowed to publish this information? Would the police be allowed to publish information about the racial background of a person having left DNA at the scene of a crime (lets say in a rape and murder case)?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 03:29 PM

Weak argument or not, until such time as the Canadian Supreme Court rules that the damned government has a right to demand and take DNA samples from me, the answer is NO, NO, a thousand times NO! And with no offense meant to anyone, I don't give a rat's ass who doesn't like it.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Ythanside
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 11:06 PM

Amos, you're so right.

Rapaire; You're busy, okay. No problem, we'll pick this up another time. Cheers.

Giok, your use of the word 'prejudices' is unworthy of you and disappointing to me.      

Shimrod, they always have and they always will, but criminals still have to be caught so why not use the best technology available?

Foolestroupe, DNA science is not and never will be a panacea. It is not a magic wand. Handpicking a few cases from the growing mountain of crime proves nothing. Forget scoring points, forget your distrust of authority for a moment and think about what this system could accomplish. If you have an open mind just look carefully over the next month or so at the serious crimes reported in your newspaper, and ask yourself how many of these could have been so easily prevented by use of a DNA & fp database.

petr, ask yourself why are the police forced to resort to using a scrappy DNA reference base when they could and should be armed with a comprehensive version.

Wolfgang, thanks for the backup, it's been sorely needed.

Peace, I guess that's a no, then? :-) Rats' asses aside, and great fun though this debate has undoubtedly been it's way past its sell-by date. Time to put it to bed, I think. Nothing left to do but saddle up an' mosey on down the trail. I'm outa here. Adios amigo,
Ythanside

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 01:10 PM

Setting aside the very real possibilities for rampant abuse, the DNA database might be a useful tool in identifying certain criminals, but it is not likely to decrease the occurance of crime, and not likely to make a material change in the rate of arrests or convictions.

The reason is simple: with or without DNA evidence, real, live witnesses are necessary to obtain criminal convictions.

In Washington DC, which is both our political capital and our murder capital, there is a backlog of nearly 5000 "unsolved" murder cases. Police claim that, in 90% of the cases, they know the identity of the perpetrator, but are unable to persuade witnesses to cooperate. Furthermore, because there are so many murders, police don't have the resources to perform comprehensive crime scene investigations, let alone the extensive follow up that homicide investigations require.

For that reason, if a perpetrator has not been found within 24-48 hours, it is unlikely that one will ever be found.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 01:27 PM

I'm mosel along with you, Ythanside. Fun while it lasted. And you're a good guy. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 10:19 PM

"If you have an open mind just look carefully over the next month or so at the serious crimes reported in your newspaper, and ask yourself how many of these could have been so easily prevented by use of a DNA & fp database. "

I have been for many years now - and my opinion severely differs from yours.

I addition to examples already given, Tasmanians will remember the case of a guy running among shooting people - no way could DNA have prevented that - no need for DNA - he was witnessed by many survivors, and caught rapidly holed up on site.

The problem with taking 'DNA samples' from the site of a crime that that you may get the DNA from more than one person, most of who will have a non-criminal reason for their DNA being detected. You still need to do lots of 'real police work' to sort out these 'suspects', and if the real criminal left no traces - the more the general population becomes aware of the technique, the less effective it becomes (as with fingerprints) in 'hard cases with serious premeditated intent' as more anti-DNA detection measures are employed - then those whose traces are found are even MORE likely to be wrongly treated.

What happened to the principle 'better that 10 guilty should go free than one innocent wrongly sentenced'?

I have seen people's lives destroyed, merely because they were 'suspects' in cases where the use of DNA would not have even been possible.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 10:29 PM

Well it sent it anyway - even though not finished...

Similar puerile nonsense is currently being spouted in Australia - just because a few bikies are rogues, popping off illegal handguns and shooting people, now some simple minded idiot politician wants to 'ban all bikie clubs' - including all clubs of people who just rides bikes - including "Dykes on Bikes" and all the 'Vietnam Vets' bike clubs, etc. Many of these people are Professionals - lawyers, doctors, etc, who ride the big iron for fun and relaxation, and participate in Public Charity rides etc.

Banning the clubs of people who get together to ride the big iron will do just what, precisely? It will not inhibit criminal activities at all.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 12:20 AM

It is NOT an issue of whether or not a national DNA database of all persons would help fight crime. I do not doubt that it would. The problem is, as anyone who has been around the block a few times knows from hard experience, that such fine intentions (especially when espoused by governmental entities) contain the seeds of bitter, unintended consequences. The proposal widens the powers of governments to abuse citizens outside the due process of law. Any policy which increases the power of a government to do that is anathema and should be shunned in the interests of humanity.


A

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: M.Ted
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 01:06 PM

There are people out there who advocate the use of DNA data to identify the "real Americans" are, based on the idea that America rightfully belongs to the "Pure" Anglo-Saxons--And yes, their idea is illogical and absurd, but that doesn't mean it isn't dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: DNA Why shield criminals?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 07:54 PM

And M Ted, once they get their hands on the database, they WILL misuse it - after all "God told them to!" - Germany in the 1930s was survivable, but things would have been speeded up considerably with such an 'advance' ...