Would you stand for police taking your DNA?

[BoredShirtless]

Sorry, but you'll have to forgive the Americans on the board for being a little sensitive with regards to their civil rights.

Why?

[Durandal]

Sorry, but you'll have to forgive the Americans on the board for being a little sensitive with regards to their civil rights.

Why?

Look at where we are right now. We've got bullshit like the USA PATRIOT Act, Ashcroft threatening its sequel, massive violations of copyright fair use, et cetera.

[Slayen]

If the police or gov't want a sample of my DNA, they can have it. Keep it, destroy it, i really cant bring my self to care so long as they have a good reason.

[RedImperator]

Sorry, but you'll have to forgive the Americans on the board for being a little sensitive with regards to their civil rights.

I think things like this get so heated because of the general tendency in American society to polarize every issue to the opposing extremes and then start working from there, instead of assuming a neutral ground to begin from. I've noticed this happening in most discussions with Americans over almost any political issue.

Edi

In our culture, if it's not worth screaming and hollering and maybe some gunfire, it's not really worth discussing.

[BoredShirtless]

Sorry, but you'll have to forgive the Americans on the board for being a little sensitive with regards to their civil rights.

I think things like this get so heated because of the general tendency in American society to polarize every issue to the opposing extremes and then start working from there, instead of assuming a neutral ground to begin from. I've noticed this happening in most discussions with Americans over almost any political issue.

Edi

In our culture, if it's not worth screaming and hollering and maybe some gunfire, it's not really worth discussing.

I swear to God as soon as I read this I pictured Palestinians shooting rounds in the air, screaming and carrying on.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

When the hell did you start suffering from such a massive case of Stupid? Nobody is suggesting that due process be thrown to the winds, but you apparently have a very faint grasp of what due process is. A person can be suspected of a crime on as little as a hunch, but if they are to be arrested and/or charged with anything, then and only then do the due process strictures kick in in criminal investigations. If due process is observed, then the case is most definitely not one of "Whenever society chooses to violate people's rights". If due process is ignored, then you do have a problem, but it's a whole different problem entirely.

Are you fucking retarded? Seriously are you? The content of the conversation up to this point concentrated on the the relationship between rights and soceity, and at what the point an Individual was right to stand up to soceity and say "No, this is a fundamental right that you cannot violate regardless of the circumstances of soceity." On the point of Individual Rights Mike stated "There is no set point; it changes depending on societal conditions." Based off of this statement I'm perfectly justified in stating that his "defination of the term Rights is "something that soceity can violate whenever it chooses to."" in that "soceital conditions" could be at the point where every single Individual Right can be violated; futhermore, under such a system the one to determine when "societal conditions" are right to violate Individual Rights is soceity. However, I'm sure you didn't notice that since you were so busy beating a strawman.

What the hell are you trying to say here, or are these just crack-induced ravings? A murderer by definition has violated somebody else's right to life, but that does not mean that he can be deprived of same without due process. He can and in many cases (in the US anyway) will be deprived of his right to life, but it is not a summary issue. There isn't any point to this ranting of yours that I can see. Oh, wait! You mean it's a huge violation of somebody's rights that they're suspected of a crime? Well, boo-fucking-hoo, I already covered that. They can suspect, if they want to arrest or charge you, then it's due process time.

Do you even bother reading previous posts, or do you just beat strawmen all day? The original conversation continued to revolve around the relationship between Individual Rights and society, as is illustrated by the following.

BlkbrryTheGreat: What rights do Individuals have that are "unalienable", when can an Individual rightly stand up to soceity and say "No, you cannot violate these rights."?

Darth Wong: Nowhere. Even the right to life can be taken away by society if it is necessary; this is why the death penalty exists for murder and high treason.

Taking this information into account we see that my response of "Except that these particular Individulas have violated the "right to life" of other Individuals! We're talking about the rights of innocent human beings here.... " makes perfect sense. Murderers have violated the "right to life" of other individuals and have in the process forfeited their "right to life"; however, Mike's answer to the question was still "Nowhere". If this answer in fact applies even to innocent Individuals, then it only strengthens my original point on Mike's defination of the term "Rights".

Newsflash, idiot: The world does not revolve around the US and your precious 4th amendment isn't universally applicable.

Oh yes, us horrible Americans, how dare we expect others to understand or respect the Bill of Rights. Thought the fact does remain that you didn't ACTUALLY STATE what was so objectionable to the 4th Amendment..... Please enlighten us as to why this piece of legistlation is so objectionable, prove that you aren't just another European State worshipping, Anti-American, Windbag. I'll even post right here to make it easier for you.

Article [IV.]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Places like Canada and Finland and Sweden and Germany have other ways of solving privacy rights than deriving them from property rights, and that still changes nothing in the dilemma of individual versus societal rights.

Thats because these countries (with the "possible" exception of Canada) have long accepted the idea that Rights are a PRIVLEDGE granted by Governments to their citizens, to be revoked or modified at will. The "dilemma" was solved long ago, in Continental Europe, in favor of "societal" rights.

And the answer to your question, as already answered many times, is that yes, the government should have that power, tempered by due process. If the due process laws have been crafted competently, then it will not be a porblem no matter how badly you want to make it look like one.

An indication that you've accepted the above stated principle.

Asking somebody to voluntarily give a DNA sample is not a violation of their property rights or their privacy rights. If that results in increased suspicion, then so be it.

I've never contested this point. However, the context of the converstaion between Mike and I was if "soceity: (ie the State) had the right to COMPEL people to give up their DNA in a shot in the dark random search, based on nothing more the Geographical proximity.

[Darth Wong]

Are you fucking retarded? Seriously are you? The content of the conversation up to this point concentrated on the the relationship between rights and soceity, and at what the point an Individual was right to stand up to soceity and say "No, this is a fundamental right that you cannot violate regardless of the circumstances of soceity."

Unfortunately, there is no such point. Even your right to life is forfeit if society deems it, as in the examples of treason and murder. And your retort (that the killer violates someone else's rights first) changes nothing. The fact remains that society can kill you if it judges this act necessary.

On the point of Individual Rights Mike stated "There is no set point; it changes depending on societal conditions." Based off of this statement I'm perfectly justified in stating that his "defination of the term Rights is "something that soceity can violate whenever it chooses to.""

Wrong, asshole. My definition of rights are far more complex than that, and your hopelessly simple-minded attempt to simplify it into a black/white situation is quite typical for people whose concept of morality has not developed beyond "I'm going to invent rationalizations for whatever goes with my gut instinct".

What do you think morality comes from, dumb-ass? Defining a scheme of morality with no reference to society is idiotic; morality has no meaning without society. It is exclusively devoted to the interaction of more than one person, ie- a community or society. Do you think morality has any meaning for a man stranded on an island with no human contact?

Where do you think morality comes from? God? Ayn Rand? Thomas Jefferson? You do not appear to comprehend the concept and purpose of morality (a common failing among libertarians).

I've never contested this point. However, the context of the converstaion between Mike and I was if "soceity: (ie the State) had the right to COMPEL people to give up their DNA in a shot in the dark random search, based on nothing more the Geographical proximity.

That context was your attempt to change the subject to one which was more suitable to your predilection for black/white fallacies.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Unfortunately, there is no such point. Even your right to life is forfeit if society deems it, as in the examples of treason and murder. And your retort (that the killer violates someone else's rights first) changes nothing. The fact remains that society can kill you if it judges this act necessary.

One could use this exact same arguement to justify the Holocaust, the Soviet Gulag Archipeligo, and forced famines in the Ukraine. Would you argue it would be wrong for these people to stand up to soceity and say "No, you cannot kill me, I have a RIGHT to life."? Afterall, society did "judge the act to be necessary." Unless man has certain Unalienable Rights there is no limit to what soceity can inflict upon him.

My definition of rights are far more complex than that

Regardless of what your defination of Rights is, the fact remains that you've EXPLICITLY stated, SEVERAL times, that there is no such thing as Unalienable Rights for INNOCENT human beings. Unless you place a strict limit on the actions soceity may undertake you have no reason to call your term "Rights", rather they should be called "strong suggestions".

and your hopelessly simple-minded attempt to simplify it into a black/white situation

Sometimes there really ARE Black and White situations. Either it is all right for soceity to kill an innocent human being OR it is not. THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN. Either your defination of the term "Rights" means that soceity cannot kill the innocent, or it does not.

What do you think morality comes from, dumb-ass? Defining a scheme of morality with no reference to society is idiotic; morality has no meaning without society. It is exclusively devoted to the interaction of more than one person, ie- a community or society. Do you think morality has any meaning for a man stranded on an island with no human contact?

Nice strawman, too bad I never once stated or implied that these were the case. I've instead maintained, even if I've never explicity stated so, that Rights are the method by which morality is applied to soceity. With Rights there are some things that are wrong for soceity to do, and thus these are actions that are forbidden to it (and its agent, government). Without the concept of Rights you have one segement of soceity doing whatever the hell it wants, (murder, rape, plunder, etc) to the small parts of soceity with the power of Government backing it, as has been the case for most of human history.

Where do you think morality comes from? God? Ayn Rand? Thomas Jefferson?

Nice leap in "logic". For some reason you seem to think that I accept morality comes from a "source" that should be accepted as dogma. You've been reading your hatemail page too much Mike, your starting to assume that anyone who debates you assumes the basic Christian premises and modus operandi.

You do not appear to comprehend the concept and purpose of morality (a common failing among libertarians).

Just the opposite, the concept of morality is, in a very very small nut shell, what actions are right, and what actions are wrong for man. Its purpose is to make socielization and soceity possible.

That context was your attempt to change the subject to one which was more suitable to your predilection for black/white fallacies.

Bullshit, this is nothing more then a logical extension of your "Rights" system. The conversation, and the content of the tread itself, lends itself toward this particular example, particularly since you believe that innocent individuals have no right to stand up to soceity in defense of their Rights.

[Edi]

Are you fucking retarded? Seriously are you? The content of the conversation up to this point concentrated on the the relationship between rights and soceity, and at what the point an Individual was right to stand up to soceity and say "No, this is a fundamental right that you cannot violate regardless of the circumstances of soceity." On the point of Individual Rights Mike stated "There is no set point; it changes depending on societal conditions." Based off of this statement I'm perfectly justified in stating that his "defination of the term Rights is "something that soceity can violate whenever it chooses to."" in that "soceital conditions" could be at the point where every single Individual Right can be violated; futhermore, under such a system the one to determine when "societal conditions" are right to violate Individual Rights is soceity. However, I'm sure you didn't notice that since you were so busy beating a strawman.

And if the society has set safeguards against abuse by determining a process that needs to be gone through before any violations can take place, and that process requires a large consensus first, then there should be no problem, you fucktard. You see this in absolute black and white, forgetting that society collectively is composed of individuals, and when things such as massive violations of rights start coming up, they will ask the question "If I agree to this, could it happen to me?" And that will serve as just one more safeguard. Mike already addressed the rest of this bullshit of yours.

Do you even bother reading previous posts, or do you just beat strawmen all day? The original conversation continued to revolve around the relationship between Individual Rights and society, as is illustrated by the following.

What rights do Individuals have that are "unalienable", when can an Individual rightly stand up to soceity and say "No, you cannot violate these rights."?

Nowhere. Even the right to life can be taken away by society if it is necessary; this is why the death penalty exists for murder and high treason.

Taking this information into account we see that my response of "Except that these particular Individulas have violated the "right to life" of other Individuals! We're talking about the rights of innocent human beings here.... " makes perfect sense. Murderers have violated the "right to life" of other individuals and have in the process forfeited their "right to life"; however, Mike's answer to the question was still "Nowhere". If this answer in fact applies even to innocent Individuals, then it only strengthens my original point on Mike's defination of the term "Rights".

It is accepted and enshrined in all the relevant constitutions in the societies we've talked about here that innocents cannot be deprived of their rights without due process safeguards engaging first, so your ridiculous strawman argument that it could happen whenever society sees fit is utterly worthless. You consistently ignore the fact that society consists of individuals who aren't going to put their own neck in the noose in the manner you assume they would.

Newsflash, idiot: The world does not revolve around the US and your precious 4th amendment isn't universally applicable.

Oh yes, us horrible Americans, how dare we expect others to understand or respect the Bill of Rights. Thought the fact does remain that you didn't ACTUALLY STATE what was so objectionable to the 4th Amendment..... Please enlighten us as to why this piece of legistlation is so objectionable, prove that you aren't just another European State worshipping, Anti-American, Windbag. I'll even post right here to make it easier for you.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You really are fucking stupid, aren't you? Never did I say the 4th was objectionable as such, merely that your high and mighty posturing about it is irrelevant here because the question being asked is not limited to America alone and thus your acting as if it is is just another bit of idiocy. The 4th is not universally applicable, nor is it the only way to handle this issue. There's more than one way to skin the cat, as it were.

Places like Canada and Finland and Sweden and Germany have other ways of solving privacy rights than deriving them from property rights, and that still changes nothing in the dilemma of individual versus societal rights.

Thats because these countries (with the "possible" exception of Canada) have long accepted the idea that Rights are a PRIVLEDGE granted by Governments to their citizens, to be revoked or modified at will. The "dilemma" was solved long ago, in Continental Europe, in favor of "societal" rights.

Wow, your ignorance is simply staggering. Look, asshole, why don't you take a read through the Finnish Constitution before you spout more such fucktarded bullshit. In that document the rights of the individual are fucking clearly delineated, and what's more, in quite some detail, and in plain, unambiguous language too. The state can't take them away citing such nebulous concepts as societal rights, we have those as a separate category, and guess what, those are just more rights (or more properly, these are the privileges) granted to the individual, though they can be modified and taken away with impunity compared to the basic ones like free speech, privacy etc. Our society can take away some of our rights, but there are completely impassable blocks to certain of them. Some rights can be somewhat restricted, but they cannot be taken away without first utterly demolishing the whole societal structure first!

And the answer to your question, as already answered many times, is that yes, the government should have that power, tempered by due process. If the due process laws have been crafted competently, then it will not be a porblem no matter how badly you want to make it look like one.

An indication that you've accepted the above stated principle.

Yes, as long as there are proper safeguards. Unlike you, I'm working from the basis of a society that has a constitution with such impassable blocks that you have to wreck everything by force before you can remove those things. If you feel your society doesn't have those safeguards, it's time to start doing something about it rather than hide your head in the sand.

Asking somebody to voluntarily give a DNA sample is not a violation of their property rights or their privacy rights. If that results in increased suspicion, then so be it.

I've never contested this point. However, the context of the converstaion between Mike and I was if "soceity: (ie the State) had the right to COMPEL people to give up their DNA in a shot in the dark random search, based on nothing more the Geographical proximity.

And you still don't see that there is a fucking valid reason to do so in this particular case? Go ahead and keep the blindfold on, asshat, you'd probably be blinded anyway from the brightness if you were to take it off, so it really doesn't make any difference.

One could use this exact same arguement to justify the Holocaust, the Soviet Gulag Archipeligo, and forced famines in the Ukraine. Would you argue it would be wrong for these people to stand up to soceity and say "No, you cannot kill me, I have a RIGHT to life."? Afterall, society did "judge the act to be necessary." Unless man has certain Unalienable Rights there is no limit to what soceity can inflict upon him.

You really are utterly fucktarded. You're assuming that we're automatically talking about a society with no safeguards whatsoever against abuse, when it is entirely possible to construct one where the safeguards are so ironclad that the only way to bypass them and commit the atrocities you're trying to hold up as bogeymen is to wreck that society down to its foundation. As far as I know, all of the Western democratic republics have safeguards of various magnitude. You're arguing against a strawman.

Regardless of what your defination of Rights is, the fact remains that you've EXPLICITLY stated, SEVERAL times, that there is no such thing as Unalienable Rights for INNOCENT human beings. Unless you place a strict limit on the actions soceity may undertake you have no reason to call your term "Rights", rather they should be called "strong suggestions".

Idiot, he never stated that there aren't or shouldn't be safeguards against abuse! You can place those strict limits and have them function and they can still allow for limited curtailing of individual rights under specific conditions. The example case that was brought up is one where there are clearly specific conditions that allow for a limited infringement of the privacy rights, which after all are not an on/off binary type of right anyway.

Sometimes there really ARE Black and White situations. Either it is all right for soceity to kill an innocent human being OR it is not. THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN. Either your defination of the term "Rights" means that soceity cannot kill the innocent, or it does not.

This is another black and white fallacy on your part because we're not talking about the right to life here but the right to privacy which is a continous spectrum instead of a binary value. It's furthermore a red herring because no western democracy that I know of can start arbitrarily killing its innocent members without the whole societal structure collapsing from the foundation up, and hasty generalization because you're assuming that Mike's view on privacy rights must also apply to the issue of the death penalty with absolutely no modification. Three fallacies in one argument this short is a rather impressive achievement. Asshat.

Nice strawman, too bad I never once stated or implied that these were the case. I've instead maintained, even if I've never explicity stated so, that Rights are the method by which morality is applied to soceity. With Rights there are some things that are wrong for soceity to do, and thus these are actions that are forbidden to it (and its agent, government). Without the concept of Rights you have one segement of soceity doing whatever the hell it wants, (murder, rape, plunder, etc) to the small parts of soceity with the power of Government backing it, as has been the case for most of human history.

You're again assuming that everything has a binary value, when this is, the right to life excepted, emphatically not the case. In other words, a black and white fallacy.

You've been reading your hatemail page too much Mike, your starting to assume that anyone who debates you assumes the basic Christian premises and modus operandi.

Well, you're using the fucktard modus operandi here, dumbing everything down and oversimplifying, using hasty generalisations, red herrings and black and white fallacies, which is quite typical also of creationists, so I don't see anything wrong with Mike asking pointed questions of you, nor do I see him asserting that morality must be dogmatically taken from one source. You, however, seem to have taken a very dogmatic approach riddled with assumptions that fall apart when you observe reality. And you didn't answer the question, where do you get your morality and how?

Just the opposite, the concept of morality is, in a very very small nut shell, what actions are right, and what actions are wrong for man. Its purpose is to make socielization and soceity possible.

Yet you fail to understand the concept that what is right and wrong for man individually doesn't transfer completely one on one for what is right and wrong for man collectively, i.e. for society. Obviously some things remain the same, but some do not, because the interests of the individual and the interests of the collective body of individuals are not necessarily always parallel. Neither are these interests (right to life excluded) binary values when they collide, but often continuous spectra where the point of balance shifts with the relative weights of the opposing interests. Yet you constantly assume that they are all binary.

Bullshit, this is nothing more then a logical extension of your "Rights" system. The conversation, and the content of the tread itself, lends itself toward this particular example, particularly since you believe that innocent individuals have no right to stand up to soceity in defense of their Rights.

That's some fucking tortured and fallacious logic you're subscribing to, and you're also strawmanning Mike's position on top of it all. Never did he say that innocents who are having their rights trampled have no right to defend themselves. He's demonstrated the precise opposite of this on occasions too many to mention, but apparently you've been too busy constructing logical fallacies to notice. But do continue flinging mud, that's all you are reduced to, with your arguments demolished and brought down around your ears.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

Unfortunately, there is no such point. Even your right to life is forfeit if society deems it, as in the examples of treason and murder. And your retort (that the killer violates someone else's rights first) changes nothing. The fact remains that society can kill you if it judges this act necessary.

One could use this exact same arguement to justify the Holocaust, the Soviet Gulag Archipeligo, and forced famines in the Ukraine.

Slippery slope fallacy. Your argument is pathetic.

Would you argue it would be wrong for these people to stand up to soceity and say "No, you cannot kill me, I have a RIGHT to life."?

There was no societal imperative to kill those people. The example is totally irrelevant and designed for the purpose of rhetorical prejudice on your part. Nothing more.

Afterall, society did "judge the act to be necessary."

I see you have chosen to deliberately confuse "society" and "government", totally disregarding everything I've said in favour of the same idiotic "man vs society" strawman distortions you've been peddling all throughout this entire thread.

Unless man has certain Unalienable Rights there is no limit to what soceity can inflict upon him.

Correct. Now prove that this is unacceptable, since your rights to liberty and even life can be considered forfeit even outside totalitarian societies if you are a danger to society. The examples of murder and high treason were explicitly given; I see that you have chosen to interpret that as "even if you're innocent"

Regardless of what your defination of Rights is, the fact remains that you've EXPLICITLY stated, SEVERAL times, that there is no such thing as Unalienable Rights for INNOCENT human beings.

Bullshit. I have stated that all rights are potentially forfeit depending on the situation. You have chosen to interpret that as "even if you've done nothing at all", which is yet another desperate strawman attempt on your part.

and your hopelessly simple-minded attempt to simplify it into a black/white situation

Sometimes there really ARE Black and White situations. Either it is all right for soceity to kill an innocent human being OR it is not. THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN. Either your defination of the term "Rights" means that soceity cannot kill the innocent, or it does not.

It is wrong for society to kill innocent people. How the fuck do you interpret "no right is completely inalienable" as "it's OK to run around murdering innocent people", asshole?

What do you think morality comes from, dumb-ass? Defining a scheme of morality with no reference to society is idiotic; morality has no meaning without society. It is exclusively devoted to the interaction of more than one person, ie- a community or society. Do you think morality has any meaning for a man stranded on an island with no human contact?

Nice strawman, too bad I never once stated or implied that these were the case.

Yes you have; you have stated that individual rights are the entirety of morality. Since individual rights are not derived from society according to you (although you pointedly avoided giving an alternate source for their validity when challenged to do so), you have argued that society and morality are not interconnected, even though they are.

I've instead maintained, even if I've never explicity stated so, that Rights are the method by which morality is applied to soceity.

As previously stated, you clearly think morality is some kind of free-floating principle that can be "applied" to society.

With Rights there are some things that are wrong for soceity to do, and thus these are actions that are forbidden to it (and its agent, government). Without the concept of Rights you have one segement of soceity doing whatever the hell it wants, (murder, rape, plunder, etc) to the small parts of soceity with the power of Government backing it, as has been the case for most of human history.

Yet again, you use the black/white fallacy: arguing that if we do not accept individual rights as the totality of morality with no checks and balances whatsoever in terms of societal imperatives, then we must be talking about having no rights at all.

Where do you think morality comes from? God? Ayn Rand? Thomas Jefferson?

Nice leap in "logic". For some reason you seem to think that I accept morality comes from a "source" that should be accepted as dogma. You've been reading your hatemail page too much Mike, your starting to assume that anyone who debates you assumes the basic Christian premises and modus operandi.

No, I'm observing it in your case; you simply choose to worship the Bill of Rights as your Scripture rather than the Bible; I see the point of listing both Jefferson and God in the same breath sailed cleanly over your head.

Answer the question instead of evading it with ad-hominem redirections, asshole: where do rights come from? What defines an inalienable right? How do you know your rights are defined correctly? Against what standard? For what purpose?

You do not appear to comprehend the concept and purpose of morality (a common failing among libertarians).

Just the opposite, the concept of morality is, in a very very small nut shell, what actions are right, and what actions are wrong for man. Its purpose is to make socielization and soceity possible.

That is the most pathetic definition of morality I've ever seen, since it is essentially circular and defines nothing. Define "right" and "wrong".

That context was your attempt to change the subject to one which was more suitable to your predilection for black/white fallacies.

Bullshit, this is nothing more then a logical extension of your "Rights" system.

Strawman fallacy. A system in which individual rights are BALANCED against the needs of society is hardly comparable to a system in which the government runs around killing innocent people, asshole.

The conversation, and the content of the tread itself, lends itself toward this particular example, particularly since you believe that innocent individuals have no right to stand up to soceity in defense of their Rights.

As usual for your simple-minded ilk, you seek to make every opponent into a Communist, or someone who supports their actions. As they say, to a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[Darth Wong]

BTW, what we've learned from this is that in a society largely populated with people like you, they never would have caught the asshole who raped and murdered and dismembered this 12-year old girl. And you would be proud of yourselves for it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The only tme that society can permit the violation of individual rights is when the law enforcement has enough EVIDENCE to do so. This is a part of our 4th ammendment, and we do consider the right to freedom of unreasonable searches and siezures as a fundamental right.

Mike, this is analagous to the police knocking on everyones door, and demanding to search it without a warrant. Those that refuse, are immediatly treated as suspects, and will be surveyed, and scrutinized, have ther trash dug through. That is not right, and is illegal, at least here.The police do not have probable cause, and suspect someone of a crime because they protected their 4th amendment rights.

Now, that is noot to say that people should not give consent to the search. I would if the police agreed to abide by certain conditions. BUt that does not mean that the police have the right to deprive citizens of their rights based on refusal to submit.

[InnerBrat]

Mike, this is analagous to the police knocking on everyones door, and demanding to search it without a warrant. Those that refuse, are immediatly treated as suspects, and will be surveyed, and scrutinized, have ther trash dug through.

I disagree with that analogy. The genetic fingerprint, as I've said, gives no information except whether or not you are the person whose sample they compare it to (or if you're very closely related nto them). It also causes you no harm.
It is not like having police rifiling through your home, gathered unrelated information about you.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Mike, this is analagous to the police knocking on everyones door, and demanding to search it without a warrant. Those that refuse, are immediatly treated as suspects, and will be surveyed, and scrutinized, have ther trash dug through.

I disagree with that analogy. The genetic fingerprint, as I've said, gives no information except whether or not you are the person whose sample they compare it to (or if you're very closely related nto them). It also causes you no harm.
It is not like having police rifiling through your home, gathered unrelated information about you.

It is analagous of the principle, not the process.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You are still forcing them to remove themselves from the suspect list, not through a lack of evidence, but through a litmus test.

[SirNitram]

You are still forcing them to remove themselves from the suspect list, not through a lack of evidence, but through a litmus test.

Given the situation, where they had no links or evidence to give them a suspect, the only realistic way to even try is to start with a list of everyone and start ticking off the unlikelies. It's completely ridiculous to assume there's another way to do it.