Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Lou Minotti · Jan 11, 2005, 03:24 pm

Quote:

you seem to think that we shouldn't do something if it isn't perfect...is that correct?

No, I'm saying it's stupid to give something what it wants when it has proven it can't be trusted. The "no system is perfect" equation doesn't even get factored into this one.

Osborn F Enready · Jan 11, 2005, 03:27 pm

Yes, they should do something about it. FOLLOW THE AGREED TO PROCESS OF INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

DNA is a new technology. Trying to get everyone to donate their DNA (in hopes) the guilty party may not play along, and that it would point the finger at them, is ridiculous on a VARIETY of levels.

#1 How much is this costing the taxpayers?
#2 Will every murder case be given this opprotunity now?
#3 Can you deduce guilt by non-compliance?
#4 Where are the laws that state what the police have to do with this DNA evidence after it is collected?
#5 Where are the laws that state what limitations are on the use of the DNA, in this and future crimes?

I could go on, but this is a basic overture of the idiocy of the concept.

**Pooeypants** · Jan 11, 2005, 03:29 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Lou Minotti

I'm not calling you a murderer, your DNA is calling you a murderer. The DNA database is incapable of lying. Turn yourself in, please...it's for the common good.

Isn't this possible for all evidence? Someone can frame you using something else...

Are you afraid that your genetics might be used against you? Isn't that already possible with alot of other data ppl might have on you?

Fact is, DNA profile are very good forensic evidence, it could be used against you but then so could anything else. In my opinion, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Dieval · Jan 11, 2005, 03:30 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Lou Minotti

No, I'm saying it's stupid to give something what it wants when it has proven it can't be trusted. The "no system is perfect" equation doesn't even get factored into this one.

Who exactly are we giving this to? I was under the impression that it was the local law enforcement handling this? Do you know something the rest of us don't or are you just speculating?

Quote:

Quote by: original article

police investigators are trying to get DNA samples from every man in this Cape Cod hamlet, all 790 or so, or as many as will agree.

AliasJonus · Jan 11, 2005, 03:33 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Osborn F Enready

Yes, they should do something about it. FOLLOW THE AGREED TO PROCESS OF INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

DNA is a new technology. Trying to get everyone to donate their DNA (in hopes) the guilty party may not play along, and that it would point the finger at them, is ridiculous on a VARIETY of levels.

#1 How much is this costing the taxpayers?
#2 Will every murder case be given this opprotunity now?
#3 Can you deduce guilt by non-compliance?
#4 Where are the laws that state what the police have to do with this DNA evidence after it is collected?
#5 Where are the laws that state what limitations are on the use of the DNA, in this and future crimes?

I could go on, but this is a basic overture of the idiocy of the concept.

WORD :)

Lou Minotti · Jan 11, 2005, 03:51 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Dieval

Who exactly are we giving this to? I was under the impression that it was the local law enforcement handling this? Do you know something the rest of us don't or are you just speculating?

The Pentagon has wanted to create Federal DNA database for quite a while now. That's no secret. If you were born after 1983 or somewhere around then, they have you DNA or at least can get it. Your question was in regards to "big brother", I was under the impression you were expanding the discussion. I guess I was wrong.

Dieval · Jan 11, 2005, 03:55 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Lou Minotti

The Pentagon has wanted to create Federal DNA database for quite a while now. That's no secret. If you were born after 1983 or somewhere around then, they have you DNA or at least can get it. Your question was in regards to "big brother", I was under the impression you were expanding the discussion. I guess I was wrong.

I was using the term "big brother" as it would relate to the law enforcement in the article posted.

And as pooey said, the advantages of the database you're talking about out weigh the disadvantages.

The Dunedan · Jan 11, 2005, 04:01 pm

Advantages? Like invasion of privacy, easier FedGov tracking of people, the inevitable abuses of power by petty-tyrant beurocrats, and the enormous cost? Like the religious objection of millions of Christians who reject anything that smacks of The Beast, or Jews who remember numbers in blue ink?

Oh, right, I forgot....a Republican's in office, so it's all ok.

Lou Minotti · Jan 11, 2005, 04:04 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Dieval

the advantages of the database you're talking about out weigh the disadvantages.

Dieval, you are about as Red as they come. Don't take it as an insult. You practically outline the communist modus operandi .You're even using the opinion of a liberal (sorry Poo) to back your argument up. I really can't think of any other conclusion to come to.

Dieval · Jan 11, 2005, 04:15 pm

Quote:

Quote by: The Dunedan

Advantages? Like invasion of privacy, easier FedGov tracking of people, the inevitable abuses of power by petty-tyrant beurocrats, and the enormous cost? Like the religious objection of millions of Christians who reject anything that smacks of The Beast, or Jews who remember numbers in blue ink?

Oh, right, I forgot....a Republican's in office, so it's all ok.

Man you blow things out of proportion...What if this, what if that, blah blah blah....jeeez.

Just as an example, to date, the national DNA index for law enforcement purposes has assisted in
21,687 investigations. Sounds like it's already doing it's job..

CODIS Combined DNA Index System

Dieval · Jan 11, 2005, 04:17 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Lou Minotti

Dieval, you are about as Red as they come. Don't take it as an insult. You practically outline the communist modus operandi .You're even using the opinion of a liberal (sorry Poo) to back your argument up. I really can't think of any other conclusion to come to.

I'm a communist because I agree with Pooey? That's the most insane thing I've ever heard. :eek:

Osborn F Enready · Jan 11, 2005, 04:17 pm

DIEVAL, Yes, they should do something about it. FOLLOW THE AGREED TO PROCESS OF INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

DNA is a new technology. Trying to get everyone to donate their DNA (in hopes) the guilty party may not play along, and that it would point the finger at them, is ridiculous on a VARIETY of levels.

#1 How much is this costing the taxpayers?
#2 Will every murder case be given this opprotunity now?
#3 Can you deduce guilt by non-compliance?
#4 Where are the laws that state what the police have to do with this DNA evidence after it is collected?
#5 Where are the laws that state what limitations are on the use of the DNA, in this and future crimes?

I could go on, but this is a basic overture of the idiocy of the concept.

(sorry to repost this, but the person I aimed the comment at had not responded.)

Lou Minotti · Jan 11, 2005, 04:19 pm

Quote:

Man you blow things out of proportion..

And you love and worship government and think angels run the system. Dr. Whitehurst would laugh at this thread.

Quote:

Sounds like it's already doing it's job

I thought "it" didn't exist. Now it does and is "doing it's job". Classic doublethink.

Dieval · Jan 11, 2005, 04:25 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Osborn F Enready

DIEVAL, Yes, they should do something about it. FOLLOW THE AGREED TO PROCESS OF INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

DNA is a new technology. Trying to get everyone to donate their DNA (in hopes) the guilty party may not play along, and that it would point the finger at them, is ridiculous on a VARIETY of levels.

#1 How much is this costing the taxpayers?
#2 Will every murder case be given this opprotunity now?
#3 Can you deduce guilt by non-compliance?
#4 Where are the laws that state what the police have to do with this DNA evidence after it is collected?
#5 Where are the laws that state what limitations are on the use of the DNA, in this and future crimes?

I could go on, but this is a basic overture of the idiocy of the concept.

(sorry to repost this, but the person I aimed the comment at had not responded.)

Why are you copying your previous posts word for word?
Where has the "innocent until proven guilty" process been violated? Asking for DNA to verify that someone was not involved in a crime does not imply the person giving the DNA is guilty.

Dieval · Jan 11, 2005, 04:27 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Lou Minotti

And you love and worship government and think angels run the system. Dr. Whitehurst would laugh at this thread.

I don't worship anyone. I believe that the people here love to blow things out of proportion and when someone disagrees they start calling them names - communist, nazi, fascist, etc, etc, etc....

Quote:

Quote by: Lou Minotti

I thought "it" didn't exist. Now it does and is "doing it's job". Classic doublethink.

After a bit of research, thanks to your post, I was able to find that the FBI has a database of CRIMINALS - not everyone after 1983 as you stated....amazing what a little research can yield, isn't it?

**Pooeypants** · Jan 11, 2005, 04:35 pm

Look, I don't see people complaining about fingerprints being taken and kept under record, DNA profiling is just the same thing imo. Except that this time wearing gloves won't prevent the criminals from getting away, if you catch my drift.

Osborn F Enready · Jan 11, 2005, 04:37 pm

Dieval, in their attempt to get all people who "willingly" comply, they hope to "isolate" those who do not wish to comply as "people that may have something to hide".

Does that sound like a Constitutional process?

Lou Minotti · Jan 11, 2005, 04:37 pm

Quote:

After a bit of research, thanks to your post, I was able to find that the FBI has a database of CRIMINALS - not everyone after 1983 as you stated....amazing what a little research can yield, isn't it?

I've done the research. And yes the FBI has a database of crimninal. What a revelation. They also have other databases, as do OTHER agencies. Amazing what a little logic can yield.

Lou Minotti · Jan 11, 2005, 04:38 pm

Quote:

I don't see people complaining about fingerprints being taken and kept under record

Then you haven't been paying attention. I'm not a criminal. They will get my DNA and fingerprints when they get my guns. End of story. You guys want to be part of the criminal, corporate fascist slave state, so be it....Have fun.

Dieval · Jan 11, 2005, 04:40 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Osborn F Enready

Dieval, in their attempt to get all people who "willingly" comply, they hope to "isolate" those who do not wish to comply as "people that may have something to hide".

Does that sound like a Constitutional process?

Where were they presumed guilty? As far as I can tell, "something to hide" doesn't mean they're guilty.

Jan 11, 2005, 03:27 pm	#42 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,907	Yes, they should do something about it. FOLLOW THE AGREED TO PROCESS OF INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. DNA is a new technology. Trying to get everyone to donate their DNA (in hopes) the guilty party may not play along, and that it would point the finger at them, is ridiculous on a VARIETY of levels. #1 How much is this costing the taxpayers? #2 Will every murder case be given this opprotunity now? #3 Can you deduce guilt by non-compliance? #4 Where are the laws that state what the police have to do with this DNA evidence after it is collected? #5 Where are the laws that state what limitations are on the use of the DNA, in this and future crimes? I could go on, but this is a basic overture of the idiocy of the concept. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Jan 11, 2005, 04:17 pm	#52 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,907	DIEVAL, Yes, they should do something about it. FOLLOW THE AGREED TO PROCESS OF INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. DNA is a new technology. Trying to get everyone to donate their DNA (in hopes) the guilty party may not play along, and that it would point the finger at them, is ridiculous on a VARIETY of levels. #1 How much is this costing the taxpayers? #2 Will every murder case be given this opprotunity now? #3 Can you deduce guilt by non-compliance? #4 Where are the laws that state what the police have to do with this DNA evidence after it is collected? #5 Where are the laws that state what limitations are on the use of the DNA, in this and future crimes? I could go on, but this is a basic overture of the idiocy of the concept. (sorry to repost this, but the person I aimed the comment at had not responded.) Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Jan 11, 2005, 04:35 pm	#56 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	Look, I don't see people complaining about fingerprints being taken and kept under record, DNA profiling is just the same thing imo. Except that this time wearing gloves won't prevent the criminals from getting away, if you catch my drift. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 11, 2005, 04:37 pm	#57 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,907	Dieval, in their attempt to get all people who "willingly" comply, they hope to "isolate" those who do not wish to comply as "people that may have something to hide". Does that sound like a Constitutional process? Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Jan 11, 2005, 04:01 pm	#48 (permalink) (top)
The Dunedan Hot Lava Posts: 925	Advantages? Like invasion of privacy, easier FedGov tracking of people, the inevitable abuses of power by petty-tyrant beurocrats, and the enormous cost? Like the religious objection of millions of Christians who reject anything that smacks of The Beast, or Jews who remember numbers in blue ink? Oh, right, I forgot....a Republican's in office, so it's all ok.