• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

So what say you on Obama's intrusions?
Obama is just as bad as 'W' where these issues of personal liberty are concerned. It's always hard to give up on some powers that were handed to you, yet Obama seems to be adding to the misery of good hard working Americans. The "if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about" is a farce.

Like no one has ever been arrested for a crime that they did not commit.
 
Another disappointment out of the Obama Administration. Why do I keep letting myself get sold on the idea that the next President will be better, when he ultimately never is?

I don't support DNA sampling from suspects, but it's okay from convicted criminals; just like I don't support fingerprinting from suspects. This is an innocent until proven guilty system. Your biometric data shouldn't be taken unless you are convicted.




fingerprint/DNA via Warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause is not good enough?
 
fingerprint/DNA via Warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause is not good enough?

No, it's not. The judge isn't a grand jury. It's one person. Probable cause just means there is sufficient evidence to call you a suspect and attempt to press charges. It doesn't mean you are actually guilty.

I don't trust the authorities to destroy your biometric info if you are found innocent, so it shouldn't be taken in the first place unless you are convicted OR (I just thought of this) they need to compare DNA with what was found at the crime scene. And at that point they should still need a subpoena.
 
No, it's not. The judge isn't a grand jury. It's one person. Probable cause just means there is sufficient evidence to call you a suspect and attempt to press charges. It doesn't mean you are actually guilty.

I don't trust the authorities to destroy your biometric info if you are found innocent, so it shouldn't be taken in the first place unless you are convicted OR (I just thought of this) they need to compare DNA with what was found at the crime scene. And at that point they should still need a subpoena.




so no fingerprinting if you get arrested, but only upon conviction? o_O
 
so no fingerprinting if you get arrested, but only upon conviction? o_O

Note my exception: unless it's needed for an ongoing investigation. For example, they found fingerprints at the crime scene and need to compare; same with DNA. However, fingerprinting should not be automatic.
 
Too much. What if someone who handles the DNA goes rogue and starts setting up innocent people?
 
The DNA is needed to make Obamacare work at it's optimum death panel level. They have to be able to decide that you'll get cancer in 10 years so they can kick you out in 9, then fine you for not having insurance. :lamo:
 
The DNA is needed to make Obamacare work at it's optimum death panel level. They have to be able to decide that you'll get cancer in 10 years so they can kick you out in 9, then fine you for not having insurance. :lamo:

No.. There are gaint undergound facilities comparable to the size of our outside land. And "they" are going to clone us all in these facilities and replace us 1 by 1 with alien automating a human technology.
 
Back
Top Bottom