Dan Gal­braith of the Atchi­son Dai­ly Globe refers to Phill Kline’s assault on wom­en’s pri­va­cy and to his inno­v­a­tive approach to DNA evi­dence in the BTK case and sug­gests that Blur­ring DNA lines risks vic­tim’s rights:

The inten­tions are admirable –– to ensure crim­i­nals are held accountable.

But push­ing the enve­lope on the bound­aries of DNA data the way Kansas Attor­ney Gen­er­al Phill Kline sug­gests is a risky propo­si­tion –– for those Amer­i­cans (includ­ing rape vic­tims) who cov­et their pri­va­cy rights as grant­ed them by the Constitution.

In an increas­ing­ly dan­ger­ous world of ter­ror­ist threats and esca­lat­ing sex­u­al vio­lence, many would sac­ri­fice rights to enhance safety.

But how far can we go before the DNA chalk lines are moved so far to the right and become so blurred that they no longer allow free­dom we used to hold so dear?

To Kline, the ends jus­ti­fy the means. Each of his con­tro­ver­sial deci­sions where con­tro­ver­sial when you con­sid­er their broad effects, but obvi­ous from the nar­row per­spec­tive of his short term goals. Either he has no broad vision, or he’s incred­i­bly cynical.

Nei­ther is the char­ac­ter­is­tic you want in an Attor­ney Gen­er­al, Gov­er­nor, Con­gress­man, Sen­a­tor, or dog-catcher.