Duncan Frissell wrote: (Hillary Rodham Clinton, speaking in all caps:) | "AT A CERTAIN POINT, YOUR RIGHTS MUST BE ABRIDGED FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD." | | The statement might simply be her response to a question about convicted | rapists not having to submit to an AIDS test. IMHO, there is a world of difference between abrogating the rights of a convicted criminal and the rights of the accused. Society seems to have agreed that conviceted criminals should be stripped of certain rights, such as their freedom and or their ownership of property, after their conviction. Since the question of "Did he have AIDS?" clearly impacts the severity of the crime committed and the impact it may have on the victim, I don't see this as an amazingly shock provoking example of the rights of a criminal being taken away, especially in light of how difficult it seems to be to obtain a conviction for rape. I would not be willing to accept such testing on the basis of anything but a conviction. An accusation (in my mind) is not enough to force a test, nor to force the disclosure of a previous test. Adam -- Adam Shostack adam@bwh.harvard.edu Politics. From the greek "poly," meaning many, and ticks, a small, annoying bloodsucker. Have you signed the anti-Clipper petition?