Didn’t U.S pharma companies used to sell drugs overseas that is banned on U.S soil? I don’t know if that is still the case.

While collecting data like fingerprints etc is bad, collecting DNA is on whole another level. Imagine using it for immigration purposes for example. Or the govt makes you get a license to have kids (like marriage license today) based on DNA traits. These things might sound comical today, but the social score thing sounded comical too, until it became a reality

> Didn’t U.S pharma companies used to sell drugs overseas that is banned on U.S soil? I don’t know if that is still the case.

Well everything that's not approved by the FDA (yet), but already approved somewhere else would fall into this category.

That's hardly a black mark against those companies.

Genetic disease screening before marriage, and fetal deformity screening been mandatory in China for decades.

And they have a special rule that they’ll invade The Hague if US war criminals are ever tried there. All those presidents and generals and spooks are safe from justice.

You're talking about the The Hague Invasion Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hague_Invasion_Act

Just a note, the US doesn't need permission from the Netherlands to invade them, of course. However, as I understand it, usually the US president needs permission from Congress before deciding to invade another country. In this case, Congress has given permission in advance to invade the Netherlands if the ICC tries a US citizen.

> However, as I understand it, usually the US president needs permission from Congress before deciding to invade another country.

Only for declaration of war. The US hasn't declared war on anyone in since WWII.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unit...