Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
- Global Warming Emergency In The UK
- Mainstream Media Analysis Of DOGE
- Angry And Protesting
- Bad Weather Caused By Racism
- “what the science shows”
- Causes Of Earthquakes
- Precision Taxation
- On the Cover Of The Rolling Stone
- Demise Of The Great Barrier Reef
- Net Zero In China
- Make America Healthy Again
- Nobel Prophecy Update
- Grok Defending Climategate
- It Is Big Oil’s Fault
- Creative Marketing
- No Emergency Or Injunction
- The Perfect Car
- “usually the case”
- Same Old Democrats
- Record Arctic Ice Growth
- Climate Change, Income Inequality And Racism
- The New Kind Of Green
- The Origins Of Modern Climate Science
- If An Academic Said It, It Must Be True
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
- Peter Carroll on Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
- Tel on Global Warming Emergency In The UK
- arn on Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
- Bob G on Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
- mwhite on Global Warming Emergency In The UK
- arn on Global Warming Emergency In The UK
- william on Global Warming Emergency In The UK
- gordon vigurs on Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
- arn on Will Their Masks Protect Them From CO2?
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
It’s been ages since I was near criminal law, but the idea of this makes me nervous. Very disturbing 5th Am implications, as the article notes. Yes, you may waive your 5th Am right not to testify, but that isn’t carte blanche to open the floodgates. And once you’re under the influence of a mind-altering drug, you are by definition no longer competent to make any kind of decision on what you might choose to say or not. Further, anything you testify to is then subject to cross-examination, and a defendant might start talking about matters he otherwise would not have, if testifying completely voluntarily and not under the influence.
This is not a question of “technicalities,” such as a critical piece of evidence being thrown out because Deputy Fife noted the wrong time in the Evidence Locker logbook, this is something that cuts right to the heart of Constitutional protections, which are getting whittled at pretty hard lately, and I just can’t see the safe (Constitutionally speaking) use of this without many many layers of judicial protection and review, and at the very least, granting the defendant the final call on what is actually to be allowed into evidence.
Remember, folks, it’s SUPPOSED to be hard to get a criminal conviction.
Agreed Penny. But since Obama and his cronies have been whittling away at Constitutional rights, let them be the first to undergo this type of interrogation and proclaim they have the very rights they’re trying to overthrow.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
There is no such thing as a truth serum.