Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Analyzing Big City Crime (Part 2)
- Analyzing Big City Crime
- UK Migration Caused By Global Warming
- Climate Attribution In Greece
- “Brown: ’50 days to save world'”
- The Catastrophic Influence of Bovine Methane Emissions on Extraterrestrial Climate Patterns
- Posting On X
- Seventeen Years Of Fun
- The Importance Of Good Tools
- Temperature Shifts At Blue Hill, MA
- CO2²
- Time Of Observation Bias
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Back To The Future
- “records going back to 1961”
- Analyzing Rainfall At Asheville
- Historical Weather Analysis With Visitech
- “American Summers Are Starting to Feel Like Winter”
- Joker And Midnight Toker
- Cheering Crowds
- Understanding Flood Mechanisms
- Extreme Weather
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- conrad ziefle on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Nicholas McGinley on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Nicholas McGinley on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Bob G on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- stewartpid on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Jehzsa on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Robertvd on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Bob G on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Walter on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
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.