Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- NPR Climate Experts
- Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- “Siberia might stay livable”
- Deep Thinking From The Atlantic
- Making Up Fake Numbers At CBS News
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- “experts warn”
- End Of Snow Update
- CBS News Defines Free Speech
- “Experts Warn”
- Consensus Science With Remarkable Precision
- Is New York About To Drown?
- “Anti-science conservatives must be stopped”
- Disappearing New York
- New York To Drown Soon
- “halt steadily increasing climate extremism”
- “LARGE PART OF NORTHERN CALIF ABLAZE”
- Climate Trends In The Congo
- “100% noncarbon energy mix by 2030”
- Understanding The US Government
- Cooling Australia’s Past
- Saving The World From Fossil Fuels
- Propaganda Based Forecasting
- “He Who Must Not Be Named”
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- William on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- gordon vigurs on “Siberia might stay livable”
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- conrad ziefle on “Siberia might stay livable”
- Timo, not that one! on “Siberia might stay livable”
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
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.