Because its is almost impossible to sue a State or state actor for abuse of
the system, I would go with this if there were massive Judicial reform.
There is nothing wrong with the government forcefully prying
open my mind or yours on the least suspicion of wrong doing or
of withholding information it wishes to acquire?
### If you do not respond to a policeman asking you to pull over, and insted
try to run away, he is usually allowed to use potentially damaging or even
in some cases deadly force to stop even if there is no other indication of
any wrongdoing on your part. Refusing to answer questions may be allowed by
the U.S. Constitution but then this is a document written two hundred years
ago and rather out-of-date in some respects. "Prying open a mind" was at
that time limited to torture or extortion and justly prohibited. Now, with
some perfectly safe and pleasant-to-use drugs (barbiturates) or even without
them, important questions can be answered, saving many lives. Why would an
honest person refuse to answer a legitimate question? This is so
inconceivable to me. As long as all the information becomes public within a
reasonable time, allowing public scrutiny of the officials involved (if
necessary, by narcoanalysis), there is hardly any risk of abuse for
---- What could be more a use of force than this?
#### The rack, the Iron Maiden, a car chase. Narcoanalysis is not torture, it's about as forceful as a urine test and you remember less.
What happened to the 5th amendment?
### Should have never been written.
What happened to privacy?
### Hopefully will soon be a thing of the past.
What happened to the sacrosanct individual? All gone for a little more "security".
### The individual life is as sacrosanct as it gets and that's why we should protect it by "prying open minds", if necessary.
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:15 MDT