Robert Coyote wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Samantha asked:
>
> 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 ago and rather out-of-date in some respects.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
Having the right to not answer questions, especially when not
accused of any crime or represented by counsel, is considered by
you to be "out of date"?
> 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
Those who have nothing to hide have no need at all for privacy
heh? That is a very old dodge used by every tyranny that ever
existed on earth. Is my insistence I know nothing of substance
to the questions being asked a sign of dishonesty or the simple
truth? Will doping me up to a hyper-suggestible state
necessarily bring us any nearer the truth or will it make it
easier to extract exactly what the questioner wants to hear?
This type of interrogation is not admissable in court among
other reasons because it is not terribly reliable. Leaving
aside for a minute that it is a fundamental act of force against
a human being in their most sacrosanct aspect of their very
mind.
> 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
> totalitarian purposes.
>
And who determines what is "reasonable time" or insures that the
information has actually been made public without doctoring?
Why, these very officials who use these means to extract it. NO
THANK YOU!
> ----
> 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.
>
I don't take urine tests either.
>
> What happened to the 5th amendment?
>
> ### Should have never been written.
>
OK. This conversation is beyond anything I can remotely
consider reasonable.
> ----
>
> 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.
Then what is this "life" or its value that is left if it can be
destroyed and pryed open at any suspicion by any authority?
What is there left to protect if this is legitimate? Can you
protect by destroying and denying the value of that which you
claim to protect?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:15 MDT