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you to be "out of date"?
### No reason why your attorney shouldn't be there at the examination.
Is my insistence I know nothing of substance to the questions being asked a sign of dishonesty or the simple truth?
#### Unwillingness to prove your lack of knowledge by a simple and safe test is surely a sign of a guilty conscience.
--- 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.
### Technology is getting better and better all the time
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.
#### Privacy has nothing sacred for me. Survival has.
And who determines what is "reasonable time" or insures that the information has actually been made public without doctoring?
### a) duly elected, preferably narcoanalysis-tested representatives of the people.
b) your attorney with a camera and microphone present at the inquiry.
---- > > #### 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.
### Any reasonable pharmacist should deny you employment if you refuse to be tested. ------
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?
I am baffled and cannot provide any useful and smart answers. Is the value of life destroyed by a Peeping Tom?
Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:15 MDT