http://www.fop.net/legislative/testimony/1...3_Dickerson.pdf

WSS

What happens to that testimony as soon as the lawyer finds out how the cops got him to talk?

WSS

@we-need-tom-tupa said:

The right to remain silent has been settled criminal law in American since before the Constitution was written. Since then, it has become the norm throughout the entire world. I'm not sure there is much value to trying to compare this to prohibition.

Oh just because you were kind enough to remind me of the amendment process

I understand the appeal of complete honesty in the legal process, but it doesnt work in reality. We dont have the right to remain silent because the founding fathers were a bunch of liberals with no compassion for victims. We have it because we have found it to be an essential part of a well functioning justice system.

That sounds more like a platitude than a reason Toop. Again I can't envision where an innocent man could be convicted by the truth.

Also our founders (IMO) weren't supermen. They lived in a world so different from ours that I wouldn't expect their sensibilities would work in modern times. The guys who riot over a tea tax.

I still dont understand how your system is supposed to work. i think we've ruled out legally sanctioned torture, and you seem to be focused on using jailtime as an alternative.

It wasn't ever ruled in. It was what I wpud do if it were my loved one. And after 7 pages it turns out I'm not alone.

But that really is beside the main point.

But how effective would that really be? To imprison someone for withholding information, you would have to be able to prove that they were withholding information. In the case of the kidnapper whose victim is going to be murdered soon, the evidence you would need to convict them of obstruction of justice would almost always be enough to charge them with the kidnapping. So what deterrent do you have? All you can do is threaten to add 6 months of jail time for obstruction of justice onto his 20 year sentence for kidnapping.

Who knows Toop?

All I say is that in my mind holding out on that info is wrong.

It's immoral.

And it isn't anything I'm proud to call a "creator" given right.

Even worse, if you dont have enough evidence to convict him of the kidnapping/murder, then you're offering him the choice of 6 months for obstruction of justice or 20 years for kidnapping if he confesses. Why would that ever be effective?

I don't know Toop.

He'll need to be convicted no matter what right?

How about kidnapping and obstruction equals life in solitary?

Or some other actually frightening punishment?

BVut who knows?

I guess I'm trying to get anyone to admit that the legal system is weighted in favor of the criminal and not the victim.

I'm not a lawyer and I think that's wrong.

Of course, in the current system, police are allowed to say just about anything, so they can already threaten a suspect with jailtime until they invoke their miranda rights.

Isn't that what we'd call coersion?

Is intimidation via threats on the table?

Not much would change at all. In fact, in a system where everyone had to be honest all the time, police would lose their ability to make empty threats which they currently use very frequently and to great effect. A completely honest system would probably benefit criminals.

Again how would that work?

Remember I'm not asking that anyone be convicted of something he didn't do.

BTW did you see the link I put on the constitutional thread?

There's not one of the bill of rights that hasn't been extensively tailored to fit someones agenda.

But finally is there any part of the constitution or bill of rights that you would like to see adjusted?

No need to tell me what or how.

WSS

not the right to refuse to divulge information that would save lives.

Any deal can be made, in certain circumstances, where a guy who had info

wasn't really the player in the crime, and could be given immunity, if the person

clearly was NOT part of the crime,...

that isn't self-incrimination. It's stopping deaths as a result of a crime being perpetrated,

but not yet fully implemented.

If he doesn't talk, give him enough sodium penethol to turn him into the Hulk, I want those

family members saved. Waterboard him. Make him try to get Heck to answer legit questions, only to have

Heck change the subject willy-nilly and talk in endless generalizations and bogus unsubstantiated claims. Drop a million drops of water

on the person's forehead. Make the person listen to some nasty rap with the treble turned all the way up and the bass all the way down 24 x 7 til he cracks.

Get the info, and save those American lives.

@westside-steve said:

I'm aware of how the amendment process works.

You know. Like prohibition and it's subsequent repeal.

Which side was "unamerican?"

And actually all we need to do is have a case brought to the SC when the matter can be decided by less people than sit on the Politburo.

But I digress.

I was stating my opinion.

I'd guess if you wanted to you'd at least understand my reasoning.

Maybe you can explain the downside of honesty in the legal process.

We've never had cross words and I'd be innterested in your take on that.

It occurs to me that many of the founding fathers "commandments" have been under assault from many sides.

Once Americans had the right to keep arms equal to the govermental forces should the need to revolt arise.

Once the state was forbidden to take a mans property in service of the kings men.

And though I'm not a religious man, Toop, I'd say the all out assault on people and their expression of faith in America today might not be what the founders envisioned.

Then again is it a living breathing document or dogma?

What do you think?

WSS

The right to remain silent has been settled criminal law in American since before the Constitution was written. Since then, it has become the norm throughout the entire world. I'm not sure there is much value to trying to compare this to prohibition.

I understand the appeal of complete honesty in the legal process, but it doesnt work in reality. We dont have the right to remain silent because the founding fathers were a bunch of liberals with no compassion for victims. We have it because we have found it to be an essential part of a well functioning justice system.

I still dont understand how your system is supposed to work. i think we've ruled out legally sanctioned torture, and you seem to be focused on using jailtime as an alternative. But how effective would that really be? To imprison someone for withholding information, you would have to be able to prove that they were withholding information. In the case of the kidnapper whose victim is going to be murdered soon, the evidence you would need to convict them of obstruction of justice would almost always be enough to charge them with the kidnapping. So what deterrent do you have? All you can do is threaten to add 6 months of jail time for obstruction of justice onto his 20 year sentence for kidnapping. Even worse, if you dont have enough evidence to convict him of the kidnapping/murder, then you're offering him the choice of 6 months for obstruction of justice or 20 years for kidnapping if he confesses. Why would that ever be effective? Of course, in the current system, police are allowed to say just about anything, so they can already threaten a suspect with jailtime until they invoke their miranda rights. Not much would change at all. In fact, in a system where everyone had to be honest all the time, police would lose their ability to make empty threats which they currently use very frequently and to great effect. A completely honest system would probably benefit criminals.

@we-need-tom-tupa said:

We just have to repeal the 5th Amendment, in which the founding fathers enshrined the right to remain silent. Just convince 3/4 of the state legislatures to go along with you, and your work will be done.

Yes Toop.

I'm aware of how the amendment process works.

You know. Like prohibition and it's subsequent repeal.

Which side was "unamerican?"

And actually all we need to do is have a case brought to the SC when the matter can be decided by less people than sit on the Politburo.

But I digress.

I was stating my opinion.

I'd guess if you wanted to you'd at least understand my reasoning.

Maybe you can explain the downside of honesty in the legal process.

We've never had cross words and I'd be innterested in your take on that.

It occurs to me that many of the founding fathers "commandments" have been under assault from many sides.

Once Americans had the right to keep arms equal to the govermental forces should the need to revolt arise.

Once the state was forbidden to take a mans property in service of the kings men.

And though I'm not a religious man, Toop, I'd say the all out assault on people and their expression of faith in America today might not be what the founders envisioned.

Then again is it a living breathing document or dogma?

What do you think?

WSS

@smalls1129 said:

Wow, this thread has gone a number of different ways. If I am reading it right then: Steve, you are wrong on the first part of the argument. You said Miranda shouldn't exist because people shouldn't be view as innocent.

Actually I think Miranda (a fairly recent twist) means letting someone off if they aren't made aware of the right.

(unless I'm mistaking the law) so IMO that's akin to "ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I can claim I didn't know rape was illegal but that won't convince a jury."

But I still think suspects should be asked to answer honestly.

I think the whole legal system should require honesty.

Otherws view it as a shell game.

You may off backpedaled off this a bit but that was your first premise.

And I maintain I don't agree with a right to remain silent. The truth can't convict an innocent man.

It amazes me that those who rail at the US foreign policy claiming the right and duty to dissent are the same ones outraged because I don't worship at the altar of the constitution. And for them was prohibition wrong or was it's repeal wrong?

As was pointed out, the right to remain silent exist for the same reason that most of the Bill of Rights was written; government cannot be trusted. Remember these were men not far removed from being able to be lock up indefinitely by THEIR OWN government for next to nothing. The right to remain silent is has inherent in the American way of life as the right to bear arms. At times they are both necessary for self preservation.

Whatever you say Smalls.

Again IMO the rights of the victims should trump the rights of the criminals.

And lets not kid ourselves.

If someone is really assumed innocent he wouldn't be in custody.

The second half of the thread concerning torture. I am not even sure you guys are arguing anymore. All that we've shown is that everyone would torture and/or take out revenge/rage on anyone that as done harm to their loved ones. That isn't exactly surprising to me. In fact, with the possible exception of Heck, everyone as admitted they would like to at least turn a blind eye to the government to using advanced measures in the ticking time bomb scenario. The problem seems to be defining what constitutes ticking time bomb. How many people affected, how much time before the attack, how credible is the attack. For me this comes down to how we define mass attacks, whether by US citizens or foreign combatants, if they are acts of war then screw the Geneva Convention and the UN, if they are crimes, then the Bill of Rights must stay in tact.

Well it's good you differentiate the GC from the Constitution.

WSS

The second half of the thread concerning torture. I am not even sure you guys are arguing anymore. All that we've shown is that everyone would torture and/or take out revenge/rage on anyone that as done harm to their loved ones. That isn't exactly surprising to me. In fact, with the possible exception of Heck, everyone as admitted they would like to at least turn a blind eye to the government to using advanced measures in the ticking time bomb scenario. The problem seems to be defining what constitutes ticking time bomb. How many people affected, how much time before the attack, how credible is the attack. For me this comes down to how we define mass attacks, whether by US citizens or foreign combatants, if they are acts of war then screw the Geneva Convention and the UN, if they are crimes, then the Bill of Rights must stay in tact.

@we-need-tom-tupa said:

You are exactly right, Tupe. THAT is the way to change The Constitution. Not by activist judges who rule on their version of Constitutionality. You want to tweak the Constitution, it is fine with me. However, do it the proper and Constitutional way.

Clearly, this is tangential but relevant to Tupe's statement.

@westside-steve said:

Or an elderly invalid.

A parent who prays over a child with a cureable disease?WSS

You are right. I just couldn't think of anything at the time.

Again, my guess is the charge would be Manslaughter rather than Murder - if, for no other reason - because that is an easier conviction and because of the recognition of stress, etc.

I'd love for The Gipper to chime in.

We just have to repeal the 5th Amendment, in which the founding fathers enshrined the right to remain silent. Just convince 3/4 of the state legislatures to go along with you, and your work will be done.

@chicopee-john said:

What criminal charge, Steve?

Murder?? No

Negligence?? Definitely, but Gip will have to chime in whether or not there truly are crimes of omission.

One thing for sure: A person who would do this would have to be about the scummyist (sp) person in the world. If not, then VERY close to it.

A woman is charged if she allows an infant to starve no?

Or an elderly invalid.

A parent who prays over a child with a cureable disease?

WSS

What criminal charge, Steve?

Murder?? No

Negligence?? Definitely, but Gip will have to chime in whether or not there truly are crimes of omission.

One thing for sure: A person who would do this would have to be about the scummyist (sp) person in the world. If not, then VERY close to it.

@vaportrail said:

The threat to charge the guy with being an accomplice is coersion.

The threat to jail someone for "contempt" is coersion.

Same with obstruction of justice.

Actually immunity from prosecutuion or other bribe would be too.

Here's one:

Someone you dislike is having a heart attack in the room with you.

"My pills!!" he beseeches you.

Those pills are next to you on the table.

"These pills?" you laugh?

You hold them up and shake the bottle as he dies.

Crime or no crime.

WSS

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Gee Rambo, you were just bragging about torturing an innocent American citizen weren't you?

Hoo ah!

But try answering this then.

Of the following:

Intimidation.

Solitary confinement for years.

Restraints.

Humiliation.

Non Kosher meals.

Waterboarding.

Sleep deprivation.

Temperature adjustment.

Loud music.

Which are allowed in the Heck administration.

WSS

@vaportrail said:

Finally.

Now go back and see if this isn't EXACTLY what I'm saying about that particular part of the discussion.

I NEVER said I thought torture should be a legal part of the interrogation process the US court system.

DID I???

I said I'd break the law or allow it to be broken.

RIGHT?

You made the mistake of buying into what Heck made up; never a wise idea.

I DID say I don't think he should be legally able to withhold that information.

If that means charges great. Obstruction or withholding or as an accomplice.....but NOT free to hod out.

Sorry.

The OTHER part of the discussion is where I said the president should be able to authourize enhanced tactics in cases when high value terrorists most likely have information that could stop anothr 9/11.

And I would.

As I asked Hoorta in his hypothetical if you, as president, had that detainee and you went easy on him and there was another attack how do you address the nation?

WSS

By the way, in the scenario Vapor presented me, I'm likely breaking the law by beating him. That might be the only point that transfers here.

But it's still got nothing to do with making it legal for the government to torture information out of people. Steve seems to think it does. If you would do something in a hypothetical scenario, then we should give government broad powers to do torture people who withhold information when people's lives might be at risk, and should throw away half of the Bill of Rights.

This isn't what's called "principled conservatism." It's called un-American, and it's what fascist states do.

Steve seems to think that because he smiles every once in a while and imagines himself to be a nice guy that means his beliefs on government-sponsored torture aren't fascist in nature. But they are.

So far he's proposed allowing the government to waterboard, drug, intimidate, beat, and "torture the shit out" of American citizens. And we're only only page six. Give him time. Maybe we can get to crushing testicles by page eight.

But only when he thinks it's right to do so. Yes, I feel so much better with Steve safeguarding my country than the Constitution, with all its bogus and superfluous rights. Because there's a real problem in America, and it's that we don't allow the government to torture people enough.

So, it's okay for citizens to do something, but the gov can't, but if the gov had the guy

who had the information, it would be okay if you go after the guy who has the info that would save

your/their family, but the gov can't do anything to try to help you,

but the save your family, they can't stop you either, which would be condoning it,

but then they would be bad, so they would have to stop you but that is bad too but then...

NOPE. Your prancin around like a colt that got bit by a horse fly isn't makin it....

that would save your family... but the gov can't?

So, maybe somebody's family is captured overseas, and that our gov has a killer

in custody who KNOWS what is needed to be known to save the family...

the family will be killed because the one remaining family member is in the U.S.

can can't get to the overseas location to torture the guy and get that information

within 24 hours?

Is that how you mean to explain this? WHAT?

Let go of the liberal emoting. It's doesn't hold up under rational, common sense appraisal.

and it would be fine, unless the gov pays him for doing it?

But the gov isn't allowed to sanction it... or...

WHAT?

LOL.

I keep reading emotional nonsense coming from Heck. Knee deep, stinky nonsense. @@