|
Ragnar " I'll take it a step further: the police should be entitled to use similar methods under similar circumstances on American citizens."
Having worked with many police officers I mean no offence when I say I would not trust "most police" to be able to make the decision on when and where to applie the "similarity" rule. Given some of your posts I would certainly not extend that option to you.
I don't want to be knee capped by a nine mil because a police officer thinks I know something I don't know.
Also, altho we seem to agree on the appropriateness of using methods of torture to offset terrrorism, it is not a "non-issue", it is a issue for many.
Your interpetation of the 5th is little opinated and presumes intention I find short of fact.
Fifth amendment (actual text, without annonations):
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Bill of Rights, of which the 5th is a small part of springs from English common law.
From Wikipedia:
Historically, the legal protection against self-incrimination is directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions.[2][3] The legal shift from widespread use of torture and forced confession dates to turmoil of the late 16th and early 17th centuries in England. Anyone refusing to take the oath ex-officio (confessions or swearing of innocence, usually before hearing any charges) was taken for guilty. Suspected Puritans were pressed to take the oath and then reveal names of other Puritans. Coercion and torture were commonly employed to compel "cooperation." Puritans, who were at the time fleeing to the New World, began a practice of refusing to cooperate with interrogations. In the most famous case, John Lilburne refused, in 1637, to take the oath. His case and his call for "freeborn rights" were rallying points for reforms against forced oaths, forced self-incrimination, and other kinds of coercion. Oliver Cromwell's revolution overturned the practice and incorporated protections, in response to a popular group of English citizens known as the Levellers. The Levellers presented The Humble Petition of Many Thousands to Parliament in 1647 with thirteen demands, of which, the right against self-incrimination (in criminal cases only), was listed at number three. These protections were brought to the American shores by Puritans, and were later incorporated into the United States Constitution through its Bill of Rights.
|