Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!news.daionet.gr.jp!news.yamada.gr.jp!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!shelby.stanford.edu!not-for-mail From: mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan Subject: Re: Initial impressions from the Japanese premier of Fahrenheit 9/11 Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:45:07 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Subtlties R'nt Us Lines: 42 Sender: Mike Fester Message-ID: References: <2oqf3jFd9vt9U6@uni-berlin.de> <4129F2FF.B82967DE@yahoo.co.jp> <4129FD3E.160E8BB@yahoo.co.jp> <6i3li059pbntf97b3hd8ptjc7m1u7dtnpd@4ax.com> <412B0FC7.EE4155C@yahoo.co.jp> <412B4843.5E450997@yahoo.co.jp> <412C6355.AEC0D3B3@yahoo.co.jp> <412CD3A8.6D9ADE87@yahoo.co.jp> Reply-To: mtfester@netscape.net NNTP-Posting-Host: haven.stanford.edu X-Trace: news.Stanford.EDU 1093477507 23323 171.67.16.19 (25 Aug 2004 23:45:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@news.stanford.edu User-Agent: tin/1.5.12-20020311 ("Toxicity") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.26 (i686)) Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.life.in-japan:17411 Eric Takabayashi wrote: > mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote: >> No, but it IS *a* situation the founding fathers cared very much about. >> >> Again, which specific parts of the Constitution do you object to? > As if you do not know or remember from years past, why should criminals be able to try to > avoid discovery of their crime, capture or punishment, by pleading the Fifth, or to rely > upon the Fourth Amendment (against illegal search and seizure without specific warrant), So, basically, you disagree with the Bill of Rights. As for the search and seizure, well, that should be obvious, given that things can "find" their way into your possession if a cop is so inclined. As for pleading the 5th, why should an innocent person help build a prosecutor's case by admitting to things that do not necessarily indicate you committed a crime? > or to have lawyers keep them from revealing practically any information, relevant or > irrelevant, such as, Police officer: "Were you drinking tonight?" Drunk, driving > suspiciously: "I don't have to answer that." or "I want to call my lawyer"? Why must the No, you don't; you must submit to a breath test, though. > discovery, capture or punishment? Attorney: "He burped during the breathalyzer." "An > attorney was not present during questioning." and having such valuable evidence not An interesting article the other day in the paper; man released after 40 years imprisonment for a "confession" gotten without an attorney present. I know, it doesn't bother you... > something I've done, I'll damn well tell them, even if it was something wrong or Well, that's nice. I'm sure everyone would do the same, yes? Mike