On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Steven Morrey <[email protected]> wrote:
> To answer that look at the origins of the 5th amendment and it's actual
> wording.
>
> "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 offense 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."
>
> Not to get political, but notice that it does say "person" not
> "citizen", thats why it's called a human right and not just an
> american right, but gitmo is a subject for another debate.
>
> The key phrase here is "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to
> be a witness against himself"
Well, there's also the due process bit, which is part of the very same phrase.
"...; 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; ..."
The government can do all sorts of unpleasant things to you as long as
the rules are followed. If the rules say that withholding encryption
keys constitutes obstruction of justice or whatever, then due process
allows the judge to impose whatever penalties the rules allow in that
circumstance. If the rules say that you may be held in jail until you
cooperate, that is a form of coercion, but it's a form allowed by the
rules. If you think the rules are invalid, you could make a case in
court and if the right judges agree with you, the rules could change.
But as long as the rules are there, the government can and will
deprive you of your basic rights if it sees fit to do so and follows
the rules that allow it. If there were not rules that allowed the
government to violate your rights in specific ways and in certain
well-defined circumstances, it wouldn't be a very effective
government, as it could never detain, fine, or otherwise punish anyone
who violated laws. I think that even minarchist libertarians would
allow the government to violate certain rights of criminals in certain
situations, or else they wouldn't be minarchists, they'd be
anarchists. I have yet to be convinced that an anarchic society would
work very well, or I should say, work in a way that would make me want
to be a part of it.
--Levi
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
