Have a problem with the IRS and see if you can go to jail for not handing
over documents.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
You should have paid attention in school. You cannot be compelled to
testify against *yourself*.


Really? Does that include being forced to hand over documents, including
ones which probably don't exist? Seems to me that people are compelled
to testify against themselves all the time.


Curtis CCR wrote:
Yes. You can be compelled to hand over documents.

Of course, you *can* be, but should you be? To frame the question more
accurately, the Constitution & Bill of Rights set up very limited
circumstances in which the state (meaning the federal gov't) can stomp
down the citizen, and forbid such stopming all other times. I understood
this to be one of the latter, honored more in the breach with the 'advance
of civiliation' into modern times.

Sort of like the way the police can tap your phone, read your email, or
even ust down your door and give your home & belongings a good tossing.
Hey, if you're not a criminal, drug dealer, or terrorist, you have nothing
to fear, right?


... People are compelled to testify against
others in court everyday.


And this makes it right? Especially the situation under discussion, that
two reporters considered hostile by the Administration are ordered to
jail while other reporters who have done the exact same thing but are
pro-Bush/Cheney walk free?


Let me see if I have the correct score here.

ONE reporter sits in jail for refusing to disclose information

Not long ago it was two.

... she says
she has. Miller says she won't reveal her source - I don't believe any
one has ever claimed that she didn't have a source. She is not sitting
in jail for refusing to testify against herself. Get that straight -
there is no fifth ammendment issue here.

And yes, the general principal of compelling people to testify in court
is quite sound.


So, the state can force you to give evidence... documents or verbal
testimony... which you may or may not have... and lock you up forever if
you don't satisfy the court (meaning the prosecutor).

That sounds just peachy... are you allowed to sing all those songs about
what a free country this is while you rot in jail?



You have nothing to back that up. The question is still very much up
in the air and you have nothing to show that it is "pretty likely" to
fall one way or another.

C'mon, usually you have more sense than this. Is this going to be
President Bush's official backpedal tag-line? "No crime has been
committed" just like "We don't know or care where Bin Laden is now."

If no crime was committed, then why have a prosecutor in the first place?
Who's in charge here?

... We don't know if this special prosecutor
is looking to charge anyone with anything, or if he just digging to the
bottom what will prove to be a political mess.


Actually, I assume that the special prosecutor is seeking to whitewash the
whole thing.

DSK

Bill McKee wrote:
Have a problem with the IRS and see if you can go to jail for not handing
over documents.


True... but again, is it right? And that's one of my mainpoints here.

The IRS will not only send you to jail but will seize your property.

Maybe those reporters are lucky they were only sent to jail, maybe the
judge could have ordered them to hand over all their '60s albums too.

DSK

Yes it is proper. Say that you wrote a threatening letter to the POTUS.
And you say that you can not have my typewriter. Think that would fly?

Bill

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Bill McKee wrote:
Have a problem with the IRS and see if you can go to jail for not handing
over documents.


True... but again, is it right? And that's one of my mainpoints here.

The IRS will not only send you to jail but will seize your property.

Maybe those reporters are lucky they were only sent to jail, maybe the
judge could have ordered them to hand over all their '60s albums too.

DSK

Bill McKee wrote:
Yes it is proper. Say that you wrote a threatening letter to the POTUS.
And you say that you can not have my typewriter. Think that would fly?


That depends on the credibility of the threat.

So, I take it that you're in favor of a police state with 'freedom'
define by the convenience of the courts & police? A gov't that places
higher priority on the priviledges of it's officials than the rights of
it's citizens?

That is what we have now.

Personally, I don't like it... and the Founding Fathers would be
appalled... although they'd probably be surprised & pleased that the
U.S. succeeded so well & kept some vestiges of freedom for a long time.

DSK

Very much against a police state. The question is can you be forced to give
up evidence. And with a search warrant, yes you can.

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Bill McKee wrote:
Yes it is proper. Say that you wrote a threatening letter to the POTUS.
And you say that you can not have my typewriter. Think that would fly?


That depends on the credibility of the threat.

So, I take it that you're in favor of a police state with 'freedom' define
by the convenience of the courts & police? A gov't that places higher
priority on the priviledges of it's officials than the rights of it's
citizens?

That is what we have now.

Personally, I don't like it... and the Founding Fathers would be
appalled... although they'd probably be surprised & pleased that the U.S.
succeeded so well & kept some vestiges of freedom for a long time.

DSK