Replies

How ironic. The Fifth Amendment protections of no self-incrimination grew out of the legal shift away from widespread use of torture and forced confessions in late 16th and early 17th century in England. At the time, anyone refusing to take the oath ex officio mero (confessions or swearing of innocence, usually before hearing any charges) was considered guilty. Suspected Puritans were pressed to take the oath and then reveal names of other Puritans. Coercion and torture were commonly used to compel "cooperation."

The Puritans, who were at the time fleeing to the New World, began a practice of refusing to cooperate with interrogations.

So, Democrats, by overthrowing the Fifth Amendment and the right of no self-incrimination, would essentially be condoning a return to torture and forced confessions -- the very thing they used to beat Bush over the head with for eight years.

Hypocrisy, thy name is "Democrat."

The Puritans, who were at the time fleeing to the New World, began a practice of refusing to cooperate with interrogations.

Actually, the Puritans continued the practice of compelling "cooperation" in New England.

See the case of Giles Corey, who was pressed to death during the Salem Witch Trials while heroically refusing to plead guilty or innocent.

As with so many things, the Puritans weren't opposed to such practices, they just wanted to be the ones in charge of using them. For instance, they were most definitely not in favor of "freedom of religion" for the individual. They were in favor of the freedom of the state to impose the "right" religion on all individuals.