Politicians should be interrogated using truth serum regarding their actions

(Sorry about not posting my argument earlier, I could have but I didn't feel like it)(What's with the funky formatting?)C1:RightsA."In the United States, the right to remain silent is designed to protect a person who is undergoing police questioning or trial."(1)B. It is a person's right to remain silent, by feeding someone a truth serum we would be undermining his/her right to remain silent. We cannot simply undermine the right of someone that has not been proved guilty, if the politician agrees we should be allowed too, but if not we cannot. If we start to undermine rights, who knows where it will lead?C. There are many parallels between our serum and the lie detector, or polygraph. The police will try to make you take a polygraph test, but you don't have too(2). This should be the same with a truth serum, it would be suspicious if someone declines, but it should be a person's right not to take the serum.D. In conclusion, all people have right. Even petition's have rights. We cannot undermine these rights because we don't know where it might lead. George Orwell's animal farm illustrates this well. After the animals of a farm overthrow their owner they create their own republic with 7 commandments. Soon the republic was undermined and became a dictatorship. A Pig named Napoleon led the farm. He started by changing one of the commandments from "no animal should sleep in abed" too "no animal should sleep in a bed, with sheets,". Eventually all commandments were erased and replaced with one: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."C2:Lack Of GroundsA."If the officer interferes with your liberty to move about, he or she should first have a reasonable suspicion that you have been involved in a crime."(3)Is being a politician enough grounds to interrogate someone? Of course not! and it is absence that the terms of interrogation should be because the person we are questioning is a politician. Being a politician is not a crime and provides no ground to be interrogated.C3:Selective JusticeA. Only interrogating politicians would be a form of selective justice. By only using this technologies on politicians we would discourage people to be politicians. We cannot selectively pick some people to be interrogated by a some methods, that cannot be the base of our justice system.C4:Information leaksA. Politicians in higher positions should not be interrogated because they are bound to know information the the interrogator should not know. The president is the lead executive and should know many government secrets that he only shares with his cabinet. This information may be leaked, which is not good for the US. Some leaks may not be too major but some could ruin some US executive plans.ConclusionIn conclusion the interrogation of higher position politicians with a truth serum should not be allowed. This selective irrigation would undermine what the US stands for and may lead to catastrophic damage in the form on information leaks. The interrogation would be arbitrary and not supported.For these reasons I urge you to vote Con, thank you. Over to ProCitations1.http://www.mirandarights.org...2.http://www.legalmatch.com...3.https://www.ohiobar.org...