ThinksMarkedly wrote:And no one outside the GA top government knows that they can at all. The fact that some treecat is being allowed near the suspect does not mean the suspect is being told of the abilities of the treecat. The treecat does not even have to be in the same room; just use those one-way mirrors that cop shows like to use. That doesn't block the treecats' abilities.
When they were present during questioning, the treecats weren't using their hand signals to communicate. They know better. They just sit there pretending to be dumb (and playing dumb), and give a few underhanded signals like a card player would with their partner. Add to that something to keep the suspect's attention away from the treecat, like a major distraction in the form of a gaudy or boisterous investigator, and the suspect will never notice the treecat's subtle signs of "nope, that was a lie."
Is it legal to subject a suspect to a non-invasive truth detector without their consent or awareness? I don't know. My guess is this would be no different than bringing an expert in facial tics and cues, except that the treecat is near 100% infallible. What I do know is that there has been no time to rule on the legality of using treecats like this in the few years since they've come out and shown they can, indeed, communicate and detect lies.
Maybe a later court will rule that all of this was illegal and that "fruit of the poisonous tree" such confessions cannot legally be used in a court of law, nor legal warrants for search and seizure, thus evidence thus obtained. So it might be a short-lived spin-off series where treecats join a legal practice, called "NCIS: Landing City." But in this case, in the judgement of war crimes, an overarching transnational agreement like the Deneb Convention might apply. And this is military justice, under the military codes, not civilian courts. It might be that the Manticore Unified Code of Military Justice does not allow suspects to deny non-invasive truth-verification mechanisms. All the investigator has to say is that "we have a very sensitive method to tell whether you're lying" and not elaborate on that.
Besides, I don't think this will matter for the majority of the population of Galton: they will not be held liable for having been brainwashed. It's the leadership that the GA and Intel services will be after, and either those have died or there are heaps of evidence against them anyway.
That just reminds me of:
To End In Fire, June 1923 Post Diaspora, Lincoln Island wrote:The first person they encountered after leaving the pavilion was a tall, powerful looking blonde.
“Here’s one of your commissioners,” Cachat said. “Yana Tretiakovna. And here are a couple of others.” Two more people came from around the side of the pavilion. “The one on the left is Indiana Graham,” he said.
But all three of the PNE officers’ eyes were fixed on Indy’s companion. Or rather, on his companion’s companion, who rode his human’s shoulder.
“That’s a treecat.”
There was more than a trace of protest in Trevithick’s tone, and Cachat glanced at him. The dispassionate, almost bored expression was back.
“What part of ‘I am a very difficult person to betray’ are you having the most trouble with, Citizen Commander?”