reply to post by Seymour Butz
The government is not entitled to the Constitutional rights that Americans think they still enjoy. In point of fact, we have been under martial law
for a very long time, but that is for another thread.
The point is, that they have
already raised enough suspicion, that a new investigation is warranted, to determine the level of guilt and/or
complicity.
Check this out.
So in your hypothetical example, if an accused rapist or murderer exercises their constitutional right to not testify, this means that they are
guilty?
The government is not just some person accused of commiting a crime. Instead, what we have here, is more like a homicide investigator who got to go in
and investigate the rape and murder of his own mistress. Would you allow him to be in charge of the investigation?
Better yet, let's say he completed the investigation, but never bothered to turn in all of the evidence. Even some of the most basic evidence that is
never left out of any investigation. But because the patsy wound up with a court appointed attorney that happens to be on the take, no one bothers to
question the gaping holes in the prosecutor's story. The poor patsy is then hastily executed.
Then the truth comes out that this victim happened to be the cop's mistress. And not only that, he had a big insurance policy on her that he took out
only a week before she was killed.
Tell me, do you think that maybe the cop should be investigated by someone other than himself and his own people in a notoriously corrupt department?
Or do you think we should just stick with his story?
[edit on 5/9/0808 by jackinthebox]
