freeper tendencies and a loss of rights

[westsidexview]

i am not a lawyer but it seems to me that freepers use the tactic of charging someone with a crime. and then when it is discovered that the basis for the charge is groundless, there is a sudden shift to perjury because of inconsistencies or misstatements in the accused testimony. to me, if the original charge is bogus, why follow up with charges of perjury? it is like you are charged with murder and the supposed deceased shows up alive and well. then the murder charges are dropped but you end up getting jail time because of technical mistakes in your testimony. it is like they are out to get you no matter what! this is what happened to clinton and now to martha stewart. this to me is unamerican.

[mopinko]

1. i agree. in other countries

the accused cannot be charged with perjury. it is inconsistent with the 5th amendment, imho, to say that the accused is compelled to be perfectly truthful. even if you are guilty. obstruction of justice is another matter. but obstruction of justice should be required to be a serious action, like offing a witness, or bribery. really. it's a sure sign of a witch hunt.

[seabeyond]

2. good point kinda like clinton and whitewater

ok, perjured self about a blowjob.

iraq and wmd's
ok saddam bad

the patriots act and arrest protestors and anyone else
take away their rights
and maybe they can find something on them