I personally think that the UK terror Suspects are Guilty of Something - But can we start arresting people for " Saying Nothing " ... Is the "No Comment " phrase going to become a criminal offence.
2006-08-24 21:30:32 · 19 answers · asked by ? 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Iam with you babe let's, let them blow us all up...MUPPET
2006-08-24 21:37:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
i might be wrong but my understanding is that they are not being arrested for saying nothing and are not being charged for that....isn't the issue that the police need time to gather evidence and charge them with crimes?
if you can prove that they knew something which has led to a crime costing peoples lives and therefore had the power to stop it i think that they are guilty of aiding that act. Often it is not the people that carry out the bombing that have masterminded it, do you really think that bin laden would do a sucide bombing? - no way he leaves that to the idiots that believe the abosolute sh*t that he speaks.
If someone i knew was arrested and kept in prison for a month i would not be very happy but i would accept that (particularly with this type of offence), it takes time to gather evidence.
If the terror suspects are released without charge after a month or so then i would believe them innocent......if they were released after 72 hours then i would (rightly or wrongly)assume they were guilty but the police hadn't found enough evidence.
Additional pressures also apply in terrorist cases as they often have better assess to means of leaving the country and evading re-capture.
how would you feel if they helped to plan another attack?
2006-08-25 04:43:59 · answer #2 · answered by Bass 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course we should arrest people on suspicion of terrorist activities. We are talking about NATIONAL SECURITY here. That out weighs the civil rights of any individual. Besides, they have a right to legal representation and to defend themselves under the Natural Justice regulations, the same as anyone else does. They will be charged if there is sufficient evidence only and certainly not because of a no comment interview response. However, this does not help their case, who in their right mind would say "no coment" if they are totally innocent with a watertight alibi.
2006-08-26 03:15:21 · answer #3 · answered by Valli 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are using "no comment" to avoid implicating themselves. If they have done nothing wrong then they should answer the questions put to them - and if it is the truth, they will not trip themselves up.
Most people who use "no comment" are either guilty or think they are being clever!!! Durrr!
However, they have NOT been arrested for saying "no comment" and if the weight of the evidence is against them, they will get charged and have their day in court - or with the current terrorists, probably months and months and cost the taxpayers a fortune.
2006-08-25 07:17:11 · answer #4 · answered by Sally J 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They were charged because it is alleged they knew of a plot and said nothing. It's a very old legal maxim that silence signifies consent. In Scots law, the term is "art and part". It means that you went along with it.
Say person A had been in a room with a close friend, B, who did not threaten or coerce them in any way while B murdered C. If they offered no assistance to C, if they didn not attempt to stop B, if they made no report to the police about the murder, a reasonable person would be entitled to assume that they were 'art and part" to the murder.
It's the same thing. The allegation in this case is that these people knew of a plan to carry our mass murder, consented to it and did nothing to prevent it.
2006-08-25 05:06:36 · answer #5 · answered by scotsman 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The person would be arrested for being a suspected terrorist. You could not be arrested for saying nothing but if it later came to light that under questioning you withheld information you could be arrested and charged with that.
2006-08-25 05:10:33 · answer #6 · answered by migelito 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why not ask this question again when a member of your family has got killed by being blown up by a terrorist bomb and it turned out that someone knew it was going to happen but chose not to say anything.There is a difference between the chosing to say no comment and withholding information from the police.
2006-08-27 08:51:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you are withholding information on an investigation that involves terrorist they you should be arrested. Terrorism is a big problem and needs to be taken care of a.s.a.p.
If they have nothing to hid then they should talk. If they are not talking then they should be charged with suspicion!
2006-08-25 04:38:49 · answer #8 · answered by smoothsophie 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think "not saying anything" means you're covering something up. Or protecting someone. So yes, I think you should be arrested and charged for that. And for lying when being questioned, too.
2006-08-25 05:02:17 · answer #9 · answered by True Blue Brit 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's the way it is.
In most Free countries you have something like the Miranda rights. You have the right to remain silent.
Do you think when a murderer, rapist, or child molester gets cought the first thing they say is, "OK, you got me, I did it."
NO! they say nothing, or start screaming for a lawyer.
And If you have nothing to hide I would be answering ANY question they ask.
Like the answer above mine said and I agree, In my book silence is PROOF of guilt to me!
(don't forget to vote for her.) -->smoothsophie
2006-08-25 04:40:47 · answer #10 · answered by space_man_stitch 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i dont think the police would arrest them without just cause, if they r innocent they will talk and be honest and open, only the guilty hide and say no comment, then its up to the police to prove the case.
2006-08-25 04:44:04 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋