Obama legal team wants to limit defendants' rights

Obama legal team wants to limit defendants' rights

www.google.com

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule a 23 year-old decision that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, the latest stance that has disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups.

While President Barack Obama has reversed many policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, the defendants' rights case is another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanist

(visit the link for the full news article)

I thought we would have change, didn't realize it would be for the worst.

So your constitutional right to an atty won't really mean anything if this gets through. And worse, have a corrupt Police Department and it can be said YOU said something that you didn't.

More police state, more freedoms vanishing, more rights taken away.

How ya like the change so far?

www.google.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is going to mean more false confessions, and beatings in between pausing the tape recorder, i expect.

(btw i stole your avatar )

[edit on 24-4-2009 by MR BOB]

This is not the change my gullible arse wanted when I bought his crap-hook, line and sinker

Can I say that I feel like a fool here? Granted I was still in the process of waking to the truth of government and the MSM, but you cannot imagine how stupid I feel! I blogged and blogged on several sites, got so many people registered to vote, and genuinely felt great about my civic service and "duty". I guess we all play the fool sometimes.

This for me is the final straw! What got me interested in Obama as opposed to Hillary, who I was originally supporting, was his record on civil rights issues. I guess that is crap too! I cannot believe a Harvard lawyer with a background like he has in Constitutional Law would do anything that would further erode our rights. Like I said, damn was I fooled!

This is so sad, so very sad. So many people that are the very ones that will be most affected by this, the poor and disenfranchised, are the ones who were so excited by this. This is so bad. Obama is a puppet and a fraud, I am so disappointed, truly I am, and more than a bit angry!

[edit on 4/24/2009 by redhead57]

[edit on 4/24/2009 by redhead57]

reply to post by MR BOB


The poor (which we will all be soon) and the mentally disabled will be the ones affected the worst from this, even though it just creates MORE of a police state for everyone.

Enjoy the avatar

Well just refuse to answer the question? You have the right to remain silent don't you still...

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

Read the source.

This doesn't suprise me.You can't railroad people as easily with an attorney present. This will come in pretty handy when they start dragging in all the new extremists and radicals DHS has pointed out.
Sometimes I cringe in disbelief,these type of actions are not a dream,it's for real boys and girls. Many may not realize that our government has essentially declared war on the american public. Sad sad times ahead I fear.

reply to post by GhostR1der


Just refuse to answer, sure that works. But... you have a constitutional RIGHT to council

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

then there are the Miranda Rights

...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says may be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him or her.

Having an attorney present to protect you from leading questions or undue harassment is a RIGHT that you have.

DO you not care about keeping your rights?

Will you when it's you that is questioned without an attorney and the police claim you said something you DIDN'T and YOU are the one having to fight it?

maybe an old WWII peom will remind you why we have these rights

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.

Originally posted by redhead57
I blogged and blogged on several sites, got so many people registered to vote, and genuinely felt great about my civic service and "duty". I guess we all play the fool sometimes.

No offense dude, but how did you support someone who kept saying change without ever defining it?

I don't get how so many people not only voted for a facade but also fiercely defended it.

I mean what were you saying when you were blogging?
Change change change?

Just change parties, from one corrupt one to another?

Just wondering man

[edit on 24-4-2009 by ModernAcademia]

ALRIGHT PEOPLE...

FLAG THE [*SNIP*] OUT OF THIS!!!!!


This could be the worst move made in decades by a government, against the people!

I cannot believe my eyes, what's next, no jury of our peers?

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4/24/2009 by AshleyD]

reply to post by redhatty


I seen an article on this last night...but I wasn't sure it was legit so I didn't post it.

Looks to be true obviously.

Obama supporters....please...are you starting to see something wrong yet?

When are we going to come together as a people to protect our rights?

I'm tired of the political game and it's obscuring what is happening.

Originally posted by GhostR1der
Well just refuse to answer the question? You have the right to remain silent don't you still...

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

Read the source.

I think what you are missing is this very simple and plain fact. Most people don't know their rights. What they know they know from TV.

Think of it this way. Say you are taken in. You have no clue why. They start grilling you in the interrogation room. You say that you know your rights and want a lawyer. They pull out this "You don't get to have a lawyer present anymore. Didn't you see the president sign this..."

Now you have the intimidation factor. You are now scared. Probably pretty badly. You will begin to feel that you have to start saying something to try and help yourself out but then the scheming a-holes that simply want to put someone away so the case can be closed and they can chalk another brownie point up on their record will twist every word out of your mouth.

Who gives a damn about the right to remain silent at that point. An innocent person will feel they have nothing to hide and WILL speak to the police. It's the crooked ones that you have to worry about. (Police that is.) And unfortunately there are a LOT of crooked ones. Embittered cops that feel that everyone is a criminal now and that they are the only hope and salvation for mankind.

So your point about remaining silent is a good one. One that YOU know to put into place up front. However, how many INNOCENT people will think of that?

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by redhead57
I blogged and blogged on several sites, got so many people registered to vote, and genuinely felt great about my civic service and "duty". I guess we all play the fool sometimes.

No offense dude, but how did you support someone who kept saying change without ever defining it?

I don't get how so many people not only voted for a facade but also fiercely defended it.

I mean what were you saying when you were blogging?
Change change change?

Just change parties, from one corrupt one to another?

Just wondering man

[edit on 24-4-2009 by ModernAcademia]

Completely off topic and uncalled for man. The person SAID that they were still just uncovering and discovering everything. I mean, seriously, what do you have to say on the OP? Anything? Anything at all or do you simply want to bash Obama supporters? The people that blindly supported him without question because that is what many did?

Although I know that my post isn't exactly on topic I just feel that your blatant attack of someone who ADMITTED they were wrong in their support is pretty low.

Maybe it will hit home better if you see what they are trying specifically to overturn

Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986)

Respondents, at separate arraignments in a Michigan trial court on unrelated murder charges, each requested appointment of counsel. But before respondents had an opportunity to consult with counsel, police officers, after advising respondents of their Miranda rights, questioned them and obtained confessions. Both respondents were convicted over objections to the admission of the confessions in evidence. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and remanded in one case, but affirmed in the other. The Michigan Supreme Court considered both cases together, and held that the confessions were improperly obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Held: The confessions should have been suppressed. Although the rule of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477, that once a suspect has invoked his right to counsel, police may not initiate interrogation until counsel has been made available to the suspect, rested on the Fifth Amendment and concerned a request for counsel made during custodial interrogation, the reasoning of that case applies with even greater force to these cases. The assertion of the right to counsel is no less significant, and the need for additional safeguards no less clear, when that assertion is made at an arraignment and when the basis for it is the Sixth Amendment. If police initiate an interrogation after a defendant's assertion of his right to counsel at an arraignment or similar proceeding, as in these cases, any waiver of that right for that police-initiated interrogation is invalid. Pp. 475 U. S. 629-635.

421 Mich. 39, 365 N.W.2d 56, affirmed.

also from the decision,

The Fifth Amendment (of the Constitution) protection against compelled self-incrimination provides the right to counsel at custodial interrogations.

"Sixth Amendment (of the Constitution) guarantees the accused, at least after the initiation of formal charges, the right to rely on counsel as a 'medium' between him and the State."

So one ruling *could* destroy 2 Constitution Rights at once.

Chains we can believe in

Just remain silent until your attorney gets there. Obama sucks, yes, but at least there's an obvious loophole.

More self imcrimination, the poor people will go through.

You would think obama being black would understand this, but of course he does not make policy, but it just a person there to give speechs, and nothing more.

reply to post by sadisticwoman


Ordinarily I would agree but, its fact that many people are not able to just shut up. Fear and intimidation and outright lieing (which is allowed by officials) makes this a moot point when used by authorities. To many cops and prosecutors rely on their conviction rates to improve their chances to become legislators and will trample on anyone who gives them grief in that endevour!

Zindo

It's nice to see an Obama believer see the true picture of what he means. I never understood how after looking at Obama's record(extreme socialist or communist leanings) the people he associated with and his lack of experience before becoming President, the savior worship mentality.

Good for you, Redhead 57 hopefully others will look at where we are headed with open eyes and realize the truth before it's too late.

It's good to see former Obama supporters whose eyes are now open. Obama makes a good speech, but he's a politician like the rest of them who will say anything to get elected.

Maybe now the rest of America will open their eyes and their disappointment in "the messiah" will drive them to push for something better in public office. We don't want hard right-wing politicians, we don't want limp-wristed hard left liberals. We want and need a third party who actually gives a damn about this country and the Constitution and wants to make it better for the sake of all people, not the few.

It is so misleading too, what the msm is showing on t.v. as well. Watch any detective show. "Can we talk to you?" "Wold you like to come to the station and answer some questions." "Can we look in your car?" and of course the all important "Can we come in?" Why don't we see more t.v. shows where the people just say no? The public is being brainwashed to go along and answer any question that might come there way. It starts in school, and is nursed from there. The people are truly screwed and those that know there rights and affirm them are shown to be the bad guys.

respectfully

reluctantpawn