It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama legal team wants to limit defendants' rights

page: 4
57
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty


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)


That is outrageous, and of course he said CHANGE, but didn't say HOW - it could of gone either way...




posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Anyone else feel like they're being herded into ever small pens?

Okay, you could keep your mouth shut but this could be seen as a sign of guilt - "if you were innocent you'd answer the question".

This is very wrong



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Obama? Wanting to authorize Gestapo tactics?! NEVER!!! And even if he did, it would be ok because this is change. This is different than some of that other civil rights eroding stuff that bush pulled. This is change.



TA



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


I read the article and don't see a problem. You still have the right to have counsel present during questioning. What changed was counsel is not REQUIRED to be present if the person being questioned says they don't want counsel. Just another ruse by the Republicans to scare people. I recall all kinds of stuff to scare people that was being reported when Clinton was elected. We were told by crazy republicans that Clinton was going to take away the guns. He didn't. Same with the WMD's in Iraq, I recall them scaring people by constantly referring to a mushroom cloud if we didn't invade. We ALL know now that was just a ruse too.

During his time as VP Cheney kept saying what he was doing was classified, but now wants all of the documents released to try and prove they got info that stopped an attack on the west coast. Another ruse. The so called information was written in a memo in February 2002. The Bush admin claimed then they got the info. However it wasn't until August when the torture started according to the Bush admin. These dates have been verified.

It is the same with this decision. If a person waives right to counsel, what is said can and will be used against them. Yet people want to scare others into thinking you are losing something. You can still refuse to answer.

The patriot act states a warrant can be written by the federal officer trying to enter your house ON THE SPOT. No judge needed anymore, and also, if you tell anyone they wrote the warrant that way and entered your house you have committed a felony. Yes that's right you cannot even tell your lawyer. This actually does take away a right of ours that's in the Constitution.

Republican scare tactics don't work very well once their corruption and greed is revealed. How many honest upright people need their daughter to get on TV to try and defend them?

Now again we have the same ole scare tactics about the guns, and the safety of the country. Just a ruse.

Bush took office in January of 2001. He DID NOT protect the US and its citizens. Why people accept 9/11 as being ok while under Bush's watch is just nuts in my opinion. He was in charge, and many people told him about al quaida, it is on record. Yet what happened? We were attacked.
BUSH FAILED! Period.

This LIE that keeps being reported about how Bush kept us safe needs to stop.
I hope the whole lot is sent to prison.

Educate yourself! (hopefully before you post)



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhatty

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)




wouldnt that cause a denial of service, if a man is accused of statuary rape, he denies doing anything but the girl claims to it, unless the man confesses to it, how could they get a dna sample, by going above and beyond if a bill was passed like that. but in regards to denial of service if that certificate authority is attacked then that would leave someone vulnerable to a nongauranteeable certificate, they would try and pin dna on him and he would face the ratio of if it matches, its a trust agreement



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Sammy D
 


Eh? You don't see a need for a neutral third party present during questioning? Is this what we as a society have come to?

I don't think you understand the key philosophy that ANYONE dealing with law enforcement needs to have. That philosophy is that the officer talking to you isn't your friend, isn't your buddy, will help you get out of a jam, is required to tell the truth of your statements, etc. His job is to incarcerate you by any means necessary, including coercing you to waive your rights even without your own knowledge and extract any form of admission of guilt. They have been trained in such tactics and use them at every possible moment, including twisting the very words you speak.

Seriously, how do you think they twist "I'm heading home" into you being a drug lord having a ton of narcotics in your possession during a traffic stop? Because people talk to much, words are twisted, and people are negligent in learning their rights as citizens. Do you think the tactics are any different in a sealed room away from public view?

If you're being arrested or questioned by law enforcement, the first and only words out of your mouth should be asking for the right to council. Not even so much as a grunt or peep after that until that council arrives. It's not an admission of guilt and is in your constitutional protected rights. Yeah, it's an inconvenience, but so is a prison term.

At least with a neutral third party there during questioning, the chance for abuse becomes less and puts some chips on your side. Who is the judge going to believe? The honored law enforcement officer, or Joe Public who stands before him in handcuffs? Take that third party away during continued questioning and guess who has the upper hand especially with Lieutenant Corruption in the room with you?

Good Lord man, this is a stab in the back for the good guys -- you and me citizens of the United States. It's a step backwards. Yes, you can still plead the 5th, but then you are trusting the system and the very law enforcement that wants to incarcerate you not to lie about you during that time without that neutral party present.

Quit playing partisan Bush vs Clinton or vs Obama politics. By the time you realize both parties are evil they will erode your freedoms to the point that the constitution really will become 'just a piece of paper'.

Stop trusting the government to do the right thing, because they sure as hell do not trust you.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
The bottom line is stick to your right to remain silent. Say nothing to them.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ReelView
 


Listen to what ReelView says...

(PS....all of this Obama bashing!?! Eight years of licking Bush's feet, letting them [his cronies] run roughshod over us..."Patriot", suspension of habeas corpus...tax the lower class whilst giving their rich buddies big tax breaks....I thought ATS members were smarter than this!)

Anyway, back to ReelViews point, consider this:



It is long (27min) and this is just Part one. Click the link to see the rest.

NOTHING that is alleged to have been done by the Obama Administration changes the game...your rights are still intact, so we can drop the hysterics.



[edit on 4/24/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Well, I really could care less at this point. They will do what they want, when they want, as often as they want. They are good at making changes slowly, so as to not draw attention to the issue. I'm sure they have something else in mind with regards to limiting our rights with this change. Too much going on nowadays and its difficult to keep up with the issues, let alone making any substantive responses for mitigation. They know this. They operate from chaos, confusion and complexity. They continue to complicate our lives, so that we have limited time and resources to fight all the issues. That's why I say....just let them go for it.

This will boil down to courage. The courage to stand up against a fascist government, whether peacefully or by force. They will choose how we respond. Americans are tougher than most think, and will not put up with the crap dished out by windbags in suits.

Our world is run like a circus, and we are the park attendants....roadies if you will. We are despicable to them, and they only treat us nice so we will do our duties and obey thinking that they care for us.

Obama is a fake. Why people couldn't see this in ANY politician is beyond me. People put way too much in politicians and the government. Its us against them. Its just a matter of whether we'll fight, or whether we will continue to live our lives by their rules and succumb to their wishes.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
What is wrong with you people? Are you all wearing beer goggles or should ATs just be renamed "Alternative Teen Stupidity" or maybe "Against Truth and Society"?

They are not taking your right for a lawyer away from you. Only that if you talk without a lawyer it can be used against you. If you know to ask for a lawyer then you also know not to talk until they get there. How does everything always get so twisted from the facts and end up being an Obama hatefest? You folks have let your hate make it impossible for you to make an rational conclusion.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


I hear you, it took Bush 3 years to show his true colors and intentions, but with Obama he is just showing his true colors right after he got swore in.

What a shame, he will lose his popularity before the year is over.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
If you just remember not to talk to the cops without your lawyer,what danger are you really in if you keep your trap shut?.

Unless of course they want to whip out that legislation which allows them to hold you without charges,and torture you,which is another Obama CHANGE...like no change!!.

Just don't talk to them,it used to be a law that they couldn't hold you for longer than a certain time,accept the fact that your dog starved to death while they had you,but you might get fed a couple times a week.

At least you'll get plenty to drink while you are being water-boarded.

Stupid americans.

ANYTHING YOU SAY "CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU',WHETHER IN CONTEXT OR NOT," THE OFFICER OF THE COURT'S AFFIDAVIT IS MORE POWERFUL THAN YOURS",>>>u r screwed.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
"RedHatty", the Supreme Court already ruled upon this matter however, and thus I find it extremely unlikely that the Executive Branch could ever overturn such a proposition. The original case was brought before the Supreme Court in 1966, in "Miranda vs. Arizona", during which it was found that the Law Enforcement Officials had received a confessions which was inadmissible, as a one Ernesto Miranda had NOT been read or informed of his Constitutional Right to Counsel (Bill of Rights: 6th Amendment), and his Right to not mention nor speak against himself (Bill of Rights: 5th Amendment). Thus, there is where the term "Miranda Rights" emanates from.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
If you just remember not to talk to the cops without your lawyer,what danger are you really in if you keep your trap shut?.

Unless of course they want to whip out that legislation which allows them to hold you without charges,and torture you,which is another Obama CHANGE...like no change!!.

Just don't talk to them,it used to be a law that they couldn't hold you for longer than a certain time,accept the fact that your dog starved to death while they had you,but you might get fed a couple times a week.

At least you'll get plenty to drink while you are being water-boarded.

Stupid americans.

ANYTHING YOU SAY "CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU',WHETHER IN CONTEXT OR NOT," THE OFFICER OF THE COURT'S AFFIDAVIT IS MORE POWERFUL THAN YOURS",>>>u r screwed.


Nice attempt at taking such incidents completely out of context. Water boarding, and what you misnomer as "Torture", are aspects brought forth in dealing with Insurgent Combatants and Terrorists. This has never occurred to common criminals, so your illogical point is extremely useless in relevance to the original matter being disussed on this thread.

[edit on 4-24-2009 by TheAgentNineteen]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
This is why you never, ever, talk to the police. If you are a suspect, ask for your lawyer. If you are not a suspect, shut up. If you meet one in a restaurant, at a ball game, at the mall, in the movies.... shut up. Anything you say, and I mean ANYTHING YOU SAY can be used against you, at any time.

They are not your friend.

[edit on 24-4-2009 by SpacePunk]



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 


I hope you are right that it is not overturned.

the spwcific case that has been heard by SCOTUS, but not yet ruled on is Montejo v. Louisiana

Seems that Mr. Montejo had requested and been appointed an attorney, but was not informed that an attorney had been appointed before he was taken by a detective on a search for the murder weapon. During the search, the detective suggested that Mr Montejo write a letter of apology to the wife of the victim.

exactly how that suggestion was presented, I do not know.

That letter was later admitted as evidence in his trial and subsequent conviction even though his attorney was not present when he wrote and submitted the letter of apology. And Mr. Montejo did not even know he had an atty to consult when he was "convinced" to write the letter.

The specific question before SCOTUS is "After the appointment of an attorney, does a defendant need to take additional steps to accept the appointment in order to secure the protections afforded by the Sixth Amendment?"

If SCOTUS decides that yes a defendant has to take extra steps, but investigators/prosecutors are not required to even inform the defendant that an atty is available, it sets a very dangerous precedent.

Real life is not like TV shows, where on TV, once a suspect says they want a lawyer, the investigators leave the suspect alone until the lawyer is provided & present. LEO will use every available means to coerce evidence that will convict, including but not limited to coerced confessions, even after an atty has been requested.

Do you really think this is the proper procedure for LEO's? What rights do you think a suspect in police custody should have? Do you really think that Mr. Montejo could have "refused" to go with the LEO on the weapon search? If so, exactly how does that happen when you are already in custody?

This is not a "nothing-burger" this is a serious and potential revocation of our rights as citizens.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 

Read the legislation,it has been creeping in the direction of zero rights for a long time.

You DON"T HAVE ANY!!!.

The constitution was not written in your interest.

Read that.



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by redhatty
 


Hmm... you put it very well. I did not think of that eventuality.. no doubt that it will be used against people also! Reading ATS each day insulates you a little from the mainstream view/knowledge of law and practices I guess.

So this is a little more insidious than I originally thought. I withdraw my earlier comment, leaving it in it's entirity as to not stuff up the thread.


Originally posted by redhatty
reply to post by GhostR1der
 


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



One thing though that could throw a spanner in the works of this attempt by those pen pushers - without directly amending the constitution, any law that violates the constitution is null and void as far as I understand. The constitution is the ultimate law in USA correct? Above all other laws and rulings when it comes down to the bleeding edge is it not?
If this is the case, then one could argue against any evidence offered in court using surrepticious tactics by law enforcement officers.

Then again we come back to the 'your average person probably doesn't know this'... square one again eh. >_>



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 
You have obviously never found yourself on the wrong end of the "law stick",you may just understand if you had ever been.....



posted on Apr, 24 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen
 


As much as I wish i could agree with you, I must point you at This thread, which clearly shows that waterboarding has indeed been used with common criminals.

..Ex



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join