It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Barack Obama administration seeks to change police questioning law

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 02:56 PM

The Obama administration is urging the US Supreme Court to overturn a landmark decision that stops police from questioning suspects unless they have a lawyer present.


The Michigan vs Jackson ruling in 1986 established that, if a defendants have a lawyer or have asked for one to be present, police may not interview them until the lawyer is present.

Any such questioning cannot be used in court even if the suspect agrees to waive his right to a lawyer because he would have made that decision without legal counsel, said the Supreme Court.

However, in a current case that seeks to change the law, the US Justice Department argues that the existing rule is unnecessary and outdated.

The sixth amendment of the US constitution protects the right of criminal suspects to be "represented by counsel", but the Obama regime argues that this merely means to "protect the adversary process" in a criminal trial.

Are they going to start waterboarding citizens now?

I can see it now: "Confess that you J-Walked or we go Iraq on your arse!"
oh noz!

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 02:58 PM
Ok I just cannot believe this. If it is true, I think I'm moving closer and closer to renouncing my allegiance to the president.

This line of Civil Imperialistic presidents needs to end. The long line of tradition since Bush 1 of violating the citizen's rights needs to end. I will not live under a nation that is eating at my civil rights.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 03:02 PM
Well, you can't say Obama didn't promise change. Seems like he is intent on changing everything in Washington.

Whether it is the kind of change everyone expected is debatable.

As far as police questioning without a lawyer present, I think police shouldn't have that right. Hard enough to defend yourself against the police as it is.

Isn't amazing how the police can lie to you, but you can't lie to the police.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by warrenb

I bet if we looked hard enough, we could find that they already HAVE waterboarded citizens.

This would just make it a little easier to hide it.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 03:25 PM
Well if you are ever arrested, they can ask all the questions that they want, it doesn't mean you have to answer them.

The arrogance of this admin is ridiculous, having a lawyer present while being questioned by the police is only outdated if you have no respect for the US Constitution.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 03:33 PM
What I find most suprising about this is as a lawyer Obama and co. don't seem to be looking out for other lawyers income. Lawyers are a brotherhood just like cops and doctors,the look out for the well being of other members of their brotherhood.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 03:42 PM
*takes deep breath*

As token Obama supporter... even though this isn't fair...

Some lawyers are completely useless and some people use weird techniques to get around the law. What you say shouldn't change whether or not your lawyer is there.

This might make the process a lot speedier.

I think that the system should be harsher on criminals, but it should allow for rights for innocent people.

This will never pass though, because it would take away rights... not give them. Plus isn't this guaranteed by the 5th amendment? And Miranda rights? And all that...


The government said that suspects have the right to remain silent, and that officers must respect that decision. But it argued that there is no reason a defendant who wants to speak without a lawyer present should not be able to respond to officers' questions.
"Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information," said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Centre for Justice at New York University.

Okay so maybe this makes it so if you don't want your lawyer there you don't need one.
That would actually give rights, I guess. So that's okay.

[edit on 6/25/2009 by ravenshadow13]

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 03:49 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

Not likely. A Lawyer wants cash. He will help out no matter what.

I'm not entirely sure what you wrote in that last part. Could you further show how it would give rights?

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 03:54 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

When you are arrested your credibility goes out the window.

The lawyer is there to protect your right so you don't self incriminate yourself. The law being tougher on criminals isn't going to change anything. People get more time from trafficking drugs than they do for murder.

Most of the major gangs leaders are in prison, the gangs pretty much are run out of the prison. The kids that they recruit for the gangs are brainwashed into thinking that prison is the place to go. These kids are literally being bred to aspire to go to prison.

Tough sentences doesn't make a difference. Besides without your lawyer there to protect you from the police the police can build a case against you. If you get caught up in questioning the DA can use what you said against you innocent or not.

This is the signs of making a Police State. Where Police are above the law and you have no rights.

new topics

top topics


log in