Obama asks supreme court to allow questioning without lawyer present

@xfahctor (14128)
Lancaster, New Hampshire
April 26, 2009 3:10pm CST
Not going to comment other than to say the list just keeps growing. [i] WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights. The administration's action — and several others — have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat's call for change during the 2008 campaign. Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them...... [/i] full article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gsdBeBfQ1PJTCFWgQGQw0vp6U30QD97OGFSO0
6 people like this
13 responses
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
27 Apr 09
What a disgusting violation of a citizen's Miranda rights! Now I studied criminal law in college so I want to clarify this for anyone who doesn't fully understand how this works. When you are arrested, you MUST be mirandized before ANY questioning takes place. Part of the Miranda rights is the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you refuse that right, they can question you at will though you retain your right to silence. If you invoke your right to an attorney AT ANY POINT, ALL QUESTIONING MUST STOP. Police are required to leave you alone, and ask no questions, nor can they make statements designed to illicit a response until your attorney arrives. If they violate that, nothing you say can be used against you. This is done to be sure that a person's rights are respected. There is only one exception, and that is to allow questioning when a person's life is in imminent danger, i.e. you've got terrorist a bomb will kill people if you don't get the location out of him now. Otherwise, the second they mention a lawyer you don't say another word to them. Way to go Obama. Nice to see how much civil rights mean to you. Let's see if the ACLU does something right for a change and challenges him on this.
3 people like this
@Adoniah (7515)
• United States
26 Apr 09
I believe that shortly after Obama was elected I raised the warning flag about Obama's Commie tendencies and I was SLAMMED!!!! Now people are finally waking up to reality. We lose another freedom almost everyday. We need to remove that man from office and do something about Congress NOW!!!!!!! Shalom~Adoniah
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
26 Apr 09
I don't know what they hope to gain, once a suspect asks for a lawyer any questioning is suspect. I see it opening up a can of worms and causing more porblems.
3 people like this
@spalladino (17925)
• United States
27 Apr 09
This is already happening in some police districts that I know of and has been going on for years. When my son was about 18 the police wanted to talk to him about some guys he knew who were suspected of using stolen credit cards. Two detectives stopped by my house one evening but my son wasn't home so I told them that I would bring him to the station when he got home...NOT! I had already heard too many stories about what happens in the back rooms at that police station so I called my son and told him to stay at his father's house that night. The next day we went to see a local attorney and he laughed! He had never had someone walk through his doors before being charged with a crime but he also knew how they were so he went to the station with us for free. The detectives definitely weren't happy about that but my son wasn't involved with these boys...he knew them from the neighborhood but he worked for a living and they didn't. At 3:00AM there was a knock on our door and the detectives were back...with a search warrant. I had to let them in but I limited their search to my son's bedroom, which is what it stated, and stopped them from talking/threatening/trying to intimidate my son. I also made one of them note on the bottom of the warrant that they did not remove anything from my home. The next morning I called the attorney and he raised hell with their captain. We're already guilty until proven innocent by law enforcement as it is.
@spalladino (17925)
• United States
27 Apr 09
My family teases me about being an attorney...and a doctor...but I do read and I do know what my rights are. They were looking for new clothes and I wasn't about to risk someone adding items in the area of the warrant where they list what they removed from my home later on. They tried to convince me to let them search my daughters' bedroom...who were asleep at the time...but I told them they would need another warrant for that. My favorite was the very *nice* detective who kept trying to dance me out of my son's room and who repeatedly told me how much they wanted to *help* him. LOL! Not only do the police routinely abuse search warrants, they also abuse suspects who don't have an attorney which is why I took the steps I took before they talked to my son. They weren't going to knock him around and then claim he started it.
2 people like this
• United States
28 Apr 09
I would want a lawyer present to not only protect my civil rights but to be a witness with creditability so the police do not dare beat me or plant evidence. Yes, there are police who do these things. A lawyer is a creditable witness in most courts. The police would have to behave. What the heck is 0bama thinking? Does he think his fellow blacks would not suffer the most from this rule change? Is 0bama trying to re-empower racist cops? Isn't this a step down the road to a racist police state? This proves 0bama is an empty suit, a man of low intelligence who understands not a whit about legal theory or civil rights. 0bama must have been a poor excuse for a law professor.
2 people like this
@PrarieStyle (2495)
• United States
27 Apr 09
More "change" from our attorney in chief...
2 people like this
@AmAllen (119)
• United States
26 Apr 09
Being we are not legal savvy and don't know ALL our rights, nor are we able to know if we what we say will incriminate or exonorate us, So taking away our right to legal counsel during questioning, sounds quite communistic
@shamsta19 (3225)
• United States
27 Apr 09
This is my thing. Everyone is pointing the finger at Obama on these issues. Our government has had a plan in the works for years!!! Obama gets put out there now to run for President, right after the worst President in history steps down? Why now? America thinks Obama is the great savior but he is a pawn as well. This article clearly says "the Obama Administration" which is comprised of several heads of state. Obama is not the only one making decisions and he is the only one taking the blame because the "president" is seen as the leader of our nation. He is a figure head for our entire government, which is already plotting against it's citizens. open your eyes people. I said this before Obama's election, I support his passage into office but I do not trust ANY politician!
• United States
27 Apr 09
I actually think CARTER was our worst president. I don't know how old you are, but I remember how bad it was here in the late seventies! So aside from the other stuff, do you think we should lose the right to speak with an attorney if we find ourselves in a situation where we'd WANT to speak to an attorney?
3 people like this
@shamsta19 (3225)
• United States
27 Apr 09
Hell no! And I might have to agree with you on the Carter thing. I was alive during the Carter Administration but too young to really remember it. I do know he signed the Global 2000 bill and that is enough for me not to like the guy.
1 person likes this
• United States
27 Apr 09
BTW, I love your avatar! LOL
2 people like this
@Latrivia (2889)
• United States
26 Apr 09
I wonder if this is going to be made into a 5th amendment issue, as questioning without a lawyer present could easily lead to self-incrimination. Regardless, I think having a lawyer present for questioning should be part of due process, and should not be taken from the people. You know, I keep trying to find a reason to like the current administration, but almost everything they do makes me dislike them more.
1 person likes this
@AmAllen (119)
• United States
26 Apr 09
I'm right there with you Latrivia. I didn't vote for the man, didn't want him in office, but with him being elected I keep trying to find that one glimmer of something that I can Apprectiate from this presidential term, and it seems over and over I find more reasons that I don't like this administration.
3 people like this
@eaforeman6 (8983)
• United States
27 Apr 09
This would open the doors for terrible amounts of abuse. It would mean trouble and unwitnessed interorgations which could be biased . It is wrong, many times people are sick and on medications and have mental issues. They could abused with a system like this and we all know that all cops are not equal in honesty and integrity. Some people have hearing , speech and sight problems. It would be a travisty against justice. How could anyone reason this as a benefit to the people. It would encourage cruelty, false prosecution and open the doors for intimadation and possible fear tactics to get convictions. People have a right to their lawyers and a right to representation. I can only compare this idea to cow patties in the cow pasture, if you catch my meaning.
1 person likes this
27 Apr 09
i disagree with obama doing this
1 person likes this
• United States
27 Apr 09
You're such a racist, Bush was bad, give 0bama a chance! Don't you know that in order to fix everything Bush broke 0bama needs to remove all rights from the citizens of the USA and delete that pesky Constitution? He can't set up the new world order with all the "chattering classes" being able to seek legal representation before getting sent for re-education! Seriously though, WTF? How could ANYBODY think this is even remotely a good idea? One would think this would be ALL OVER the news, but of course anything that shows the true nature of "dear leader" must not be permitted to see the light of day. No, anyone who dares to speak the truth or report on 0bama's disregard for the Constitution and the freedom of American citizens must be subject to marginalization and disregarded as a fringe extremist.
1 person likes this
@ada547612 (203)
• China
27 Apr 09
This time Obama's political news too much. Support is also opposed.
1 person likes this