Go to If I get smart with you....how will you know?
- Add a comment
- Go to Obama To Remove Right Of Having Attorney Present During Interrogations...
This does not shock me whatsoever. .,
coming from this administration.
posted by
Joe_Love
on April 26, 2009 at 8:03 PM
| link to this | reply
Corbin, did some quick research on this one
Here is a link to the case that is the real issue of it all. So go and see what is going on. I'm going to finish reading abotu it before I decide which way I lean on the matter
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Montejo_v._Louisiana
Also I was mistaken on some of the issue itself. And it does get a little confusing really. You do not have to have legal counsel, but once you do due to the ruling in question, you HAVE to always have your legal counsel present when answering questions to the police, even if you for whatever reason would rather not have them there. once you ask for counsel, you are stuck with it. Basically it sounds more like the lawyers want to make sure that once you get them started on a case, you can't just dump them whenever you feel like it.
The whole issue is still a bit tricky and I paln to read up on it all before I take a side on this.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 26, 2009 at 6:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Corbin, do you even read your own crap?
Your headline is about as twisted as it gets, since that is NOT what is trying to be done here. But when have facts ever been a main concern with your writings here.
You are right now saying that the government should be able to FORCE everyone to have legal counsel, which is very much PRO big government as far as I am concerned. You are actually saying people should NOT have the right and freedom to choose for themselves.
And I am not a hypocrite because I can promise you that if Bush had done something like this I would step back and look at the the big picture. I never went after Bush for every little thing, unlike how you are going after Obama just because. I want to know what promoted this move so that I know what is really going on. Unlike how you were with Bush, agreeing and defending every move the idiot made no matter how bad it was or how much it damaged this country, I do not do that with Obama. I have already criticized some of his actions and am not blindly following or defending him. I want to know the whole story before I pick a side. And on this issue both sides have valid augments and without further information I am unable to say which side is the better. It is clear however that any laws based on this ruling need to be altered to insure greater freedom, Both sides have good and valid augments and it would be best if there was some compromise that could be reached rather than keeping it at one extreme or taking it to the other. But that kind of thinking is being open minded and not picking a side just because of who is for and who is opposed to the issue at hand, and I would never suggest that you are capable of doing such a thing.
The problem is that you are only caring about looking for somethings, anything to attack Obama on., You don't care about the real reason or the bigger picture. You haevignreod allmanner of facts about this, twisted what really would happen if this ruling got over turned (which is your usual course of action) and pretending that you are not the hypocrite when you full well know you would have blindly defended Bush and his group of a-holes taking such action, still ignoring the big picture and not at all caring about the actual facts of the issue.
As I said in my comment, this is clearly a tricky ruling. It is not all black and white as to what is best in this case and without more information it is hard to make an informed decision. What you gave in your post is very much NOT enough to make a judgment call on the issue. You basically picked what you wanted from the article you linked, using ONLY the quotes that helped in you baseless attack against Obama, ignoring many facts in order to slant the issue.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 26, 2009 at 6:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Corbin
You're absolutely correct, this is appalling. But really the most interesting and telling thing is the media's silence...
posted by
Nautikos
on April 26, 2009 at 6:08 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Talk about twisting the news..
Twisting a bit yourself..... had you bothered to read the point stated further on........
Critics argue that the 1986 decision is important to protect vulnerable defendants such as the mentally disabled, poor or juveniles who could be easily swayed by the police.
"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.
Yes you have the right to remain silent...but what good does that do if you can't comprehend what they are telling you what your rights are......
It's amazing how hypocritical you are....you would be screaming to high heavens (oops, not you) if this had been the Bush administration attempting to do this.......
But it's just hunky dory for the Messiah to do this..........
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on April 26, 2009 at 5:50 PM
| link to this | reply
Talk about twisting the news..
What they are saying is that if a person is foolish enough to allow the police to question them without a lawyer present, then they have every right to do that. What he 1986 case actually said was that a person has no choice the matter. Even if they do not want a lawyer present during questioning, the state still had to get them one against their wishes.
Here is part of the article that explains this better, that you somehow left out of your post:
"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." It is a little bit of a tricky ruling actually if you look at it. I understand the idea behind it, to make sure that those who might be more vulnerable to intimidation and not fully know their rights or how to stand up for them are protected. But at the same time it also makes it so those who are willing to be openly questioned and not slow the system down, are stuck having to put up with an extra level of government control that they might wish to not have to put up with.
At no point however would over turning this ruling change the basic rights to counsel. It would at most make certain areas of testimony and evidence that is right not disallowed, usable in court.
I am less concerned about wanting to over rule this one than what events might have made the administration feel it is time to try and over turn the ruling. I want to know the big picture and not one side's biased views on the matter.
posted by
kooka_lives
on April 26, 2009 at 3:42 PM
| link to this | reply
Corbin, this man is a fruit loop and we.....
are headed for disaster.
posted by
Texas_Gem
on April 26, 2009 at 3:32 PM
| link to this | reply
I don't think it will take the whole four years to bring about a dictatorship in this country.
posted by
Justi
on April 26, 2009 at 12:17 PM
| link to this | reply