Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
godless

Obama Seeks To Change Police Questioning Law

Recommended Posts

I bit old but interesting none the less. :o

Barack Obama administration seeks to change police questioning law

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.

By Tom Leonard in New York

Last Updated: 4:55PM BST 24 Apr 2009

The effort to sweep aside the 23-year-old Michigan vs Jackson ruling is one of several moves by the new government to have dismayed civil rights groups.

President Barack Obama has already provoked controversy by backing the continued imprisonment without trial of enemy combatants in Afghanistan and by limiting the rights of prisoners to challenge evidence used to convict them.

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current case that seeks to change the law, the US Justice Department argues that the existing rule is unnecessary and outdated.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

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meagre benefits".

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.

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.

...

Further:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ioning-law.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the 1986 ruling has been overturned 5-4.

I heard this on US radio an hour ago, can't find web article yet.

Edited by MOP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found it:

Supreme Court rules police can initiate suspect's questioning

Tue May 26, 2009 5:34pm

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that police, under certain circumstances, can initiate an interrogation of a suspect without the defendant's lawyer being present.

By a 5-4 vote, the conservative majority overruled a 23-year-old Supreme Court decision that barred the police from initiating questioning after a defendant asserted the right to an attorney at an arraignment or similar proceeding.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE54P47120090526

There goes the 6th ammendment? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHAHAHAHHAAAA to all those Fkwits that believed Obama was the messiah and not just a blair clone on the make..

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change you can believe in.

Quite remarkable, I thought it would be years into this administration until it became obvious that is was just more of the same with a different talking head.

Bank bailouts, banksters already paying themselves huge bonuses in the form of rewritten salary packages, Iraq, Afghanistan, political appointments - all the same failed names, or different failures parachuted in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HAHAHAHAHHAAAA to all those Fkwits that believed Obama was the messiah and not just a blair clone on the make..

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I'm starting to believe that he was the perfect PR that America needed but not much more than that.

I think he was up for medical pot, now, he doesn't care, he rather that they be put in jail.

U-turn on releasing that guantanamo bay thingy, clearly import to the Americans.

This and he hasn't even been in power for 200 days. Lets see how much more typical lies from politicians we have to listen to before we have our own revolution. The political classes are becoming Marie Antoiette. Anyone who thinks Cameron is our savour is also balmy but better than this Brown fool we have in Government. Man! I dislike Brown.

This post was 100 percent subjective or in my opinion objective. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HAHAHAHAHHAAAA to all those Fkwits that believed Obama was the messiah and not just a blair clone on the make..

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

He's the Zionists bitch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable

Can these suity-lizards just get on with it and put us in the death camps? Enough pissing about.

At least it'll be a change. I'd be quite happy for the time off work.

Edited by DissipatedYouthIsValuable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Found it:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE54P47120090526

There goes the 6th ammendment? :unsure:

You mean like "only the Treasury may coin money" and "no taxation without representation" etc. Just one more instance of Congress watering down a document that should have been written for the ages and has stood the test of time, apart from the tinkering. Viva Ron Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   285 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.