WTF?

[pasithea]

Uh. Mr. Obama.... What the Hell are you thinking?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_go_su_co/us_obama_defendants__rights/print

This is the kind of bullshit we expected from Bush. Don't do shit like this. Don't sell us out. :(

Comments

[anaisdjuna.livejournal.com]

Yikes!

[postrodent.livejournal.com]

"Change we were stupid to believe in", as Mr. Ruins puts it. Also, his energy, transportation and climate initiatives are above reproach, except that we needed something ten times stronger, five years ago.

[glych.livejournal.com]

People forget Obama is Cheney's cousin.

I'm just saying.

I voted for him, yes... But I did it with caution.

A people are not always their leader.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

That link doesn't work, but I agree with what you said in synopsis. I suppose on some level, I understand why he can't do as much change as is needed on those fronts. I'm not convinced he doesn't want to make them, just that he's realistic about what the right-wing nuts will tolerate.

This thing with the police though, I see no reason for it at all. It doesn't benefit the American people and it's something I can't image that the majority of citizens (republicans, democrat, or other) would be for. I just don't get it. This is a really stupid push.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I know politics and, on the whole, he's a lot better than Cheney. He's done some things that I thought were less ambitious than I'd hope for but this one seems truly _BAD_. As I said above. I can't imagine that the majority of citizens, Republican, or Democrat would be for this. It just seems like a bad and stupid idea. It makes me sad.

[ff00ff.livejournal.com]

But isn't an efficient police state better than a criminally incompetent one?

[centauress.livejournal.com]

Your friends are awful snarky about asking for one ability: The ability to ask questions of a suspect who is cooperating.

The case doesn't ask for the ability to use this evidence against them later. It doesn't ask for permission to ask questions of someone who has asked for a lawyer and isn't cooperating or doesn't want to talk.

[cortezopossum.livejournal.com]

It's generally not a good idea to talk to the police without a lawyer in ANY case.

Note: Anything you say can be used against you...

The reverse, however, isn't ture. NOTHING you say can be used FOR you. If you're being questioned by police there is absolutely nothing you can say that can improve your situation. In addition... the above SHOULD read

EVERYTHING you say can be used against you.

Any prosecuting attorney or guy with a jealous girlfriend knows this is true. No matter how innocent the statement there's some way to twist it into something that can be used against you.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

You're awful foolish if you think the police wouldn't completely abuse this. They're a bunch of vicious thugs.

For people who're well-off and can hire a decent lawyer, this won't change a thing for them. For the poor or frightened, it's very dangerous.

Presently you say, "I want a lawyer" and the police can badger you if they want, but they can't use the information they get from it.

If this were changed, they could badger you, delay on getting you legal counsel, and use various forms of psychological abuse to get what they want out of you. A good lawyer could fix that: "You got this information under duress." A poor person with a court-appointed defendant... Then it's the word of 'some junkie' vs the word of 'an officer'. It creates extra work load for already overloaded public defenders and means it's less likely they're going to be able to do their job effectively.

Consider it this way: In the present system, the police mirandize people as soon as possible so they can use information if it's willingly given or be required to wait for lawyers if it's not forthcoming.

Without this, where is the incentive for the police to mirandize someone immediately? They might not know their rights. They might be panicked and not think to ask for a lawyer and in that mistake, they might 'give up' some useful information to the police. So. No reason to mirandize them quickly.

[postrodent.livejournal.com]

Oops, I was meaning to point that link towards byzantine_ruins' LJ. Anyway, you may be right that the weak measures taken in those crucial areas of national interest were the best that could be done. That's exactly why I've basically lost any faith that the federal government can be significantly reformed; it's like trying to reform the British or the Soviet Empire. The "system" as it stands is so inflexible, and yet so rickety, that it's just waiting to topple. We're probably best off trying to make our own communities better and more survivable places, in the model of the Transition Towns movement and/or John Robb's ideas about "resilient communities".

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

I dunno. I think we must remain engaged in the mainstream. Change happens, it's just slow. If you compare pollution in the US now to what it was in the 1970s, we've made a lot of progress. Even as late as the 90s, gay bars were sometimes being raided and people arrested by the police. A black president was the stuff of fantasy a couple decades ago and if you jumped back 50 years, it wasn't even fantasy, it was comedy. For that matter, Miranda rights didn't even exist until 1966 and they've withstood several challenges. I'm just puzzled what Obama hopes to gain on this path.

It may well be too late to really save the ship. Perhaps the iceberg has indeed been sighted, but we're not going to be able to turn in time, but there aren't enough lifeboats. We've got to try.

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

I live in a country where the national sport is tax evasion. I can unequivocally say, the latter. Our cops are really friendly, too.

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

Well, the good news here is that Obama doesn't get a lick of say in the matter. This is the Supreme Court's baby. Alito may be talking about overturning Michigan v. Jackson, but I don't think it's anything more than grandstanding -- Stevens wrote that opinion and I'm giggling just imagining him backhanding Alito across the SCOTUS chamber. (I exaggerate. Stevens is a temperate guy, but it is terribly, terribly bad form to talk about overturning an opinion penned by a sitting Justice. OTOH, if we were talking about Scalia here, all bets are off.)

This one is worth following, but the thing to watch is whether SCOTUS decides to even consider arguments related to Michigan v. Jackson in the case at hand. Which, I note, the AP doesn't actually identify. Reporter FAIL.

[ff00ff.livejournal.com]

National sport tax evasion? You make me sick! Here in America Tax evasion is serious business, and people get advanced business degrees to shield billion dollar corporations for a cent of taxation. You kids go have fun in your little public tax evasion fields, with your creative accounting and rudimentary money laundering, but here in the states we have *work* to do!

[viesti.livejournal.com]

This is sadly true. The Fifth Amendment exists for a very good reason.

[viesti.livejournal.com]

Is it foolish of me to hope that this is just one wrong decision, and not a taste of things to come?

[postrodent.livejournal.com]

I agree with you that the American population is getting broadly more tolerant and somewhat smarter. America as a nation has made some great strides, and can probably be saved, though perhaps not as a unified political entity. What probably can't be saved is the federal government, which has succumbed to the same sort of institutional rot as large institutions everywhere. The thinking of the populace is way ahead of what the system can deliver, it's just too compromised. And so the reform effort has to move to the state level, the city level, the neighborhood level. You can already see this happening with state and municipal energy initiatives and pollution controls, as well as other civil-rights stuff like gay marriage and soft drug decriminalization.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

Well. Yes, but remember that is a knife that cuts both ways.

In the late 70s/early 80s, the Evangelicals made a big push to get into PTAs, local city governments, and so on and work their way up from there. That's how we got all the stupid zero-tolerance policies and stuff in the first place.

By contrast, a lot of the hippy movement was on the 'drop out' trip. Disenchanted with government, believing that the mainstream couldn't be changed, so they didn't really even try. The youth vote stayed small.

We have to get engaged and stay engaged at all levels. Cynicism isn't very helpful in the long run. :/

[centauress.livejournal.com]

Whatever.

The point is they picked up an indigent man, he was cooperating, but since he'd been a suspect they couldn't follow questions up right then and there where they thought they could get more evidence before it was lost. And so they did. And now a case hangs in the balance that they asked questions of someone who was cooperating instead of waiting for a lawyer.

I don't see it as a slippery slope, merely the other side of a coin. If you opt to waive your rights, why must the police still wait?