Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (63695)	4/25/2009 7:14:03 PM
From: MJ	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224724

With this requirement for legal presence abolished, Obama can target people via police interrogations without representation. This puts too much power in the hands of a few, including Obama. Would seem to me that the police would want the persons to have a lawyer present and also that they would want a lawyer pres. This is commonsense protection for the police and for the person interviewed whether for a heinous or non-heinous crime. The problems with Obama's administration is that he is romping rapidly through issues that require transparency and public input and debate. He is pushing through his and his administrations ideas without consultation with the people. This is not transparency and due consideration by the people as promised. I wonder how many of the people who voted for him----had any idea that he would oppose having a lawyer present when a policeman is interviewing. mj

To: lorne who wrote (63695)	4/26/2009 8:04:25 AM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224724

I don't have a problem with that at all. Many times defense attorneys created a wall that did little but allow them to bill the client whenever they wanted to speak. It didn't work to the advantage of the client at all. In such instances after the 1986 decision we would always give the miranda warning again and have them sign a form stating they wished to speak without their attorney present. The decision was far too restrictive as it removed the right of the suspect to exercise his right to speak without an attorney present. I believe the proposal is good for all, suspect and police. It had given attorneys too much power and dragged cases on and on and made the system much more expensive and less effective.