What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Maybe The Best Tech Deal EVER--Give Computers To Whole Family view!
bestbuy.com - Geek Squad(r) installation, HP desktop, monitor, laptop & netbook, wireless router--all for $1,199.99!
490 Comments
- armeck, on 04/24/2009, -43/+425The silence is amazing here on Digg when these types of articles are posted. Just sayin'.
- inactive, on 04/24/2009, -17/+363Whether it be Bush or Obama, we need to reject and resist this executive trend towards taking our, yes *our*, rights and freedoms away.
- Minarchian, on 04/24/2009, -31/+305"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. "
Not only States secrets but sovereign immunity, which is a hell of a lot worse than the level Bush was stooping to. - Frixionburne, on 04/24/2009, -9/+159I'm speechless for another reason...
This is a critical piece on Obama FROM HUFFPO!!!!
Hell hath frozen over. - hblask, on 04/24/2009, -94/+222I'm looking forward to a time when Obama goes three consecutive days without making this country worse.
I'm not holding my breath. - PhantomRogue, on 04/24/2009, -14/+111"Not only States secrets but sovereign immunity, which is a hell of a lot worse than the level Bush was stooping to."
Change we can believe in right? Obama used double talk to get into office and duped the country into thinking he was different than the rest of the political scumbags out there. - existing, on 04/24/2009, -12/+92Something to remember as more of us are shoved and pushed into the realms of 'the poor'.
- jumpyg1258, on 04/24/2009, -8/+77He didn't dupe me. I saw quite clearly what he truly believed in by looking at his voting record. When trying to debate people about Obama I would bring this up and usually got scorned at because I was told that didn't matter and that he is different. I voted for the person I thought best represented this country by his actions and not his words. With his excellent voting record I chose to back Dr. Ron Paul and wrote him in on election day cause I knew the rest of the candidates were really all the same and would bring about no real change.
- ggfobster, on 04/24/2009, -22/+85CHAINS WE CAN BELIEVE IN
- treehugger87, on 04/24/2009, -16/+78Bagram is the new Guantanamo. This must stop.
- diggduggDOOM, on 04/24/2009, -13/+72He can't stop now; the last guy set a tough record to beat.
- mycutepetpics, on 04/24/2009, -5/+64At this rate and probably just a few terms away, we won't have any "rights and freedoms" left. We need to all start sticking together and standing up for our rights.
- Ebacherville, on 04/24/2009, -11/+68And you laughed at the Ron Paul supporters?
- inactive, on 04/24/2009, -3/+60LOL! That's why we bitched when Bush started circumventing rights. That's why some of us bitched about Clinton starting the same thing, back in the day. Because once these precedents are set, they are built upon. When one administration ekes away at rights, the next one takes a little bit more. That's the whole ***** point.
- philosophyzombi, on 04/24/2009, -4/+58Pushing the middle class into poverty is truly a bi-partisan effort and has been underway for the better part of the last 30 years.
- inactive, on 04/24/2009, -24/+78".....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...."
With all the whining we hear of african-americans being unfairly incarcerated for crimes and the ratio of blacks to whites in prison, the silence is deafening from the Obamabots. Then again, it IS Obama. So, it's not a bad thing after all. Had it been Bush, the knashing of teeth and the beating of breasts would be deafening. Where's Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton on this? How about Louis Farrakahn? Where's he? Oh. It's Obama. Nevermind. - Dwolf71, on 04/24/2009, -16/+70FTA: The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." ***The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.***
I think y'all are over reacting on this one. Aren't we conservatives the ones who complain about the legal/court system being far to easy on criminals?
***The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.***
I have zero problem with this as stated. If a suspect want's to talk, let him. Let him sing like a bird and confess all his crimes. If he'd rather STFU and wait for a lawyer, well that isn't at all different from what we have now, is it? - mycutepetpics, on 04/24/2009, -5/+52But what happens when the suspect doesn't understand what he is doing, due to a mental illness or just a lack of intelligence.
With no protection by your side, they can easily con u into saying things you should of never had Especially without a lawyer present.
What's to stop a cop/det from also abusing this lost right. - kemp34, on 04/24/2009, -5/+51People need to lose the hero worship and unite to speak out and END the ridiculous accumulation of powers taking place in DC, REGARDLESS OF PARTY.
- alamedaman, on 04/24/2009, -11/+55change we can believe in!
- armeck, on 04/24/2009, -9/+53It seems worse even. He is continuing Bush policies - expanding some of them - and reversing things that Bush didn't even touch.
- bratterscain, on 04/24/2009, -2/+43What you said is tantamount to treason and subject to imprisonment.....
that is, it will be if we let this trend continue. - oboshoe, on 04/24/2009, -12/+49
He wasn't kidding about making CHANGE.
I guess someone should have asked what he had in mind. - johndavidjack, on 04/24/2009, -5/+42No, it's "Chains we can believe in"...
- ironhide, on 04/24/2009, -17/+49Wait, where are the wingnuts complaining about the source? (HuffPo)
- vuke69, on 04/24/2009, -7/+38Hell, just having an objective piece is a serious shocker.
This is the very first huffpo article I not only didn't bury, but dugg. - existing, on 04/24/2009, -18/+48Wish I could digg your comment up more than once!
- duke_nate, on 04/24/2009, -6/+36I read the website name and the decription 3 times before I believed what my eyes were telling me.
- FredFredrickson, on 04/24/2009, -3/+32Yeah, nobody ever discusses these articles. /s
- inactive, on 04/24/2009, -5/+33The *****!?!
- LouisCipher777, on 04/24/2009, -1/+29that would be funnier if it wasnt so true.
- lizard450, on 04/24/2009, -6/+34Don't tread on me. Leave my 5th amendment ALONE!
- jbmcb, on 04/24/2009, -1/+28> would be if any person could sue the United States government for anything that they wanted?
Such as your constitutional right to habeus corpus? Yeah, that would be terrible. - hybridxephon, on 04/24/2009, -10/+35Obama is looking more and more like a wolf in sheeps clothing.
- mycutepetpics, on 04/24/2009, -3/+27That's more trust then I'm personally willing to give cops or the Government, when it comes to our rights. Who's to know what is being said or done, when the camera is switched on & off. I've witnessed first hand how differently one is questioned with and without the presence of a lawyer. And let me tell you, it can get really abusive and frightening for the person being questioned. Under that kind or stress anybody could end up saying the wrong thing.
I do understand where you are coming from but I just believe in individuals having as many right and protection as possible. And we can't trust some or many not to find a way to abuse this new right. - hoffmann277, on 04/24/2009, -6/+30I thought the lesser of two evils was voted in... I not sure anymore.
- MatthewDuke, on 04/24/2009, -2/+25You are spot on. Sovereign immunity has been a concept since olde England...."the king can do no wrong" because he's placed on the thrown by God himself.
- scitz0frenic, on 04/24/2009, -0/+23COPS: until your attorney gets here we have a few questions to ask.
ME: I like turtles - Legoman513, on 04/24/2009, -7/+28I think people are missing the entire point in that you don't HAVE to answer these questions. There is no violation of rights in any way - the writer of this article is simply twisting the facts just like in 95% of other media. (It's starting to get old...)
It's just saying that you will have the option to speak without having your lawyer in your presence IF you so choose. There's no forced questioning here or anything of the sort.
"The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions."
Read what actually is going on, instead of an inaccurate title.
That said, I don't necessarily agree with the whole Afghan imprisonment thing... I was hoping things would be handled a bit better by now. - oboshoe, on 04/24/2009, -14/+35Way way worse.
Bush got opposition to his proposals. As a result not every bad thing he proposed actually happened.
ANYTHING Obama proposes is greated by mindless acolytes chanting "OBAMA! OBAMA! OBAMA!" - drmangrum, on 04/24/2009, -0/+21The whole point of having an attorney present is that there are some questions that you should remain silent on and some you shouldn't. The lawyer knows which and the subtle verbiage in what would seem an innocent question that could lead someone to incriminate themselves.
Wanting to answer their questions and actually doing so can land you jail if you're not careful. If a lawyer is ALWAYS present then the person being questioned can't use the "lack of council" card. - oboshoe, on 04/24/2009, -7/+28I see.
your not a hive mind, yet you express your opinion as "we're" - existing, on 04/24/2009, -2/+22BINGO!
- Janinco, on 04/24/2009, -4/+24Amen!
- armeck, on 04/24/2009, -7/+27It isn't about letting those willing to speak, it is about hounding those who choose to remain silent and request legal counsel. As it is, you are allowed to say, "I wish to refrain from interrogation until I can be advise about what to do." Obama apparently thinks that is a bad thing.
- AndrewMoyer, on 04/24/2009, -5/+25Except he can issue an executive order that bypasses Legislature, and then when the Supreme Court wishes to review what happened, he can say, "Oops, state secrets!"
Don't get me wrong, I like Obama... this is just a general abuse of power that's crept its way into the White House playbook. I'm disappointed he isn't bringing more of the change he promised, but I guess I can't really say I'm terribly surprised. - aletoledo, on 04/24/2009, -8/+28"Aren't we conservatives the ones who complain about the legal/court system being far to easy on criminals? "
No, I as a conservative have been fighting the centralized authority. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Being a conservative doesn't mean you side with the police, it means that you side with tradition. Tradition in the US has been about the individual getting the fairest possible treatment. It's our tradition that we will let a guilty person go free rather than jail one innocent person.
Now the liberal wing loves government and rules. They have rules for everything. It was a faction of theirs that broke off and went over to the Republican party, taking it over. It is this faction that we call "neoconservatives". There is a distinction between neoconservatives and conservatives. One loves rules just like the liberals and the other believes in community, which doesn't think government is the answer to everything.
The ultimate problem with allowing police interrogators to speak with suspects without a lawyer is not the worry about the guilty confessing, it's what they'll do to the innocent. The government will always try to play games with people that don't know how the system works and what all their rights are, that is the nature of government. That is playing things dirty and as a conservative, I am against the government taking advantage of people. - kaelyiesta, on 04/24/2009, -7/+26This isn't that rare. They don't support politicians, but policies. They are undoubtedly biased in what they write about, but at least they are consistent in applying their general principles. In this case, Obama isn't conforming with their strong interest in civil liberties, so they are pointing it out.
- jkr801, on 04/24/2009, -3/+21I cant ***** believe im seeing these comments on Digg after all the obama boners you guys had...we need a 3rd party or something both parties are a pile of *****
- katorga, on 04/24/2009, -4/+22"Chains we can believe in"...wow, that has to be the best one I've seen so far. Flawless, whoever came up with it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 506 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is