# US Police operating Detention Blacksites? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 25, 2015, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577 "2015-02-25T11:43:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/181 "2015-03-01T23:18:30Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I have always found this sort of frivolous claim to be all too common. > You were not personally attacked. > You are using a notably slanted publication as your only source in this thread. You have frequently used that same source in other threads in which you disparage or criticize U.S. society and its citizens. You are notably unsuccessful in such threads in persuading your audience to your position, (despite the SDMB being a “left leaning” (a.k.a. America-hating) message board). I suggest that your choice of sources for your claims, being seriously flawed, is a better explanation of that general failure to persuade than is your claim of chauvinism. That is not a personal attack. That you consider it a personal attack provides its own insight to your posting rationale. The Daily Mail, a notably establishment and conservative newspaper has carried the story. Does that make it more acceptable? I would recommend not shooting the messenger and not criticising the poster, but trying to decide how a Police Dept with a very doubtful history (my memory goes back to the Democratic Convention in 1968) in a city famed for endemic corruption, should react and be reacted to by the media and investigatory authorities. Instead we have a Mod supported piling-on. Not a good look. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/182 "2015-03-01T23:20:38Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > It is more than odd for you to begin a thread based solely on one article and then whinge that you have not “supported” statements in the article when you have done nothing to mitigate them. Where does it require a poster to ‘mitigate’ their offer for debate on a subject with contrary views. Is this now required for every post in GD. It could become a very boring forum. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/183 "2015-03-01T23:20:44Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Once again your wild assumptions make an ass out of you. For someone who decried a “personal attack” when none was given, I would have thought that you would have been more careful to refrain from such a personal attack, yourself. Knock it off. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/184 "2015-03-01T23:23:03Z")
To make it very clear: I do not and have not said that I believe the Guardian article. I have said that I am surprised at the current official, media and forum approach to very worrying allegations. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/185 "2015-03-01T23:24:30Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Where does it require a poster to ‘mitigate’ their offer for debate on a subject with contrary views. > > Is this now required for every post in GD. > > It could become a very boring forum. This is a debate forum. If you offer a topic, one presumes that you support its thesis. It is the height of disingenuous behavior to provide an argument from another source, then stand back and say “Well, _ **I** _ did not say that.” The criticism is not that you did nothing to mitigate the claims, but that you are now pretending that you did not support those claims when you based your thread on that report. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/186 "2015-03-01T23:27:28Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This is a debate forum. If you offer a topic, one presumes that you support its thesis. It is the height of disingenuous behavior to provide an argument from another source, then stand back and say “Well, _ **I** _ did not say that.” > > The criticism is not that you did nothing to mitigate the claims, but that you are now pretending that you did not support those claims when you based your thread on that report. The thesis is- in a liberal democracy, allegations of abuse should be taken seriously by authority and media. I am not ‘pretending’ anything. Every comment I have made has been absolutely neutral on the facts of the case, unlike many of the personal attacks aimed at me over my misquoted posts and others’ unsupported allegations. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/187 "2015-03-01T23:28:35Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > To make it very clear: > > I do not and have not said that I believe the Guardian article. > > I have said that I am surprised at the current official, media and forum approach to very worrying allegations. They are not “worrying allegations.” They are one more slanted report from a known hostile publication that explicitly did nothing to actually investigate its own article, simply repeating comments from one small group of people. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/188 "2015-03-01T23:30:17Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The thesis is- in a liberal democracy, allegations of abuse should be taken seriously by authority and media. Then you should have made that the thesis of the thread rather than simply posting more Guardian tripe and acting as if its story was the point. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/189 "2015-03-01T23:30:29Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Attorneys should not be considered witnesses at all when they are simply _repeating the allegations of their clients_, many of the attorneys in the articles you linked to are not witnesses and are not even saying they are. They are just repeating what their clients, or people they have worked with, have said. That’s not the same thing as being a witness. Witness means you saw or heard something directly. > > Like I said, if we have evidence then that’s serious. But right now I don’t see how Homan Square is any different from any other police station in almost any part of the world. If a journalist wanted to they could easily find hundreds of people who have spent time involuntarily in police custody who will say they were mistreated. Some of them certainly were, but the plain truth is many of them will just be liars. There’s no way to know without actual evidence–of which we have scant. I get what your saying. However, the attorneys are direct witnesses of not getting access to their clients at this site (and other sites), and falsely being told their client is not in custody or at a particular site. I understand they are not witness to what occurred out of their sight, but again, numerous attorneys are claiming these problems are common occurrences. The Chicago Tribune article ([Did everyone miss my post about that new article?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18172009&postcount=138)) states that they have reported on these problems for decades, and speak to even more attorneys who confirm these problems. That alone should be enough to warrant an investigation. To be wary of the claims of detainees is somewhat understandable, but as you mentioned, many of the claims can be either verified or refuted with database and audio/video records. How else can they be obtained without an investigation? Keep in mind that some of these claimants ultimately had no charges brought against them, so technically speaking, they are not criminals making these claims, but simply citizens reporting a possible violation of their rights. The idea that “some of them” might be making it up isn’t enough of a reason to dismiss _all_ the claims out of hand. **And someone please tell me, what independent third party witnesses can there be in situations like this?** If I report a crime committed against me, the police don’t tell me to come back once I’ve solved it, they investigate it. Sure, I might be lying, there might not be enough evidence discovered to bring charges or go to trial, but they still investigate it. Shouldn’t the same policy apply to allegations against the police? I’m not asking anyone to rush to judgement, but I don’t understand the push-back here against further investigation. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I think everyone at Homan Square is probably in custody, or at least the specific ones we have heard about were. But some of them I don’t believe were ever interrogated. Like the anarchist protester, her narrative even doesn’t include her being interrogated. She’s just complaining she was _held_ without being allowed to speak to an attorney for 18 hours. But as has been noted, there is no strict time rule on when an attorney must be made available to speak with someone who isn’t being interrogated. Lots of people get arrested and it’s a few days before they find themselves before a judge/magistrate, which is one of the first times they might need an attorney. The guy who was arrested for fleeing the scene also falls into the same category. Whether they “need” an attorney or not is not up to the CPD, or you, frankly. According to the attorney/law professor quoted in the Tribune article, you are entitled to have your attorney present “from minute one” once taken into custody, and “at no time is an attorney not allowed”. And many of them were interrogated without their attorney present - another common problem corroborated by multiple attorneys who have experience with the CPD. I understand detainees might need to be held until they can appear before a judge, but the law requires that they be charged or released within 48 hours. So yes, technically they can hold someone for 18 hours. But I don’t think a judge would consider it “reasonable” that they were denied phone calls, or access to their attorneys for that period of time. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The Chicago reporting establishment, who have lots more sources than Ackman ever will in Chicago, basically seems to be taking the (appropriate) skeptical view I have–that yeah, if this stuff is going on that’s bad, but based on all their sources and information they don’t have anything to go on. Since they are more legitimate journalists than Guardian trash writers, they aren’t going to print or report stuff just because it would get them attention if they cannot source it. The local reporters have reported on the situation for years (again, see the Tribune article). I’m not familiar with the local media in Chicago, so I can’t venture an opinion on any specific reporter or newspaper, but I’m sure there are local rags, such as in my city (NY Post and NY Daily News, to name two). Some might have political reasons to ignore the allegations, and some might be weary of them, as in “oh the CPD again, what else is new?”. Really, would anyone be surprised if this was true? (not Ackerman’s hyperbole, but the numerous irregularities reported) I don’t get the skepticism by some here. But it shouldn’t matter who is publishing the initial report. The important factor is who is on record as the source of the information. We have multiple sources on record (local attorneys, legal advocates, multiple claimants). They stand by their statements even when interviewed by secondary local reports. That should be enough to warrant further investigation. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Also if you think about it, why would the police even interrogate a protester or a hit and run driver? Protesters get arrested for disorderly conduct or et cetera when their protest is outside the bounds of the law and First Amendment protections, typically based on a police officer directly witnessing them doing something they aren’t allowed to do. What exactly would the interrogation entail? The cop saying “I saw you do this, did you do it?” The police may or may not have spoken to either person in those relatively minor criminal incidents, but if they were actually ever tried or anything I doubt interrogation evidence was used. They both would have been arrested based on direct police witnessing of a criminal act. > > A lot of time unruly protesters are arrested similarly to drunks, they are held/detained then released and the charge often put aside. It’s more a matter of police instilling order. These anarchist protesters were not peaceful or legal protesters by the way, they were essentially a rabble. I also suspect the woman was probably screaming/frothing at the mouth the entire time she was in custody–and by doing so justifying her being shackled. I’ve been arrested a few times in my youth, and I’ve seen guys shackled to benches in police stations. To a one they were all screaming and acting crazy. While I was guilty every time I was arrested (DUI, few bar fights–never convicted of anything) I was also compliant and calm, and things went pretty well for me in terms of the police. I’m not saying police wouldn’t shackle someone for no reason, but in my experience they shackle people for reasons, too. Someone who was engaging in disruptive and illegal street demonstrations is exactly the kind of person I suspect would seek to “resist” her arrest/detention the entire time, and thus someone I’d expect might end up shackled to a bench. I’m familiar with one of the protesters who was detained. He never even made it to the protest. The police went in to the apartment he was staying in the night before the protest. This guy is not an anarchist. Basically an old hippie, very mellow (66 years old, progressive democrat and blogger). He came in from out of town and was offered a place to sleep in the apartment where they found the alleged incendiary devices (beer making equipment). He wasn’t involved in any of that, but was taken away at gunpoint and held for 30 hours. No phone calls, his attorney finally got access after 12 hours. He was shackled to a bench in an interrogation room all night, had to urinate and defecate behind the bench after asking for bathroom use for hours. Then just released with no charges, never saw a judge. His laptop went missing; he only got his shoelaces back. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Martin covered the point pretty comprehensively, so I’ll just add one note to his. There is no independent verification of the length of time these folks were detained. In each instance, the duration is reported as a time “estimated by the detainee”. Now, they could have over-estimated or under-estimated or made it up to sound convincing. Without an independent source, I just can’t take the claim seriously. What independent source exists for something like that? I keep asking. Look at the Tribune article, it’s not just a rehash of the Guardian story. Just to be clear, I do not necessarily agree with the hyperbole in the Guardian article, but it did raise questions about a lot of problems with CPD procedures. That’s really my concern here. Ackerman basically fell into this story while he was reporting on [Richard Zuley](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Zuley), a CPD homicide detective accused of torturing suspects to coerce false confessions. He was an interrogator at Gitmo, so that might explain the hyperbole used. Zuley _is_ currently being investigated, and his cases reopened. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/190 "2015-03-01T23:32:04Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But it is only your opinion. My post was a factual statement, not my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/191 "2015-03-01T23:33:08Z")
**Here is the OP:** > [@Pjen](#): > > [The disappeared: Chicago police detain Americans at abuse-laden 'black site' | Chicago | The Guardian](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site) > > This article alleges that Chicago police maintain an off-the-books detention centre that has resulted in serious harm and death of detainees with no constitutional protection. > > It cites it as an extension of the toleration of torture, illegalities and human rights contravention given to the military and CIA, arguing that the militarisation of the police is not only of weaponry, but also of attitude and procedures. I notice a significant lack of statements questioning whether the supposed abuses have been investigated by any other group. That you may want to claim a different focus for the thread after more than 185 posts strikes me as simple back-pedaling. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/192 "2015-03-01T23:36:37Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Then you should have made that the thesis of the thread rather than simply posting more Guardian tripe and acting as if its story was the point. My OP: US Police operating Detention Blacksites? * * * [http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ans-black-site](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ans-black-site) This article alleges that Chicago police maintain an off-the-books detention centre that has resulted in serious harm and death of detainees with no constitutional protection. It cites it as an extension of the toleration of torture, illegalities and human rights contravention given to the military and CIA, arguing that the militarisation of the police is not only of weaponry, but also of attitude and procedures. My follow up in post 5: I would have put money on the first US response being an outright denial and ignorant of the facts of the case. I would have won. This raises serious problems if attorneys are finding that people are arrested and then held incommunicado which is proven quite clearly in the various articles on the matter. But of course it does not matter if constitutional rights are overridden so long as the right wing is happy. It is also frightening that no US media has taken up the case so far, not even the NY Times. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/193 "2015-03-01T23:37:57Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > \*\*Here is the OP:\*\*I notice a significant lack of statements questioning whether the supposed abuses have been investigated by any other group. > > That you may want to claim a different focus for the thread after more than 185 posts strikes me as simple back-pedaling. In fact, I’m still at a loss as to what this thread is about. The OP claims he hasn’t said whether or not he agrees with anything in the article, and has offered no basis for a debate. That’s generally a recipe for a joke thread, which is pretty much what we have here. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/194 "2015-03-01T23:39:00Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > \*\*Here is the OP:\*\*I notice a significant lack of statements questioning whether the supposed abuses have been investigated by any other group. > > That you may want to claim a different focus for the thread after more than 185 posts strikes me as simple back-pedaling. My “back-pedalling” seems to originate in Post 5. Are you sure you are not letting your emotions overtake your reason. From very shortly after beginning I stated what the thesis was. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/195 "2015-03-01T23:40:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > In fact, I’m still at a loss as to what this thread is about. The OP claims he hasn’t said whether or not he agrees with anything in the article, and has offered no basis for a debate. That’s generally a recipe for a joke thread, which is pretty much what we have here. See the post immediately prior to yours. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/196 "2015-03-01T23:44:35Z")
> [@scabpicker](#): > > :dubious: > Umm, the op is curiously worded if you didn’t want people to think that you were bringing up the subject of the Chicago PD possibly operating such sites. Possibility yes. Citing it as fact, no. Wanting to debate reasonable response, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/197 "2015-03-01T23:48:22Z")
US MSM covers US citizens protesting the issue in Chicago. No British Newspapers involved. > **[Activists protest alleged Chicago police 'black sites'](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/28/activists-protest-alleged-chicago-police-black-sites/24180197/)** > > "The Guardian" claims police hold suspects, witnesses for long periods without access to lawyers. “Activists in Chicago gathered Saturday for a protest and march against alleged “black sites” in the city where police supposedly hold suspects and witnesses for long periods without public records and access to lawyers.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/198 "2015-03-01T23:49:16Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > To make it very clear: > > I do not and have not said that I believe the Guardian article. > [@Pjen](#): > > My OP: > > My follow up in post 5: > This raises serious problems if attorneys are finding that people are arrested and then held incommunicado which is proven quite clearly in the various articles on the matter.] Emphasis added. If you claim something is proven, how can you claim you haven’t said whether or not you believe it? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/199 "2015-03-01T23:53:02Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > My follow up in post 5: [/COLOR] Is simply a snide reference to the U.S. with no indication that any failure to investigate the purported situation was the actual topic you wanted to discuss. Retroactive back-pedaling. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/200 "2015-03-01T23:54:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Emphasis added. If you claim something is proven, how can you claim you haven’t said whether or not you believe it? Haven’t read the Scottish referendum threads, have you? **pjen** ’s argumentative contortions are remarkable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577.md?page=11)