# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/121 "2015-02-28T17:40:42Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > But if you are merely detained for questioning then you are free to leave, right? How is that possible if you are held incommunicado at a secret site with no access to counsel? That’s not right. There are many differences between being detained and being arrested. One of the biggest is the standard of proof necessary to perform either the detention or the arrest. For detention, the standard is [reasonable suspicion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion). For arrest it is [probable cause](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause). In both cases you are not free to leave. Detentions must be brief and cursory so I’m thinking that doesn’t apply to being placed on a barge for periods of time. There is also an amount of time you can be arrested and held without being charged, which seems more in line with the barge holding technique. [Brief article comparing the two.](http://www.knowmyrights.org/knowledgebase/case-law/probable-cause-reasonable-suspicion) ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/122 "2015-02-28T19:59:50Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > 1. There is no secret site. [It is “secret” in the sense that people held there do not show up in the database:](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/27/chicago-abusive-confinment-homan-square) > [@](#): > > Another lawyer has told the Guardian that in early 2014, police told him that his client – another young black man – was not at Homan Square, even though he was. > > “What they did that night, by denying my 19-year-old client access to his attorney was unconstitutional, clearly,” said Cliff Nellis, an attorney with the Lawndale Christian Legal Center, located near Homan Square on Chicago’s west side. > > More recently, around February 2014, Nellis said he got a tip that his client – 19 years old, black and from the west side of Chicago – had been taken to Homan Square in connection with a drug investigation. When he got to the warehouse on Homan and Fillmore, he asked a woman “wearing a police uniform” what the unfamiliar building was. > > “What I recall her saying is, ‘Oh, I don’t know what this is,” and walked off,” Nellis said. Another attempt at flagging down officers in the Homan Square docking bay, during which he identified himself as a lawyer seeking to see his client, resulted in them telling Nellis: “This isn’t a police station, we don’t hold people here.” > > Nellis dialed a contact he declined to identify and complained, saying he knew his client was inside Homan Square. About ten minutes later, an officer emerged to let him in. Nellis’ client – whom he declined to name, citing ongoing legal issues – was in handcuffs and had been interrogated. Nellis believes the youth had been in custody for a “few hours”. > > “I know many other attorneys through First Defense Legal Aid who have tried to get in there and been denied numerous times,” Nellis said. > [@Loach](#): > > 1. I did not see any reference to someone being detained solely for questioning. The examples are of people who were under arrest. > > 2. You don’t have a legal right to a lawyer except during questioning. > > 3. There is such a thing as investigative detentions. I have not seen any examples in this story that fall under this category. > > 4. If anyone was questioned without a lawyer when they demanded one there should be consequences. See the link above for more info. Some were held for hours, one man for 3 days, without being booked, read their rights, or permitted a phone call. Some were questioned under those circumstances, and some claim physical abuse and prolonged use of restraints. > [@Loach](#): > > 1. The original accusations are coming from antigovernment anarchists who were arrested for domestic terrorism. They were found guilty of some charges and not guilty of the most serious. Forgive me if I take their accusations with a grain of salt. More people have come forward since the article was published, including over 6 attorneys. Do you think they are all lying? > [@](#): > > “This isn’t just a facility that’s used to detain people for political protests,” said Chicago attorney Anthony Hill. “It’s used to interrogate poor brown and black young men. That’s that the majority of abuse at the Homan Square facility on a daily basis.” > > Flint Taylor, a Chicago attorney who has pursued legal reprisals against police abuse for decades, said he held out little hope that federal inquiries would actually proceed. > > “Over the last 25 years, we have repeatedly brought the justice department and the US attorney powerful evidence of systemic police torture, repeater cops running wild without discipline or supervision, and a myriad of other patterns of outrageous police misconduct,” Taylor said. [A woman](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/26/chicago-police-homan-square-vic-suter) held for 18 hours and interrogated without an attorney. ---
**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:** [February 28, 2015, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/123 "2015-02-28T20:41:15Z")
So, the 24-hour news cycle has come and gone. What non-Guardian reporting has “firmed up” since then? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/124 "2015-02-28T21:07:22Z")
> [@camille](#): > > More people have come forward since the article was published, including over 6 attorneys. Do you think they are all lying? It’s difficult to say without evidence. > [@](#): > > [A woman](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/26/chicago-police-homan-square-vic-suter) held for 18 hours and interrogated without an attorney. That’s another of the anti-government anarchists. Again, difficult to tell without evidence. Do we have anything to go on besides allegations by far-left fruitcakes and their attorneys? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/125 "2015-02-28T21:26:49Z")
I’m torn on this one, honestly. On one hand, it’s the Chicago Police accused of wrongdoing. On the other hand, it’s the Guardian doing the accusing. It’s like choosing which offer of Viagra in my spam filter is more trustworthy. ---
**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:** [February 28, 2015, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/126 "2015-02-28T21:49:33Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m torn on this one, honestly. On one hand, it’s the Chicago Police accused of wrongdoing. On the other hand, it’s the Guardian doing the accusing. > > It’s like choosing which offer of Viagra in my spam filter is more trustworthy. Which one “firms up” the best? ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/127 "2015-02-28T21:49:45Z")
Witness statements are evidence, no? IMO the fact that so many attorneys have come forward on the record to corroborate the allegations warrants further investigation. [Chicago Public Radio Investigates, Says](http://www.wbez.org/news/concerns-raised-over-interrogation-tactics-arent-unique-homan-square-111635) [“Black Site” a Mischaracterization, but Concerns Not Unique to Homan Square](http://www.wbez.org/news/chicago-polices-so-called-black-site-mischaracterized-111629) Ackerman may have used hyperbole calling it a “Black Site” to give the story legs or as clickbait, which he justifies here: > [@](#): > > The Chicago Police Department says advertising the location would put their lives at risk. A spokesman says gang members have been known to stake out the place to catch glimpses of undercover cops, a reason why some people might be denied access. But the building also has a public entrance where people can pick up stolen property and items inventoried in crimes. > > If people know about this place and the media is invited for press conferences, can it be characterized as a “black site”? > > “No, it wasn’t a mischaracterization,” said Guardian reporter Spencer Ackerman of his story’s headline describing Homan Square as such. “You can find certain black sites in Romania and Poland that are out in the open.\*\* It’s not the visibility of the facility, it’s what goes on in the facility that makes it secretive.\*\*” Anyway, make of it as you will. I’m not the OP. I await further news myself, but I don’t agree that simply because it was the Guardian’s story initially, it should be dismissed out of hand. ---
**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:** [February 28, 2015, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/128 "2015-02-28T21:59:35Z")
> [@camille](#): > > …I don’t agree that simply because it was the Guardian’s story initially, it should be dismissed out of hand. I don’t think anyone has done that. It’s not the Guardian’s story initially, it’s only the Guardian’s story, period. ---
**Author:** ![camille](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/22d042/32.png) [@camille](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/camille)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/129 "2015-02-28T22:24:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s not the Guardian’s story initially, it’s only the Guardian’s story, period. Did you miss my cite from Chicago Public Media? They also spoke to lawyers, local crime reporters, and a law professor at the University of Chicago familiar with the situation. You want to nitpick that my using “initially” is premature, be my guest; I know that’s your schtick,\*\* John\*\*, but my opinion stands. Do you not think it warrants further investigation? Are all the lawyers on the record “left wing fruitcakes” or “anti-American”? Personally, I wouldn’t have put this up for debate yet, anticipating these responses. I was just updating the OP’s thread with more info. Let’s see if anything further develops. ---
**Author:** ![BOOM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c4cdca/32.png) [@BOOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BOOM)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/130 "2015-02-28T22:31:34Z")
Officially or un, a lot of people poking around, that’s fer sur. The Guardian need a break really soon, it’s limping. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/131 "2015-02-28T23:49:36Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Do you not think it warrants further investigation? Are all the lawyers on the record “left wing fruitcakes” or “anti-American”? Sure, it warrants investigation. I’m not sure if they lawyers are left wing fruitcakes, but it sure seems like a number of their clients are. Come on, the “NATO Three?” That’s something straight out of the Big Lewbowski. I bet they got beat up by nihilists in the parking lot of the “black site” after they were finally released. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/132 "2015-02-28T23:50:09Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Did you miss my cite from Chicago Public Media? They also spoke to lawyers, local crime reporters, and a law professor at the University of Chicago familiar with the situation. You want to nitpick that my using “initially” is premature, be my guest; I know that’s your schtick,\*\* John\*\*, but my opinion stands. Do you not think it warrants further investigation? Are all the lawyers on the record “left wing fruitcakes” or “anti-American”? > > Personally, I wouldn’t have put this up for debate yet, anticipating these responses. I was just updating the OP’s thread with more info. Let’s see if anything further develops. I read through your links. I’m seeing this: 1. Unverifiable claims by an anarchist protester. Many of which do not necessarily violate the constitution, although many probably violate “CPD official procedure.” The fact that her lawyer (a person paid to advocate solely for her interests) corroborates her claims is meaningless, the lawyer is not a first party witness. 2. Unverifiable claims from a guy who was arrested for fleeing the scene of an accident. Also note that while he should have been told why he was being arrested (unless he left out from his narrative that he was insane/frothing at the mouth and fighting the cops all the way to the station, for example) the fact that he wasn’t read his miranda rights is irrelevant. The police can arrest you and you can be charged with a felony, ultimately prosecuted and convicted of said felony, and there never be a moment in that process in which the police are _required_ to Mirandize you. It’s only a requirement if they plan to conduct a custodial interrogation. If they do that, don’t make you aware of your rights, then anything you say in that interrogation is impermissible in court and the police officers will likely get in trouble with their boss, too. 3. Stronger verified claims by the activist lawyer from the Lawndale Christian Legal Center, at least in that he was personally involved with the case and claims to have “general knowledge” about Homan. Stronger than the first, but not that strong. We’re still going off the word of a kid and his parents, a kid accused of committing a crime. I imagine a large portion of the convicted, undeniable murderers in prison would be happy to spin yarns about police being bad, too. But, the LCL lawyer at least plausibly has a lot of experience with people who have spent time at Homan Square. 4. Anonymous comment to a reporter from a cop who worked at Homan Square–in which he says people are made aware of their rights. But that they exercise the authority to “hold you for 24 hours without charge.” That doesn’t sound unconstitutional, it’s generally allowable to detain someone for a bit without charging them. It’s also allowable to “sweat someone” by subjecting them to lengthy interrogations if they’ve been made aware of their rights and are simply choosing not to end the interrogation. It’s also allowable to subject someone to a very long non-custodial interrogation (and this happens frequently when people don’t realize the difference.) Nothing that cop said really is evidence of wrongdoing. 5. We have another attorney who says that only a small percentage of people at Homan are visited by defense attorneys. How many at other police stations are visited by defense attorneys? As mentioned you have no right to have your attorney sit with you while you’re booked and processed, or sit by your bed at night in lock up and read you a bed time story. You have a right to an attorney at a custodial interrogation, and you have a right to one at trial _if the case could result in six months or more of jail time_, any less than that and it’s not a Federal constitutional requirement that you be provided with free counsel at all. A very large number of persons who are arrested don’t even get subjected to custodial interrogations. Lots of crimes simply do not require it. Lots of crimes of a minor nature the cops arrest, write it up, and a few days later the person can plea out to the magistrate or equivalent and/or choose to fight it, often times with no interrogation at all. If a cop arrests someone for trespassing, fighting etc, there’s no reason to interrogate them in most cases. Finally, most people want to talk to the police and decline to contact an attorney even when given the chance. This lawyer’s opinion that a phone call should be provided “prior to lockup, at booking” is simply that–opinion. It’s not a constitutional rule. 1. Another Chicago Public Radio article, this one starts off with saying “many Chicago lawyers and crime reporters” object to Homan Square being called a “black site.” One reporter said he’s been there 20 to 30 times in his career, and that press conferences with police are regularly held there. This makes the black site claim hilarious. 2. Ackman’s only real rebuttal to all that is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and him saying that black site just means a place where bad things happen. 3. Another article from Ackman in the Guardian, which at this point I feel no real reason to thoroughly dispute. They found four black people in Chicago that are willing to say bad stuff happened at Homan Square. At this point some concrete claims have been made: -Homan Square doesn’t book people and violates CPD procedures by not entering them into a database. -Homan Square tortures people. -Homan Square conducts custodial interrogations without allowing a person to have an attorney present. Everything else, for example “being there for 18 hours without an attorney” or “being shackled to something” or “not being allowed to make a phone call” are all irrelevant–because if true they don’t violate any constitutional protections and like violate no Chicago/Illinois laws (but I have no clue on that.) But those three positive claims **if proven** are serious, and there should be consequences if those are true. But I’ve not seen any evidence for them yet. The first one should be very easy to clear up. Do people held in lock up at Homan Square get put into the CPD database? Yes or no. For specific claims of torture and custodial interrogations without an attorney being present, we need evidence. Unless this is the dark ages then the CPD almost certainly has their interview rooms wired for sound and video–precisely because it’s a quick way to play back a suspect declining to have their attorney present when they confess and then later change their mind. ---
**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, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/133 "2015-03-01T00:00:42Z")
> [@camille](#): > > Did you miss my cite from Chicago Public Media? No, because that’s pretty much reporting about the Guardian story. And if anything, the original reporting makes the Guardian’s accusations seem even weaker. And I can see **Martin** did a good job of explaining the lack of “there” there in those articles. ---
**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, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/134 "2015-03-01T05:37:43Z")
> **[Homan Square protesters demand answers over Chicago police 'black site'](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/28/homan-square-protest-chicago-police-black-site)** > > Crowd gathers outside facility at centre of claims of unconstitutional abuse with Anonymous and Black Lives Matter among the groups present ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/135 "2015-03-01T06:26:22Z")
deleted because I hadn’t realized the thread was three pages long when I responded to the post. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/136 "2015-03-01T06:51:45Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > We have a story from a notably anti-American publication posted by a notably anti-American poster. > The story recounts the claims of a few people regarding their experiences without providing a single third party testimony or any actual evidence. > > It might be an example of actual police abuse, but nothing yet posted supports that conclusion. I would say the Guardian is pro-American. They attempt to hold us to the standards we set as our highest, and point it out when we fail. As an American, I am grateful for the job they have done … because the US mainstream media , with a few exceptions, has not done anything like it. ---
**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, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/137 "2015-03-01T08:16:16Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > At this point some concrete claims have been made: > > -Homan Square doesn’t book people and violates CPD procedures by not entering them into a database. > -Homan Square tortures people. > -Homan Square conducts custodial interrogations without allowing a person to have an attorney present. > > Everything else, for example “being there for 18 hours without an attorney” or “being shackled to something” or “not being allowed to make a phone call” are all irrelevant–because if true they don’t violate any constitutional protections and like violate no Chicago/Illinois laws (but I have no clue on that.) But those three positive claims **if proven** are serious, and there should be consequences if those are true. But I’ve not seen any evidence for them yet. > > The first one should be very easy to clear up. Do people held in lock up at Homan Square get put into the CPD database? Yes or no. For specific claims of torture and custodial interrogations without an attorney being present, we need evidence. Unless this is the dark ages then the CPD almost certainly has their interview rooms wired for sound and video–precisely because it’s a quick way to play back a suspect declining to have their attorney present when they confess and then later change their mind. Thanks for all the info,\*\* Martin\*\*. As I said, I think the statements from multiple detainees and attorneys should be considered evidence enough to warrant an investigation. Short of an official investigation, what other evidence besides witness statements can be obtained by the people making the allegations? If attorneys are not considered reliable witnesses, than who would be? Do we expect confessions from the CPD or higher ups, the same people who covered up the previous tortures for over 20 years that led to 100 million dollar payouts and legal fees (and more cases pending)? Is the CPD obligated to provide database or audio/video info from these cases? I’m still not clear on the legalities involved. If you are brought in and cuffed or tied to a bench, how is that not considered being in custody? I can’t imagine the law allows someone to be shackled and held for 3 days without outside communication like that, and it would be considered non-custodial until they are actually charged. Even the 18 hours seems excessive for the circumstances mentioned, but I guess they can get away with it, so they do it. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, because that’s pretty much reporting about the Guardian story. And if anything, the original reporting makes the Guardian’s accusations seem even weaker. Every subsequent report will likely reference the Guardian story. I don’t see how the CPR report makes the allegations weaker. The only contention is if the irregularities are unique to that site, or a widespread occurrence, and what is meant by a “secret” site. I wouldn’t expect the police source to admit to anything at this point, would you? ---
**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, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/138 "2015-03-01T10:26:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s not the Guardian’s story initially, it’s only the Guardian’s story, period. [Here you go.](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-homan-square-chicago-police-met-20150227-story.html#page=1) The Chicago Tribune reports on the story: > [@](#): > > For more than a decade, the Tribune engaged in several investigative projects reporting the alleged mistreatment of suspects — most of them minorities from impoverished neighborhoods — in cases involving gang and drug killings, treatment that often led to wrongful or questionable convictions. > > Richard Dvorak, a veteran criminal defense attorney, said the problem was widespread, but he was unaware of any issue unique to Homan Square. > > “Everything that was described (in the Guardian story) was something that happens every day,” he said. “I think it’s pretty systemic throughout CPD.” Some info about the right to counsel and phone calls: > [@](#): > > Loeb, the defense attorney and DePaul instructor, said the law is clear on the right of a client to see a lawyer immediately. “If the lawyer knows about it and shows up, minute one, you’re entitled to a lawyer,” Loeb said. “There’s no point at which a lawyer is not allowed.” > > The police general order regarding “arrestee and in-custody communications” provides that “arrestees will be permitted to make a reasonable number of telephone calls to communicate with their attorney, family or friends within a reasonable period of time after arrival at the first place of custody.” > > Lawyers said the department’s use of “reasonable” is vague. Regarding the CPD denial: > [@](#): > > Defense attorneys found the statement laughable. > > “The denial that the police spokesman made was way over the top and unjustified because we do know from those terrorism cases that there were abuses,” Loeb said. “Whether or not it’s some (black site) plot? OK, I might be skeptical of that.” ---
**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, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/139 "2015-03-01T11:31:47Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I would say the Guardian is pro-American. They attempt to hold us to the standards we set as our highest, and point it out when we fail. As an American, I am grateful for the job they have done … because the US mainstream media , with a few exceptions, has not done anything like it. Despite the ad hominem attacks on me by other posters (including one drive-by by a mod!) that is my position too. I am pro-American for its intentions, but dismayed when its own interpretation of its ideals does not result in Freedom and Justice for all. Hence my threads such as this one. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577/140 "2015-03-01T12:05:14Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > I am pro-American for its intentions So, you support the idea of a larger part of a Union fighting a war to prevent a smaller part leaving? Interesting… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-police-operating-detention-blacksites/713577.md?page=8)