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.
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.
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.
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.
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?) 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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
US MSM covers US citizens protesting the issue in Chicago. No British Newspapers involved.
“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.”
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.
