Do you really doubt that attorneys have found that their clients are detained and held incommunicado?
I have said no more than that.
Except that the protesters are citing the article in the Guardian as the reason for their protest. And the article you cited also quotes The Guardian story. But why wouldn’t US media cover a protest? It’s something that is known to actually be happening.
But one thing you should keep in mind. I think everyone, everywhere in the world would be shocked, SHOCKED to find some corruption in the police force of a large city. Shocked, I tell you. Allegations are being investigated, and if and when an independent investigation proves the allegation to be correct, you’re not going to see a whole lot of folks here coming to the defense of the police.
Are you sure your attitude and posts are in line with your Mod status. It seems like you are encouraging a piling-on.
I don’t doubt they claim that it happened. But you claimed that
One of the allegations in the article is that citizens are being detained and held incommunicado. If you think that has been proven, then I’m unclear as to why you wouldn’t believe it.
Yes, he is sure. Mods are allowed to post as regular posters here.
It’s apparent when tomndebb is posting as a mod because he leads the post with the title, “Moderating”, and end the post with [/moderating]. When he does not do that, he is posting as a regular poster, and you are free to attempt to argue with his comments in those posts.
And if you think that you are getting piled on due solely to tom~ leading the charge, you’ve got another think coming. You’re getting piled on because your arguments are poor.
You’ve quoted my post and responded twice. Not sure why that was necessary.
You brought up the subject as worthy of debate. Therefore, it’s your job to prove it exists if the other side says “it’s a fairy story”. If you’re not willing to do that, I don’t see why anyone should be willing to debate you.
:rolleyes:
Any further posts on this thread would probably be improved by reading its sister thread at “UK Border Force runs “Interment Sites” for Asylum Seekers?” which contains some pertinent points about criticism of state authority.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=18173298&posted=1#post18173298
“Improved?” There doesn’t really seem to be a point to that thread, either.
Yeah, because this MB is full of people who shy away from criticizing state authority. :rolleyes:
Not saying that, but pointing out that if it comes from outside it is easy to take offence rather than notice!
I’m actually insulted by this post (or would be, if I cared). I think I ( and Martin Hyde in particular, and some others) went above and beyond researching and expanding on a poorly developed and unproven “debate” question. Even the title is undeveloped; as noted, there is no such thing as “US Police”. Did you do any research before posting? Check for multiple sources, or the past history of this particular police force? Are you familiar with the city of Chicago beyond it’s geographic location in the US? Think to develop a larger question to frame the discussion into something debatable?
As it was written, the OP should have been posted in IMHO, if at all. There are a lot of posters from the Chicago area here who might have insight for you. If you simply want to vent about abuse of authority in general, there is the Pit for that.
Did you miss this part?
You see nothing circular here do you? 
I got about that far in before falling out of my chair in laughter. That you would link to this as some sort of vindication of your position (one you claimed in your last response to me isn’t supportive of the article or your OP) is really too rich. And…you…don’t…see…it. Gods, it’s hard for me to even write this without choking!
(I encourage everyone to read the whole article…I’d have cut and pasted more by just doing that was making it difficult to breath with all the laughing)
The doubt is not that this happened. It’s doubtful that there’s anything wrong with doing this. If you believe that, in Chicago, prisoners have a right to a lawyer at any time other than interrogation or trial, please cite the law that says so.
Martin Hyde has already provided cites that it’s not against US Federal law to keep people locked up for many hours without a lawyer, and yet you repeat the uncited claim that this isn’t true. Why?
Even some neutral cites would help, rather than anarchist, their defence lawyers, and left-wing shit-stirring newspapers.
At the moment, this merits a small internal investigation, nothing more, and possibly a commitment to allowing somewhat quicker communication by prisoners where feasible.
I don’t believe you. There were no actual arguments presented.
How would reading a thread on an unrelated topic improve the mockery that is this one? The only way this can be improved is if you tell me what Michael Lind thinks of it.
Wrong poster.
Oh really? The lack of fleshed out OPs all blend together.
I’d advise the conservative commentators here to be very cautious in saying there is nothing to this story about abuse of prisoners. Some of you said it about Abu Ghraib and it bit you in the ass. Some of you said it about CIA torture and it bit you in the ass. Some of you said it about CIA black sites and it bit you in the ass. Some of you said it about Gitmo and it bit you in the ass.
Are you seeing a pattern here? Defending the US authorities where abuse is an issue is a dicey proposition at best. And as Camille keeps pointing out, the lawyers cited in the article ARE firsthand witnesses that they have been unable to obtain access to their clients. (You all keep ignoring Camille’s posts, I wonder why?)
There is PLENTY of grounds for an investigation here.
I don’t think anybody disputes that. The tone of the OP seems to be inviting us to assume that these allegations are true, though.