Could the Chicago cops do this? Sure. Would they, if given half a chance and no risk of discovery? Maybe some would. But in reality I doubt it, just because something like this would just be too hard to cover up for any length of time given all of the people alleged to be involved. Why go to all of that effort and “secrecy” when you can just pull some crook into a broom closet and beat the crap out of him with much less risk of discovery?
No it does not.
Peoples’ ASSUMPTIONS about the OP caused that. My tone was purposely completely neutral as can be checked by simply reading the OP.
Fair enough. Perhaps those assumptions were unfair. Of course, you proved that they were all correct because you claimed shortly afterwards that the allegations are in fact true. “Proven quite clearly”, in fact.
I apologize on behalf of (nearly) everyone else who’s posted in this thread for making unfounded assumptions about your message which just happened to be totally accurate.
Here our fair and balanced English friend says that he (or is it she? I can’t remember) does not believe the article. That is why the allegation, which he (she?) does not believe, must be investigated. Out of pure neutrality and non-nationalism, of course.
Which, ironically, puts Pjen in literally the exact same position as me: I find the allegations very concerning and they ought to be investigated, but I’m not convinced the stories are true.
But then again, apparently I’m a nationalist and non-neutral.
Silly. You’d be a fool not to believe the allegations that are proven quite clearly in the article.
What abuse of prisoners do you think you are talking about?
Is it the convicted criminal who claims he was shackled, the guy who died of a drug overdose, or the anonymous person claiming a head injury who refused to give his name and whose lawyer declined to back up his allegations?
It appears that most of those who are complaining are laboring under the misapprehension that they are entitled to a lawyer the instant they are arrested, which is not the case. Likewise, being held and then released without being booked is not exactly torture on a level with the rack and thumbscrews.
:shrugs:
People don’t like to be arrested, and often they complain about it. Gee, that’s never happened before - clear cut evidence of a secret CIA black site.
Regards,
Shodan
Sure, there’s reason to investigate. As of yet, there’s not much telling us whether this is due to individuals not following procedure, or an organizational problem. There’s no evidence that the CPD is intentionally operating a “Blacksite”, and nothing justifying the hysteria of the OP, despite what the poster thinks (Seriously? If you didn’t believe it, why fucking bring it up, and why do it in an inflammatory way, and then disparage the motivations of the people who question it? I don’t start threads about every bigfoot sighting I hear about).
Do I think that the rights of suspects are violoated? Oh, yeah. I think the odds are near %100 that a suspects’ rights will be violated in DFW today. When each is discovered, it should be investigated. If the actions are found to miscarry justice even though they are legal, I think we should enact laws that apply. Having a hissy-fit and inflating the claims as the cited article does isn’t helpful.
FTR: I’ve been arrested twice in the U.S., and been to an actual criminal trial once. Both times I wasn’t able to afford a lawyer. Due to how the system is structured, I wasn’t going to get one. It didn’t make me very happy, but I assure you it was perfectly legal. Even if I could have afforded a lawyer, the only thing they could have done for me that I couldn’t do for myself is arrange a bondsman (which a relative did for me) - the investigation was comprised of me looking at the cop like he was stupid while he asked me questions. A lawyer wasn’t going to suppress evidence or realistically question the circumstances of my arrest, and there were no loopholes to be had. They had me dead to rights, and for a multitude of reasons, I wasn’t willing to turn over on others in hopes of a lesser sentence. Conversely, my sister had a lawyer in her most recent escapade, and he couldn’t do diddly for her except run up a bill. They had her dead to rights, too; but she wasn’t willing to accept that. Sometimes a lawyer can be useful, but not always.
And I disagree with the OP, but I’m not a conservative. I’m a fool in many ways, but believing that we must hold the status quo, or that there’s some mythical past we should return to isn’t one of them.
Depends. Do you display anything other than a local flag in your yard? If not, then you’re OK.
I don’t you are grasping what people’s actual objections are to the OP or the linked article and are just jerking your knee at ‘conservative commentators’ supposedly handwaving all of this aside. Also, I believe that Camille’s points were addressed up thread by other posters, and I don’t think anyone is ignoring them, leading me to wonder if you have actually read through the whole thread or just enough to get your outrage on.
I also don’t think anyone in this thread is saying that potential violations shouldn’t be investigated.
What does it mean if I eschew the display of any flags? Am I man without a nation? :eek:
FTR, I did read the whole thread. I did get a sense that some commentators were attacking Pjen’s assertions about the story as a way of distracting from its substance.
Jumping all the way back to the beginning because that piece is one of the shoddiest arguments made in the article. In fact the Guardian didn’t even make the case above. They just quoted one person making that case. I quote the grand, get all worked up, finale to the article.
The site’s been open since the 90s and doing the same kind of things the entire time, according to the lawyers that the Guardian uses to substantiate it’s existence. The Chicago site, if it operates as alleged, clearly can’t be the creep of post 9/11 decisions and policies. Siska makes a causal argument that requires a time machine.
If the Chicago PD is doing wrong address it; creating false links doesn’t help. The article ends with poor logic and recreational outrage. That doesn’t help anybody except those that want to be outraged.
I can’t believe you are so blatantly relying on ad hominem attacks, literally begging the question and attacking Pjen. The horror.
Thank you. I made few assertions other than a willingness to believe that police generally are likely to bend the rules and attorneys are likely to be pissed when this happens. I did not support any of the claims of ‘torture’ or ‘disappearance’.
IMHO the appropriate response to questions about exercise of state power is to have an open mind and a willingness to investigate and learn from the experience.
Apparently, according to some, that is not appropriate, especially if the poster or the media source are not liked.
Frankly, I’m guessing that there’s fire underneath some of the smoke. But the Chicago Trib’s take is that “Blacksite” characterizations are hyperbole, there’s nothing special about Homan Square, but denying detainees access to lawyers via game playing is a longstanding problem or practice in Chicago. Sober article. http://columbiadailyherald.com/news/nation/chicago-lawyers-agree-police-abuses-balk-black-site-report
Cite one post in this thread that said no investigation should be done. Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. That’s American for: We can criticize the source for hyperbole AND be open to an investigation.
The take-away is, if journalists want to avoid criticism for their practices, all they need do is NOT engage in sensationalistic hyperbole.
[quote=“John_Mace, post:236, topic:713577”]
Cite one post in this thread that said no investigation should be done./QUOTE]
Post 4
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18161850&postcount=4
Shodan is clearly pooh-poohing the allegations but he never says anything about an investigation one way or the other.
I would like to see some evidence of wrong doing before launching an investigation, but I’m funny that way.
Regards,
Shodan
Allegations of wrong doing are evidence. Weak evidence, sure, but I think it’s fair to give accusers the benefit of the doubt given the stakes.