US Police operating Detention Blacksites?

[Evil_Captor]

@Shodan

I would like to see some evidence of wrong doing before launching an investigation, but I’m funny that way.

Regards,
Shodan

How are the firsthand accounts of defense lawyers that they were denied access to their clients while in Homan Square not evidence?

[John_Mace]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Shodan is clearly pooh-poohing the allegations but he never says anything about an investigation one way or the other.

Yeah, that’s Shodan. If you want to make this thread about him, go ahead. Enjoy!

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

I didn’t make it about him, you did - you should have made Pjen name two people.

[Shodan]

@Evil_Captor

How are the firsthand accounts of defense lawyers that they were denied access to their clients while in Homan Square not evidence?

I meant evidence of a crime, or deprivation of Constitutional rights.

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I didn’t make it about him, you did - you should have made Pjen name two people.

Ok, I’ll change it to two, since Pjen originally posted (emphasis added):

Apparently, according to some…

[Jackmannii]

Did we ever find out why it’s a “Blacksite”? Aren’t portmanteaux kind of quaint?

[Shodan]

Because “The George W Bush Secret Underground Chamber of Doom” was copyrighted.

He’s saving it for his library.

Regards,
Shodan

[Pjen]

Inside Chicago's legacy of police abuse: violence 'as routine as traffic lights'

[Bone]

@Pjen

Inside Chicago's legacy of police abuse: violence 'as routine as traffic lights' | Homan Square | The Guardian

Homan Square.

[Fenris]

Hey, if we’re going to take The Guardian seriously about American abuses, I distinctly recall a Weekly World News article from '92/'93 talking about how the Bat-Boy was bred in an underground lab beneath Heathrow–there’s apparently thousands of human/animal crossbreeds down there, but Bat-Boy escaped.

So why aren’t we talking about these ghastly abuses of quasi-humans and offenses against God and nature by the fascist British government?

[Fenris]

And hey–as long as we’re going with sources like The Guardian, here’s a much more reliable source telling us how the Queen mother had Diana and Fayid(?) capped and how Phillip (who’s apparently a Nazi–as such–goosestepping, annexing the Sudatenland, etc) is going to be reincarnated as a virus so he can depopulate the world.

[Trinopus]

@Bone

Homan Square.

Links only to Google.com.

Sarcasm? I ban whooshed?

[Bone]

Whoosh. I figured any link without commentary is just as good as the next.

[Martin_Hyde]

@camille

That alone should be enough to warrant an investigation.

I’ve never said there shouldn’t be an investigation. These are serious claims warranting one, but until there is one (and even after and during, regardless of what the investigation finds) I can’t help but point out ways in which the proposed narrative or claims have as many holes as a slice of Swiss cheese.

I’m not asking anyone to rush to judgement, but I don’t understand the push-back here against further investigation.

I don’t see any of that, I see people saying “okay, but nothing presented is much proof.” If an investigation produces proof that’d be great.

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.

That guy is an idiot and wrong, then. Do you really, genuinely believe that the entire time you’re in confinement you’re allowed to have an attorney present? That the authorities can be required to give an attorney 24/7/365 access to every part of a jail? Some people are in jail for months or years prior to trial, can the attorney stay with them in the showers? While they work in the laundry? While they take exercise in the yard? When it’s lights out and regular visiting hours are long since over and the attorney sit outside the cell chatting with his client?

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.

It’d depend on the State. My research shows Nevada requires a phone call or contact opportunities within five hours, but subject to safety requirements.

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.

What? Did you not read you’re own cites? I’m going off the two Chicago Public Radio articles you freaking linked. They showed me journalists highly dubious about these claims.

[camille]

@Martin_Hyde

That guy is an idiot and wrong, then. Do you really, genuinely believe that the entire time you’re in confinement you’re allowed to have an attorney present? That the authorities can be required to give an attorney 24/7/365 access to every part of a jail? Some people are in jail for months or years prior to trial, can the attorney stay with them in the showers? While they work in the laundry? While they take exercise in the yard? When it’s lights out and regular visiting hours are long since over and the attorney sit outside the cell chatting with his client?

LOL, of course not. Here is the CPD policy directive General Order G06-01-04:

III. Visitation in District Detention Facilities and Detective Area Detention Facilities

A.	Arrestees may be allowed a reasonable number of visitations for a reasonable period of time, except in cases of danger of escape. Visitors will not be permitted in the lockup facilities when a visitation area is available.
B.	District desk or detective area personnel will:
    1.	immediately notify the station supervisor of the arrival of an arrestee's or person-in-custody's attorney.

@Martin_Hyde

It’d depend on the State. My research shows Nevada requires a phone call or contact opportunities within five hours, but subject to safety requirements.

From the directive:

V. Telephone Procedures

A.	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 their arrival at the first place of custody. If arrestees are transferred to a new place of custody, their right to communicate with an attorney, family member, or friend is renewed.

Whatever “reasonable” means. Within 5 hours, maybe. But 18 hours? 3 days???

@Martin_Hyde

What? Did you not read you’re own cites? I’m going off the two Chicago Public Radio articles you freaking linked. They showed me journalists highly dubious about these claims.

Not at all. They said Ackerman calling it a secret site or “blacksite” was a “mischaracterization”, and the attorneys quoted said that the problems weren’t limited to one location, but were widespread. That’s not the same thing as being “highly dubious about the claims” made by the detainees and their attorneys regarding improper CPD procedures. Find a local reporter on record who says there are no problems with the CPD.

In any case, it turns out the Chicago Tribune [did cover some of these allegations](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-17/news/chi-lawyers-for-nato-protesters-allege-improper-arrests- 20120517_1_zoe-sigman-nato-summit-protesters) when they happened, back in 2012. Note how the story corresponds to the anecdote I related earlier about the old hippie blogger. So yeah, I do think some local reporters don’t consider it anything new.

Lawyers for NATO protesters allege improper arrests
May 17, 2012|By David Heinzmann and Jeff Coen | Tribune reporters

Officers wearing Chicago Police uniforms raided an apartment in Bridgeport late Wednesday and detained at least eight activists without justification, lawyers working on behalf of NATO protesters alleged today.

Police refused to provide any details about the alleged raid or whether they were detaining people.

Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy was asked about the allegation after announcing at a news conference this afternoon that there had been “zero arrests, as far as protest activity today.”

Asked about the Bridgeport incident, McCarthy said only that there was an “inquiry” authorities were looking into and he would have to gather further information before commenting.

An hour**** later, his spokeswoman declined to answer any questions about the situation.

A spokesman for the National Lawyers Guild, which represents protesters, said lawyers were speaking with some of those detained at a police facility at 3340 W. Fillmore St. on the West Side.

“The Chicago Police Department has basically disappeared as many as eight activists,” said Kris Hermes, a spokesman for the National Lawyers Guild, adding “There’s absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing.”

Hermes declined to release the names of those detained.** He said the NLG had been speaking with police leaders throughout the day Thursday, and that they denied anyone was being held.**

Witnesses who alleged they were detained at the scene before being released said police broke down doors in an apartment building near 32nd and Morgan Streets at 11 p.m., and searched the units while refusing to show the occupants a search warrant, said Sarah Gelsomino, an attorney with the lawyers guild.

The officers then left but returned with a warrant that witnesses claimed was not signed, she said.

If you recall, these were the people who were held (shackled) for 30 hours, did not get to speak to their attorneys for 18 hours, and were then released without being charged.

Personally, I’m more concerned about the other (non-protester) detainees who came forward and allege physical abuse in addition to the no phone call/attorney runaround issues. Too much past history of abuse/coerced confessions by the CPD to find those claims implausible.

[Pjen]

The Guardian’s Homan Square story was huge on the internet—but not in Chicago media

For some local media observers, it has been a discouraging week, if not entirely unexpected.

“I’ve seen it before,” said Susy Schultz, president of Chicago’s Community Media Workshop. “Instead of jumping on a big story, the Chicago press corps will rally to take it down because missing it is embarrassing to the hometown reporters… [E]go gets in the way of good issue reporting.”

Steve Rhodes, publisher of the The Beachwood Reporter, a local media and politics site that devoted a lengthy podcast to the story, offered an even harsher critique. The past week has been one of the “most disheartening episodes in local media malfeasance that I can recall in my 23 years in Chicago,” he said. In a column today, he again pressed his colleagues in the media to take a harder look.

The Guardian’s Homan Square story was huge on the internet–but not in Chicago...

[Martin_Hyde]

@camille

LOL, of course not. Here is the CPD policy directive General Order G06-01-04:

Well, what I said was you’re not immediately entitled to a lawyer. To rebut that you quoted a guy who said that you’re “instantly” entitled to have a lawyer present. So at what point were you wrong here? Now or then?

[camille]

@Martin_Hyde

Well, what I said was you’re not immediately entitled to a lawyer. To rebut that you quoted a guy who said that you’re “instantly” entitled to have a lawyer present. So at what point were you wrong here? Now or then?

I’m not arguing with you; I was laughing at your scenario. I honestly don’t know. I posted whatever information I could find. If detainees wanted to know what their rights were, what would you be able to make out from that info? What is “reasonable”? The biggest problem I see is that they are telling the attorneys their clients are not in custody when they are. Is that reasonable?

[camille]

@Martin_Hyde

Well, what I said was you’re not immediately entitled to a lawyer. To rebut that you quoted a guy who said that you’re “instantly” entitled to have a lawyer present. So at what point were you wrong here? Now or then?

Just to clarify: I think there is a difference between what you’re saying and what the attorney/law professor is saying.

Tribune Article Quote:

“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.”

From the directive:

An arrestee or person-in-custody will be notified as soon as practicable upon the arrival at the police facility of his or her legal representative.

District desk or detective area personnel will:

1.	immediately notify the station supervisor of the arrival of an arrestee's or person-in-custody's attorney.

Station supervisors or designated supervisors will:

1.	allow visitation by attorneys if they are licensed to practice law and possess sufficient personal and professional identification.

So, it’s not a question of being entitled to have an attorney present 24 hours a day, but if you allow access once an attorney actually shows up. I think they are making it difficult for attorneys to locate and access the client, and to get around the directive, the easiest way they can do that is telling them the client is not in custody at all. That’s why the attorneys are claiming the detainees have been “disappeared”.

[Jackmannii]

This must be a far bigger scandal than I’d thought, if The Beachwood Reporter is on the case.