You do not seem to comprehend that these are two entirely different things. The idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is a legal fiction that applies only to the government and its treatment of the accused, not individuals making their own judgements about what the truth is.
Absolutely. And further, we can all agree that Europe, specifically the UK, and specifically specifically Scotland are the bestest most civilised on the world and they are taken all our bases!!
“Disappearances”? Please.
Wake me when the CPD start tossing people out of helicopters into Lake Michigan.
Do you have a newsletter? Might there be a subscription available?
BTW, what is the debate here? If the story is true, I don’t think anyone is going to defend it.
I think it’s ‘American, are they the most evil nation on earth, or are they just really really bad, vicious and uncivilised?’
You missed my point. I was saying the OP is showing a double standard. He finds accusations credible because they’re being made by people he likes against people he doesn’t like. If the situation was reversed and the accusations were going the other way, he would dismiss those accusations as being just lies and propaganda.
Except when the part of the UK that isn’t Scotland is evil, of course.
Eh, okay so it’s not a black site since apparently it’s not a secret that it’s a Chicago Police Department facility. As for the rest, the allegations are a mix of things that likely are not unconstitutional, are too vague to evaluate, and/or may be untrue people who are arrested as a group are not intrinsically people I believe without corroboration–I believe no one on their word but I take the word of accused criminals even more lightly than a normal person’s.
The problem with sorting through issues like this is a lot of times frankly low IQ, uneducated persons who are in police custody or questioned often do not understand the legalities of their situation. For example someone who was asked to come in for questioning, and ends up being grilled for eighteen hours without legal counsel may end up feeling after talking to a reporter that his rights were violated. But the fact was, for example, he was free to leave at any time. He just did not know that, and never asked. Also, he never asked for an attorney. Or, since it’s a non-custodial interrogation he may have asked and the police may have just ignored him or said “we need you to keep answering questions.” A custodial interrogation has to end when someone asks for their attorney, but a non-custodial interrogation doesn’t, the police can just ignore it and keep asking questions. But the person likewise can ignore their questions and leave, too.
Take a specific case mentioned in the article. Someone is arrested as a protested and held for “most of the day, and denied access to an attorney.” You are not actually entitled to immediate access to an attorney. It’s a matter of constitutional law that at custodial interrogations, line ups or identifications, or any judicial proceedings your attorney is allowed to be present.
How quickly you are allowed to contact someone by phone after being arrested is governed by a range of various state statutes. Many specify a certain number of hours after booking–say 3-5 hours later you must have been provided an opportunity to contact someone. However, these laws are usually subject to caveats. For example that this is not necessary if it’s “physically impossible” for you to get your call. Maybe the facility you’ve been booked in is simply overloaded with arrested persons (definitely possible when the police have arrested a bunch of unruly people at a protest, for example), and they simply cannot get everyone a call in that span of time. Or, if an arrested person is acting unruly, the jail workers are not required to put themselves at risk to take an unruly/violent inmate to the phone. Instead they’re allowed to make the guy calm down before letting him make a call.
To a person in custody it can seem endless, but the reality is it’s common to not get a chance to contact an attorney for hours after being arrested based on the circumstances–and it’s not unconstitutional or a sign that a “black site” is being operated.
Nothing about Chicago Police would really surprise me, but everything reported on in t he article are things that can be easily misconstrued, combined with frankly deceptive journalism (starting with calling a place that is known as a matter of public record as being used by CPD a “black site.”)
I think it’s more like, “In what ways can we get lefties even more outraged about news stories?”
So, an alleged rogue police operation becomes “like a CIA black site.” (BTW, is this the first time anybody has heard of the Chicago Police doing something something not good?)
But there are many more examples that could be used. A few weeks ago, a San Francisco police detective arrested a guy’s lawyer in what seems like a huge abuse of power. How about, “The San Francisco justice system is exactly like Guantanamo!!!”
Not long ago, a DC cop was busted for selling drugs. We could say, “This scandal is an offshoot of Reagan’s secret CIA plan to import crack into America!!!”
I’m sure somewhere there’s a trial where cops collected evidence that gets thrown out for an improper warrant. “Edward Snowden blows the cover off of police simulating the NSA mass dragnet surveillance state cyber threat intrusion digital nightmare!!!”
It would have worked too - if it weren’t for you meddling kids!
Regards,
Shodan
What the USers making light of this situation are not realizing is that the place in question is not merely a building, but a “secretive warehouse”. A reporter was denied access on the grounds that it is a “secure facility”!
How do we know that the place isn’t another Gitmo, with scores or hundreds of illegally detained inmates being disappeared for hours at a time?
I am not surprised that the right wing and its mouthpiece the New York Times are ignoring/minimising this outrage.
I have not said that anyone is guilty of any crime. You have assumed that. I am somewhat surprised that the US mainstream media does not seem to have addressed this (save for an Atlantic article I have since found) and that no enquiry of any kind has been started or even suggested by the Illinois authorities.
It is your defensive response that has caused you to believe I am saying something other than the facts.
Hyperbole rarely convinces.
I am pleased that someone is treating it as worthy of investigation and discussion.
Perhaps the Guardian should have taken that into consideration.
It will be interesting to see what view the NY Times and others cover now that the story has been broken.
That may be your view…
Sarcasm answers no questions…
I must say I am not surprised at the massive defensiveness being exhibited by people here.
Where is the famous US questioning of State Authority.
Quis custododiet ipsos custodes?