I know what you schtick is, but most of the people in this thread aren’t being defensive about it, they just want actual facts and an investigation before reaching a conclusion. That’s not defending the State, it’s not being a fly off the handle reactionary.
[QUOTE=Pjen]
I must say I am not surprised at the massive defensiveness being exhibited by people here.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not getting a defensive vibe, more a ‘my skeptical BS detector is going wild here, so let’s make this look as ridiculous as we can’. You didn’t seriously think that an article from The Guardian was going to convince anyone in and of itself, did you? When/if there is more evidence then come back and there might be a debate. As it is, the evidence so far presented is less than authoritative.
Oh, and you might want to get your own BS detector re-calibrated. You seem to be jerking your knee at every little thing without critically looking at it, if it’s against the US anyway. I know that’s your default position, but it could lead you astray if we ever aren’t the evil bad guys in your little drama. Just sayin’…
Where is your skepticism of the MSM? You just buy anything someone writes without any attempt at looking critically at it? Like I said, when I see more about this from other sources then I’ll think there might be something to this. When I do a Google search though, just about everyone that isn’t The Guardian is referencing their article, which leads me to think that this is all coming from them. That makes my own bullshit detector at least twitch, even if yours seems rock steady on this.
I guess it’s not like you said the charges had been proven…
If you are going to quote, then please quote fully and fairly.
What I said was
“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.”
Even the Chicago police response admits that people were lost in the system for hours and their attorneys were not able to locate them.
Which is a totally different claim than ‘US Police operating Detention Blacksites’, wouldn’t you agree?
I am extremely critical of any deviation from PACE by the English police, and against rules of evidence committed by Scottish police. I tend to post on these on a British board to avoid boring people who may neither understand or care about UK police procedure. If a IK police force was doing this, I would be the first to complain.
My words only applied to the Attorney’s problem with locating their clients:
“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.”
Okay, so maybe I’m missing some context and contention because of Pjen’s posting history.
I don’t take the article as gospel and recognize the hyperbole it contains, but some of the allegations concern me and seem plausible particularly given Chicago’s history of corruption and police misbehavior.
However, given the response I think there is not much point in continuing and it really seems that this thread may soon more properly belong in the Pit.
So, your thread title and OP were just deliberate hyperbole and shock to get people in here and posting, while the more mundane actual subject was that some prisoners weren’t given immediate access to attorneys and some lawyers weren’t able to find their clients?
We are questioning the authority of your cite.
But if and when your cite is proven accurate, I’m sure the pro-Black Site faction will be in full force. This MB is full of such folks.
Still waiting to hear what the debate is…
It’s not defensiveness - it’s mockery.
No it’s not!
Please quote ,
NOT
US Police operating Detention Blacksites
BUT
US Police operating Detention Blacksites?
See what I did there?
Deliberate hyperbole and exaggeration in the form of simply JAQing off? Yeah, I see what you did there…and I’m pretty sure everyone else did too.
But that would be ad hominem which is the admission of having no real argument.
Since there’s no real debate, why would anyone need a real argument?
Yeah, but we don’t hold that against you, Pjen. It’s cool…we used to it bro…
This must be the only post ever made in Great Debates constructed with a statement made elsewhere and a question mark.
I am proud of making this innovation������
Let us wait for 24 hours of the news cycle and see how it is covered in the States. NY Post has it up already, quoting The Guardian and the Chicago PD.
I think that’s a good idea, but…NY Post? This NY Post? I do love the story about Why I left Wall Street for Porn, don’t get me wrong, but this doesn’t look like a very solid follow up to The Guardian (or, maybe it is). I don’t see the story on their front web page, but I can see why the Wall Street for Porn story would take precedence.