I only see hyperbole from the doubters.
These are words. They are in English. Yet strung together in the fashion you have done makes no sense. Odd that.
They say the same in Australia too. See if you can work out why.
Sorry, I forgot you were Just Asking Questions.
Climb down from the cross first, and we’ll see.
The issue appears to be an alleged procedural breach; people are arrested, and detained without being booked into a facility - is that much correct?
[QUOTE=Pjen]
So, as the story starts to firm up, maybe the ad hominem abuse could stop.
[/QUOTE]
What should we do if the story collapses like a bad souffle?
Regards,
Shodan
More or less. Though there’s no constitutional requirement that they be booked immediately anyway. There’s also the allegation of torture, which seems even less likely.
The story develops…
I read it earleir. Imo, it’s an awful lot of words to say not very much. If you picked out something salient it would be helpful.
But it only seems to be developing on The Guardian. I’m looking on CNN, and apparently they are suppressing this story for some reason as it’s not on their front page. It’s not on the New York Times (haven’t checked the Post, but they seemed to be more interested in the chick who left Wall Street for Porn, so probably not there either) main web site either. This is interesting, since according to your article “‘Gestapo’ tactics at US police ‘black site’ ring alarm from Chicago to Washington” yet I’m not seeing a lot of alarms ringing at this point. Let’s see…nope, not on the Washington Post either. You’d think that some major American media outlet would take not of ‘Gestapo tactics’ and ‘black site’ claims, especially if alarm bells are ringing from Chicago to Washington. Oh, let’s check the Chicago Sun Times…curiouser and curiouser. Nada there either. The Chicago Tribune? Nope, don’t see it there either.
Obviously, this major breaking story that is sending alarms ringing from Chicago to Washington (hm…maybe they mean Washington state? Let’s check Seattle…nope, not seeing it on any of their online publications either) is being massively suppressed. Good thing the The Guardian is on the ball!
Fwiw, I don’t partcularly blame The Guardian, sometimes you need to put it out there in order to get proper traction - like today they picked up a second ‘eye witness’. Not much but it keeps the narrative moving. It’s just too early. The need a big break now. Pretty much right now.
(bold is mine)
Look at some of the quotes that you linked to in the OP:
Just so we are clear here, you do NOT view those statements as hyperbole?
Sounds like dialogue from a Viagra ad.
Eventually we might see American major media doing stories on the order of “Chicago police charged with evading regulations on prisoner access to legal counsel”. Which unfortunately will be a lot less sexy than “US Police Operating Detention Blacksites” and will barely cause the needle to quiver on hyperbole meters.
Arrested in every case? I was under the impression some folks were detained and held incommunicado.
Holding persons in that manner is a serious issue, IMO, but does not rise to the level of the CIA black sites.
I think that the NYC police, which have been far more in the front lines of the anti-terrorist campaign, would be most likely to be the second department with that kind of site. During the 2004 Republican convention, many hundreds of protesters were arrested and placed on barges in the East River without much access to anything at all.
We know that department has conducted some wide ranging surveillance activities around the world, not just in the five boroughs. Having a site that’s out of sight, would not be all that surprising.
[QUOTE=BigAppleBucky]
We know that department has conducted some wide ranging surveillance activities around the world, not just in the five boroughs. Having a site that’s out of sight, would not be all that surprising.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have a cite for the site that’s out of sight?
A detention is an arrest, so far as I understand.
You understand incorrectly. You can be detained for questioning without being arrested.
But if you are merely detained for questioning then you are free to leave, right? How is that possible if you are held incommunicado at a secret site with no access to counsel?
-
There is no secret site.
-
I did not see any reference to someone being detained solely for questioning. The examples are of people who were under arrest.
-
You don’t have a legal right to a lawyer except during questioning.
-
There is such a thing as investigative detentions. I have not seen any examples in this story that fall under this category.
-
If anyone was questioned without a lawyer when they demanded one there should be consequences.
-
The original accusations are coming from antigovernment anarchists who were arrested for domestic terrorism. They were found guilty of some charges and not guilty of the most serious. Forgive me if I take their accusations with a grain of salt.