That’s not right. There are many differences between being detained and being arrested. One of the biggest is the standard of proof necessary to perform either the detention or the arrest.
In both cases you are not free to leave. Detentions must be brief and cursory so I’m thinking that doesn’t apply to being placed on a barge for periods of time. There is also an amount of time you can be arrested and held without being charged, which seems more in line with the barge holding technique.
See the link above for more info. Some were held for hours, one man for 3 days, without being booked, read their rights, or permitted a phone call. Some were questioned under those circumstances, and some claim physical abuse and prolonged use of restraints.
More people have come forward since the article was published, including over 6 attorneys. Do you think they are all lying?
A woman held for 18 hours and interrogated without an attorney.
Witness statements are evidence, no? IMO the fact that so many attorneys have come forward on the record to corroborate the allegations warrants further investigation.
Ackerman may have used hyperbole calling it a “Black Site” to give the story legs or as clickbait, which he justifies here:
Anyway, make of it as you will. I’m not the OP. I await further news myself, but I don’t agree that simply because it was the Guardian’s story initially, it should be dismissed out of hand.
Did you miss my cite from Chicago Public Media? They also spoke to lawyers, local crime reporters, and a law professor at the University of Chicago familiar with the situation. You want to nitpick that my using “initially” is premature, be my guest; I know that’s your schtick,** John**, but my opinion stands. Do you not think it warrants further investigation? Are all the lawyers on the record “left wing fruitcakes” or “anti-American”?
Personally, I wouldn’t have put this up for debate yet, anticipating these responses. I was just updating the OP’s thread with more info. Let’s see if anything further develops.
Sure, it warrants investigation. I’m not sure if they lawyers are left wing fruitcakes, but it sure seems like a number of their clients are. Come on, the “NATO Three?” That’s something straight out of the Big Lewbowski. I bet they got beat up by nihilists in the parking lot of the “black site” after they were finally released.
Unverifiable claims by an anarchist protester. Many of which do not necessarily violate the constitution, although many probably violate “CPD official procedure.” The fact that her lawyer (a person paid to advocate solely for her interests) corroborates her claims is meaningless, the lawyer is not a first party witness.
Unverifiable claims from a guy who was arrested for fleeing the scene of an accident. Also note that while he should have been told why he was being arrested (unless he left out from his narrative that he was insane/frothing at the mouth and fighting the cops all the way to the station, for example) the fact that he wasn’t read his miranda rights is irrelevant. The police can arrest you and you can be charged with a felony, ultimately prosecuted and convicted of said felony, and there never be a moment in that process in which the police are required to Mirandize you. It’s only a requirement if they plan to conduct a custodial interrogation. If they do that, don’t make you aware of your rights, then anything you say in that interrogation is impermissible in court and the police officers will likely get in trouble with their boss, too.
Stronger verified claims by the activist lawyer from the Lawndale Christian Legal Center, at least in that he was personally involved with the case and claims to have “general knowledge” about Homan. Stronger than the first, but not that strong. We’re still going off the word of a kid and his parents, a kid accused of committing a crime. I imagine a large portion of the convicted, undeniable murderers in prison would be happy to spin yarns about police being bad, too. But, the LCL lawyer at least plausibly has a lot of experience with people who have spent time at Homan Square.
Anonymous comment to a reporter from a cop who worked at Homan Square–in which he says people are made aware of their rights. But that they exercise the authority to “hold you for 24 hours without charge.” That doesn’t sound unconstitutional, it’s generally allowable to detain someone for a bit without charging them. It’s also allowable to “sweat someone” by subjecting them to lengthy interrogations if they’ve been made aware of their rights and are simply choosing not to end the interrogation. It’s also allowable to subject someone to a very long non-custodial interrogation (and this happens frequently when people don’t realize the difference.) Nothing that cop said really is evidence of wrongdoing.
We have another attorney who says that only a small percentage of people at Homan are visited by defense attorneys. How many at other police stations are visited by defense attorneys? As mentioned you have no right to have your attorney sit with you while you’re booked and processed, or sit by your bed at night in lock up and read you a bed time story. You have a right to an attorney at a custodial interrogation, and you have a right to one at trial if the case could result in six months or more of jail time, any less than that and it’s not a Federal constitutional requirement that you be provided with free counsel at all. A very large number of persons who are arrested don’t even get subjected to custodial interrogations. Lots of crimes simply do not require it. Lots of crimes of a minor nature the cops arrest, write it up, and a few days later the person can plea out to the magistrate or equivalent and/or choose to fight it, often times with no interrogation at all. If a cop arrests someone for trespassing, fighting etc, there’s no reason to interrogate them in most cases. Finally, most people want to talk to the police and decline to contact an attorney even when given the chance.
This lawyer’s opinion that a phone call should be provided “prior to lockup, at booking” is simply that–opinion. It’s not a constitutional rule.
Another Chicago Public Radio article, this one starts off with saying “many Chicago lawyers and crime reporters” object to Homan Square being called a “black site.” One reporter said he’s been there 20 to 30 times in his career, and that press conferences with police are regularly held there. This makes the black site claim hilarious.
Ackman’s only real rebuttal to all that is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and him saying that black site just means a place where bad things happen.
Another article from Ackman in the Guardian, which at this point I feel no real reason to thoroughly dispute. They found four black people in Chicago that are willing to say bad stuff happened at Homan Square.
At this point some concrete claims have been made:
-Homan Square doesn’t book people and violates CPD procedures by not entering them into a database.
-Homan Square tortures people.
-Homan Square conducts custodial interrogations without allowing a person to have an attorney present.
Everything else, for example “being there for 18 hours without an attorney” or “being shackled to something” or “not being allowed to make a phone call” are all irrelevant–because if true they don’t violate any constitutional protections and like violate no Chicago/Illinois laws (but I have no clue on that.) But those three positive claims if proven are serious, and there should be consequences if those are true. But I’ve not seen any evidence for them yet.
The first one should be very easy to clear up. Do people held in lock up at Homan Square get put into the CPD database? Yes or no. For specific claims of torture and custodial interrogations without an attorney being present, we need evidence. Unless this is the dark ages then the CPD almost certainly has their interview rooms wired for sound and video–precisely because it’s a quick way to play back a suspect declining to have their attorney present when they confess and then later change their mind.
No, because that’s pretty much reporting about the Guardian story. And if anything, the original reporting makes the Guardian’s accusations seem even weaker. And I can see Martin did a good job of explaining the lack of “there” there in those articles.
I would say the Guardian is pro-American. They attempt to hold us to the standards we set as our highest, and point it out when we fail. As an American, I am grateful for the job they have done … because the US mainstream media , with a few exceptions, has not done anything like it.
As I said, I think the statements from multiple detainees and attorneys should be considered evidence enough to warrant an investigation. Short of an official investigation, what other evidence besides witness statements can be obtained by the people making the allegations? If attorneys are not considered reliable witnesses, than who would be? Do we expect confessions from the CPD or higher ups, the same people who covered up the previous tortures for over 20 years that led to 100 million dollar payouts and legal fees (and more cases pending)? Is the CPD obligated to provide database or audio/video info from these cases?
I’m still not clear on the legalities involved. If you are brought in and cuffed or tied to a bench, how is that not considered being in custody? I can’t imagine the law allows someone to be shackled and held for 3 days without outside communication like that, and it would be considered non-custodial until they are actually charged. Even the 18 hours seems excessive for the circumstances mentioned, but I guess they can get away with it, so they do it.
Every subsequent report will likely reference the Guardian story. I don’t see how the CPR report makes the allegations weaker. The only contention is if the irregularities are unique to that site, or a widespread occurrence, and what is meant by a “secret” site. I wouldn’t expect the police source to admit to anything at this point, would you?
Despite the ad hominem attacks on me by other posters (including one drive-by by a mod!) that is my position too. I am pro-American for its intentions, but dismayed when its own interpretation of its ideals does not result in Freedom and Justice for all.