I would not characterize the Guardian as a “trash” paper the way Martin did.
On the other hand, I found during the run up to the Iraq invasion–an invasion that I actively opposed–that half the time, or more, that I found information that would have supported my position in the Guardian, I had to dismiss it because it was little more than overblown anti-American polemics. I see nothing in the current “exposé” that would change my opinion: lots of wild claims, often from unreliable sources; uncritical acceptance of any statement that said something “bad” about the U.S. or U.S. authorities; no third-party cross-checking of reported claims; a general “look at this bad American situation” tone to its piece.
If you consider the Guardian a reliable source of information, that would generally explain why so many of your arguments fail to persuade.
I have not said that I believe what has been printed. What I do believe is that when a serious news source raises questions like this, a trustworthy and mature organisation either questions its own policies or has a regulatory authority that would do it for them rather than issuing a blanket denial.
No, in my ebullient, confident, wise and witty opinion. I’m good-looking, too.
You seem to imply in many of your posts that people who don’t agree with you have a right-wing bias. I’ll just have you know that I consider myself a liberal. I support high taxes on the wealthy, and think I should pay more myself. I think single payer healthcare is the obvious solution to the problem. I opposed the Iraq war from day one and think that George Bush has done damage to this country that will still take many years to repair.
But I don’t like bullshit. I especially don’t like bullshit from the media that panders to one narrow viewpoint. The Guardian is in exactly the same boat as Fox News for me: they slant stories and cover things just to strike the egos of the partisans who enjoy them specifically to make those partisans feel superior to the partisans on the other side. It isn’t news that they produce: it’s a marketing product to a narrow segment of consumers.
In brief, the Guardian and most English newspapers are the one-sidedness that you criticize in the mainstream media. I’m not sure how you’re so blind to that.
Eta: and just because your arguments are full of holes and bias doesn’t mean that you’re a victim.
:dubious:
Umm, the op is curiously worded if you didn’t want people to think that you were bringing up the subject of the Chicago PD possibly operating such sites.
"This article alleges that Chicago police maintain an off-the-books detention centre that has resulted in serious harm and death of detainees with no constitutional protection.
It cites it as an extension of the toleration of torture, illegalities and human rights contravention given to the military and CIA, arguing that the militarisation of the police is not only of weaponry, but also of attitude and procedures."
Calm, simple, unbiased statement of what was reported in the article. No emotion. No indication of my feelings on the matter.
And then without comment I posted the CPD denial.
I think you are assuming more than I actually posted.
“In brief, the Guardian and most English newspapers are the one-sidedness that you criticize in the mainstream media. I’m not sure how you’re so blind to that.”
I don’t count criticism of Fox “News” and comparisons with UK media to be anything more than begging the question…
UK media has nothing as purposely biased to one view as Fox “News”, its UK arm is pretty damn neutral as required by UK broadcast law. Even our right wing papers are more balanced and fair than Fox.
You have strongly implied that you believe every word. I haven’t seen you hedging on this. So, when a ‘serious news source raises questions like this’, but they are the ONLY one doing so, and there is little or no corroboration or even really evidence, you STILL think that it’s something we should all take as seriously as you? Thus far I’ve seen nothing to say there is any fire to the smoke being blown up our collective asses on this wrt ‘Gestapo tactics’ or ‘operating Detention Blacksites’…at most there might be some irregularities concerning legal access for persons being detained by the Chicago police, and even there it seems there is some debate on exactly how quickly they get such access from a rights perspective. You were given this branch to save your OP, yet you continue to choose hyperbole and unsubstantiated reports from the Guardian that have yet to be backed up by anyone else. You said you were going to give it a few days to gain traction in the MSM, yet that hasn’t materialized. Still you cling to this.
What’s it going to take for you to give this up? I mean, I’ll be honest…I’d buy this story if there was some evidence. Local police forces can and have played fast and loose with the rules before, and Chicago police are kind of notorious. It would take a bit more to convince me that they were using ‘Gestapo tactics’ and ‘operating Detention Blacksites’ IN THE US, but I could be convinced if I saw enough evidence. You, on the other hand, have swallowed this story hook, line and sinker, so I’m curious what it will take to get you to at least consider the notion that it might be full of shit or at least hyperbolic. Is there anything? Because if not, and if nothing further comes out, then I don’t see the point of the debate continuing. You will remain unconvinced, clinging to some sort of CT coverup by all of the mainstream media in the face of the determined and eagle eyed Guardian report, and most everyone else will look at things using their BS detector and dismiss it as what it seems to be…a big pile of steaming hyperbole.
You think “Chicago police black sites” is any less hyperbole than, say, a “terrorist fist jab?”
It seems like you do, and I submit that the reason for that is merely that “Chicago black sites” is an overblown nonsensical phrase that appeals to your own politics, while “terrorist fist jab” is bullshit designed to appeal to your political opponents.
And let me also point out that you are seriously misusing terms like “begging the question” and “ad hominem.”
I have reviewed every post I have made on this thread and not one has any support for the veracity of the Guardian article. I do treat the accusations as worthy of investigation, but any freedom-loving person would want such allegations to be fully examined.
I challenge anyone to quote fully any statement I have made here supporting the veracity of the article. I have been very careful to post neutrally and factually.
I am not responsible for the wild assumptions and misinterpretations of others.
Serious question: are you the Guardian newspaper? Because I’m comparing the nonsense from the Guardian to the quality of Fox News. What you wrote in the OP doesn’t enter into this issue.
Although you’ve been afforded ample opportunities to say that “Chicago police black site” is hyperbole, and you’ve consistently thrown out this evasive “but I didn’t say thaaaaaaaaat!” Who the fuck cares whether you wrote it or someone else did: the question is, do you agree with the sensationalistic journalistic excess or not? Do you think there are “black sites” in Chicago? If you do, I understand why. After all, you’ve spent considerable effort to defend the Guardian’s honor; and my thesis is that you like the Guardian’s hype because it appeals to your political views, not because it is quality journalism.
I have always found this sort of frivolous claim to be all too common.
You were not personally attacked.
You are using a notably slanted publication as your only source in this thread. You have frequently used that same source in other threads in which you disparage or criticize U.S. society and its citizens. You are notably unsuccessful in such threads in persuading your audience to your position, (despite the SDMB being a “left leaning” (a.k.a. America-hating) message board). I suggest that your choice of sources for your claims, being seriously flawed, is a better explanation of that general failure to persuade than is your claim of chauvinism. That is not a personal attack. That you consider it a personal attack provides its own insight to your posting rationale.
I believe that sometimes journalism needs to push boundaries (especially in the UK with our more repressive libel laws) in order to cause movement by a very defensive and conservative establishment.
The Guardian has faced the same recriminations over its coverage of British Army illegalities in the recent War on Terror.
I have said NOTHING that supports the article, merely questioning why the allegations are being minimised by relevant actors and authorities.
It is more than odd for you to begin a thread based solely on one article and then whinge that you have not “supported” statements in the article when you have done nothing to mitigate them.