http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-homan-square-black-site

 

 

Saw this article posted on Reddit earlier today and I was horrified to know this kind of operation actually exists. I'm honestly not surprised something like this exists, but to actually get some details on it is astounding. This is CIA type activity. The war really has come home. I hope some kind of federal investigation is launched and heads roll for this one. This is absolutely criminal. I can't wait to see the Chicago Police try to justify this with the same bullshit "fighting terrorsim" line that's been spouted since 9/11. 

Edited February 24, 201511 yr by SIR_Sergeant

How is it that the Guardian does a better job at investigative journalism about the US government than American papers do?

So what was so wrong here? Sounds like the Guardian is trying to make a big deal out of something it is not. There's nothing illegal going on here.

So what was so wrong here? Sounds like the Guardian is trying to make a big deal out of something it is not. There's nothing illegal going on here.

These sits are operating completely beyond the reach of the law. People are not allowed to speak to lawyers, they're detained for long periods of time without being charged, I don't see how you don't recognize a problem. 

These sits are operating completely beyond the reach of the law. People are not allowed to speak to lawyers, they're detained for long periods of time without being charged, I don't see how you don't recognize a problem. 

It did not say they were not allowed to speak to lawyers. It said few lawyers and attorneys were granted access which still isn't a crime. It just means that either A) they never charged AND interrogated people there, or B) the suspect never asked for one. 

MOST states adhere to 72 hours without being charged. The gentleman interviewed said he was held for 17 hours, which is perfectly legal. 

So what was so wrong here? Sounds like the Guardian is trying to make a big deal out of something it is not. There's nothing illegal going on here.

That whole "lock people up in a warehouse for 17 hours without letting them contact anyone," and "making it extremely difficult to impossible for lawyers to visit their clients who are locked up there, even when the clients are being interrogated and have a right to a lawyer." For that matter, it's not unreasonable to share anything the police are trying to hide just on general principles -- while there's nothing wrong with a low-publicity site for the evidence locker, and the SWAT trucks have to be parked somewhere and the low-publicity site is probably a good place for them (you can do all sorts of stuff in a giant warehouse that it's harder to do in a space-limited downtown police station), there is something wrong with said warehouse being used as a low-publicity interrogation site. While I don't think it's as bad as claimed (the interrogation before a lawyer shows up is illegal, but could happen anywhere), people should be held in areas designed to hold them; the police shouldn't be locking people up in a place that's intentionally low-profile, and isn't build to house arrestees (from what I can tell, they just locked them in a cage that was there for generic warehouse reasons, not in a proper cell).

That whole "lock people up in a warehouse for 17 hours without letting them contact anyone," and "making it extremely difficult to impossible for lawyers to visit their clients who are locked up there, even when the clients are being interrogated and have a right to a lawyer." For that matter, it's not unreasonable to share anything the police are trying to hide just on general principles -- while there's nothing wrong with a low-publicity site for the evidence locker, and the SWAT trucks have to be parked somewhere and the low-publicity site is probably a good place for them (you can do all sorts of stuff in a giant warehouse that it's harder to do in a space-limited downtown police station), there is something wrong with said warehouse being used as a low-publicity interrogation site. While I don't think it's as bad as claimed (the interrogation before a lawyer shows up is illegal, but could happen anywhere), people should be held in areas designed to hold them; the police shouldn't be locking people up in random warehouses.

Nowhere in that article does it state they're not allowed to contact anyone. Again, I don't see it stated that the police are "making it difficult" for lawyers to see their clients. I refer you to my two reasons in my above post.

 

There's no law that says that people must be locked up in a nice looking building, with beds, and spacious interrogation rooms. There's nothing inhuman about anything they're doing there. 

Nowhere in that article does it state they're not allowed to contact anyone. Again, I don't see it stated that the police are "making it difficult" for lawyers to see their clients. I refer you to my two reasons in my above post.

 

There's no law that says that people must be locked up in a nice looking building, with beds, and spacious interrogation rooms. There's nothing inhuman about anything they're doing there. 

"Lawyers who seek access to Homan Square are typically turned away."

 

 

At 2:15 in the video the guy who was taken here discusses what happened when he asked to contact a lawyer.

Edited February 25, 201511 yr by SIR_Sergeant

Incidentally, more details here, which says that people detained there are not booked (at least, no public record exists of them being there), and attorneys who know their clients are in there are blocked from seeing them. Lawyers are turned away at the door; central booking doesn't reveal people held there, unlike at any other station. The only records show them disappearing, then reappearing when released or taken to a real station. Other times, they reenter the record when taken to the hospital or the morgue. If you don't see something wrong with someone found dead in police custody, in a building where records are generally not kept and others would not be easily able to find out they're there, I'm not sure we have the needed common ground. Custody cannot happen in secret, or with restricted release of information about where someone is. That's just asking for abuse -- where someone is has to be well-documented and accessible to people who ask.

I'm pretty sure there *are* rules that you can't be handcuffed to a bench for 17 hours absent extreme circumstances. And that's what has to happen if you use a warehouse as a jail.

Incidentally, they don't have to both charge AND interrogate you for you to have a right to a lawyer. They don't seem to charge people there (paper trail), but they do interrogate them. If the police are interrogating you, you have a right to a lawyer, whether or not you've been charged with any crime. If the police are *talking* to you, ever, you have an absolute right to a lawyer before they talk to you further (if you aren't detained or arrested, you'd likely be expected to walk away while waiting for a lawyer, because you can do that; when you *are* in custody, they can't ask you questions between your demanding a lawyer and your getting a lawyer, and they have to let you know you have the right to a lawyer before they ask any non-administrative questions that are potentially incriminating, absent a very tiny handful of exceptions. Whether you've been charged has nothing to do with Miranda or with your right to an attorney.

That's one of the things amongst others that always prevents me to actually move to the US and makes me more keen to live in Canada than the US if I ever had to move to North America. How can they claim themselves "lands of the free" when people are detained completely illegaly and deprived of all their rights?

"Lawyers who seek access to Homan Square are typically turned away."

At 2:15 in the video the guy who was taken here discusses what happened when he asked to contact a lawyer.

That's not saying that lawyers are prevented from seeing their clients.

And maybe that gentleman was right. I, personally, don't believe him. He sounds like he's obviously bullshitting or exaggerating what he's saying. Again, just my opinion.

The guardian is one of the most liberal sites anyways. That's why they wrote a story, to make something so minor into something bigger.

Nothing in that article has stated people are routinely held for >72 hours, and always being denied a lawyer. That's actually pretty common throughout America, unfortunately.

And to people so "shocked" by this:

This has been publicity known for awhile. This isn't new. Do you really think Obama, who's been trying to shut down G'tmo, would let this fly? There are WAY too many organizations and entities out there that could slam Chicago PD if there was something horrible going on here.

 Do you really think Obama, who's been trying to shut down G'tmo, would let this fly? There are WAY too many organizations and entities out there that could slam Chicago PD if there was something horrible going on here.

Well, he certainly isn't opposed to these kind of operations if his signing of the NDAA makes any kind of statement. I also doubt the DNC would look favorably upon the President going after something in a city in which the mayor (Rahm Emanuel) is a major Democratic political figure. 

That's one of the things amongst others that always prevents me to actually move to the US and makes me more keen to live in Canada than the US if I ever had to move to North America. How can they claim themselves "lands of the free" when people are detained completely illegaly and deprived of all their rights?

Yet 98% of America lives and dies here happily, inviolated.

Why do you have a vendetta against America? Every topic that has a black mark against America, you're always quick to hate; one may even think you take it personally. I'm just curious, is all.

Yet 98% of America lives and dies here happily, inviolated.

Why do you have a vendetta against America? Every topic that has a black mark against America, you're always quick to hate; one may even think you take it personally. I'm just curious, is all.

 

I just have a firm opinion as a non-patriotic person about the United States based on a couple things I've seen and learned here and there, nothing more. Not claiming that everyone is the same or the whole country is shit, but often in the topic where US are involved on this website, it's not to their advantage.

I just have a firm opinion as a non-patriotic person about the United States based on a couple things I've seen and learned here and there, nothing more. Not claiming that everyone is the same or the whole country is shit, but often in the topic where US are involved on this website, it's not to their advantage.

There's no absolutely good place on Earth but Iceland, probably. In the US the bad things become public real quick, in my country, for example, it would be very hard to draw attention to something like this. Even Old Good Europe has many flaws, even France. 

There's no absolutely good place on Earth but Iceland, probably. In the US the bad things become public real quick, in my country, for example, it would be very hard to draw attention to something like this. Even Old Good Europe has many flaws, even France. 

 

Oh of course, believe me I'm not proud to be french, and I'm not attached to my country more than that, and I'm the first to criticize the things that go wrong here or in Europe.

These types of places and operations are everywhere. And I'm not surprised CPD has this place, considering Chicago is like top 5 in the US for number of gang members and gang violence.

I really hate when people say "that's everywhere" or "everybody does that" because that's not an argument at all. A common practice back in the day was to burn heretics, to segregate people, to start wars when you feel the need. 

 

Hey, even corruption can be waived away by saying "every cop on earth does it". I agree sometimes the law is too soft and the suspect is too untouchable. You may feel the need to break him by all costs. But that's the wrong feeling, guys. Don't know whether you're aware of this or not, but the US has really liberal criminal procedure. Here in Russia you can't frisk a guy without two witnesses and a written protocol. You can't put cuffs on a guy without notifying your superior in the written form. There's a complicated and a detailed law saying how you must process a suspect, and even a slightest mistake makes whole case crippled. 

 

In the States it's really easy to deal with suspects and it gives you much more space. I don't think American police can justify those illegal tactics. 

but often in the topic where US are involved on this website, it's not to their advantage.

That's because, like most things, the media is quick to focus on bad things. Nobody likes talking about good things that go on, those don't grab people's attention.

 

 

I wouldn't be so quick to say that CPD is doing illegal things here. Of course the media is exaggerating things (like usual). They are calling the holding cells "cages", no shit, that is what a holding cell is. Are people just now learning about this? You guys will be shocked when you hear about jails and prisons, those are just big facilities with nothing but these "cages". The entire article(s) are based on allegation from one man, there is almost no evidence to support most of these claims it is all based on one guy's story.

Edited February 25, 201511 yr by l3ubba

Oh of course, believe me I'm not proud to be french, and I'm not attached to my country more than that, and I'm the first to criticize the things that go wrong here or in Europe.

Just want to ask a quick question: Do you hate America?