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

 

America? No, it's a beautiful continent. USA? No, it's a beautiful country, even though the weather is not that friendly in some places. US citizens? It depends on what they do and how they act. US culture? Well, it's not my culture, so I wouldn't judge that, everyone has his own. US beliefs? Same as before.

America? No, it's a beautiful continent. USA? No, it's a beautiful country, even though the weather is not that friendly in some places. US citizens? It depends on what they do and how they act. US culture? Well, it's not my culture, so I wouldn't judge that, everyone has his own. US beliefs? Same as before.

Ah alright, just wanted to ask.

The terrorists hate freedom, but they're not the ones taking it away.

 

This is absolutely horrifying. Talk about a police state....

The terrorists hate freedom, but they're not the ones taking it away.

 

This is absolutely horrifying. Talk about a police state....

Yeah I agree. America is doomed to be a dictatorship ran by federal law enforcement agencies.

Yeah I agree. America is doomed to be a dictatorship ran by federal law enforcement agencies.

Chcago cops are picking people up off the street for "terrorism" and holding them illegally in warehouses where they keep their military vehicles. 

 

Thats ACTUALLY happening. If that doesn't reflect poorly on the current state of law enforcement, I don't know what does.

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/chicago-police-department-speaks-homan-square-facility

 

 

The facility is considered sensitive because many officers who operate there are often involved in undercover assignments, and advertising their location could put their lives at risk. Other sensitive units housed at the facility include the Bureau of Organized Crime, SWAT Unit Evidence Technicians, and the CPD ballistics lab.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/chicago-police-department-speaks-homan-square-facility

 

The facility is considered sensitive because many officers who operate there are often involved in undercover assignments, and advertising their location could put their lives at risk. Other sensitive units housed at the facility include the Bureau of Organized Crime, SWAT Unit Evidence Technicians, and the CPD ballistics lab.

 

Then why take people you've arrested to such a sensitive site and not a proper police station? 

Then why take people you've arrested to such a sensitive site and not a proper police station? 

Undercover assignment and Bureau of Organized Crime are out of there, which are both investigative positions. If that is where their offices are, it makes sense for them to conduct interviews and the alike there.

Chcago cops are picking people up off the street for "terrorism" and holding them illegally in warehouses where they keep their military vehicles. 

 

Thats ACTUALLY happening. If that doesn't reflect poorly on the current state of law enforcement, I don't know what does.

Read my post on the first page. All of these allegations are based on one guy who got arrested there. Unless you have better evidence than that there is nothing saying that those things are "actually happening".

 

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/chicago-police-department-speaks-homan-square-facility

Finally, someone actually did research on the topic and didn't just assume the first thing they read was fact. I salute you sir, you are a beacon of hope in this dark world of people not taking the time to research a topic.

Finally, someone actually did research on the topic and didn't just assume the first thing they read was fact. I salute you sir, you are a beacon of hope in this dark world of people not taking the time to research a topic.

How is what he shared research? It's nothing more than a statement from the Chicago Police Department that disproves nothing.

Read my post on the first page. All of these allegations are based on one guy who got arrested there.

Other people have been taken here, this is just the first time it's been taken up as a big story.

Edited February 26, 201511 yr by SIR_Sergeant

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.

That is, indeed, one of the best things about this -- no one's shutting down the Guardian or threatening the life of the journalist who reported it.

That is, indeed, one of the best things about this -- no one's shutting down the Guardian or threatening the life of the journalist who reported it.

 

Part of the reason I'm confident this story is true is because the Guardian is the source that broke it. Taking the gamble of publishing the information Edward Snowden leaked via Glenn Greenwald earned the Guardian a lot of respect in my eyes. With the increased bullying of the media, especially by the Obama Administration, this kind of action can be risky. 

Part of the reason I'm confident this story is true is because the Guardian is the source that broke it. Taking the gamble of publishing the information Edward Snowden leaked via Glenn Greenwald earned the Guardian a lot of respect in my eyes. With the increased bullying of the media, especially by the Obama Administration, this kind of action can be risky. 

That's why I HATE the Guardian. They are a bunch of leftist, liberal journalists, who try to make something so big, when it's not. As said above, they're using loaded words and statements to make this place seem so much worse than it is. 

 

If they were unbiased, they'd simply say something along the lines of "In Chicago, there is a nondescript building housing a special investigations unit and emergency response unit of the CPD. In there, they have holding cells and benches for questioning and charging potential suspects. Generally, the public is turned away due to the nature of their investigations and to protect the identity of their officers." I consider myself mostly a righty, but this was my best attempt at making it as unbiased as possible. 

 

I don't have to use loaded words and phrases like "dilapidated warehouse", "military-like vehicles", "cages", etc. 

Edited February 26, 201511 yr by Pavelow

That's why I HATE the Guardian. They are a bunch of leftist, liberal journalists, who try to make something so big, when it's not. As said above, they're using loaded words and statements to make this place seem so much worse than it is. 

 

One could say the same about rightist, conservative journalists who try to make something so big when it's not.

 

All in all, I think that the best way to prove that this place has nothing wrong would be to let the building open to investigation. They are like everyone else: if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to risk.

Edited February 26, 201511 yr by Hystery

That's why I HATE the Guardian. They are a bunch of leftist, liberal journalists, who try to make something so big, when it's not. As said above, they're using loaded words and statements to make this place seem so much worse than it is.

If they were unbiased, they'd simply say something along the lines of "In Chicago, there is a nondescript building housing a special investigations unit and emergency response unit of the CPD. In there, they have holding cells and benches for questioning and charging potential suspects. Generally, the public is turned away due to the nature of their investigations and to protect the identity of their officers." I consider myself mostly a righty, but this was my best attempt at making it as unbiased as possible.

I don't have to use loaded words and phrases like "dilapidated warehouse", "military-like vehicles", "cages", etc.

I'll grant you that the article uses loaded terminology, but that's journalism now. That's not a proper excuse, but it is a reality.

Media companies have one job: to sell news. It doesn't matter if they're "leftists and liberals" or "rightists and conservatives." This kind of writing sells, but that doesn't make it inherently false.

Again, I'll use the Snowden and Greenwald example. When Snowden began leaking documents to Greenwald who then wrote for the Guardian, I found his writing to be very professional.

I can say the same thing you've said about the Guardian about media outlets on any side of the aisle. Fox, MSNBC, Breitbart, Mother Jones, etc...

That's why I HATE the Guardian. They are a bunch of leftist, liberal journalists, who try to make something so big, when it's not. As said above, they're using loaded words and statements to make this place seem so much worse than it is. 

Well fucking said.

How is what he shared research? It's nothing more than a statement from the Chicago Police Department that disproves nothing.

Other people have been taken here, this is just the first time it's been taken up as a big story.

 

I didn't say it disproved anything I said that he at least looked around for other news sources to try and get a different side of the story.

 

I am not arguing that other people haven't been taken there I am saying that apparently the only person who is making these claims is this one guy. Either The Guardian didn't do a good job of looking for other people who had similar claims or they don't exist. There might be bad things going on at that location but I am not going to take the word of one guy who was picked up on terrorism charges, it is going to take a little more evidence than that.

 

I am not saying The Guardian is a bad new organization but whoever wrote that article is clearly biased. The way they described things shows that they have some sort of agenda and want to paint CPD as a corrupt agency. They could very well be right but their hurting their own cause by writing such a clearly biased article.

One could say the same about rightist, conservative journalists who try to make something so big when it's not.

 

All in all, I think that the best way to prove that this place has nothing wrong would be to let the building open to investigation. They are like everyone else: if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to risk.

No doubt, I don't deny that. That's why I try to look at unbiased, and unfiltered news sites when it comes to controversial issues.  In opening up the doors, you may very well risk the safety and confidentiality of potential informants, witnesses, detectives, etc. 

 

I'll grant you that the article uses loaded terminology, but that's journalism now. That's not a proper excuse, but it is a reality.

Media companies have one job: to sell news. It doesn't matter if they're "leftists and liberals" or "rightists and conservatives." This kind of writing sells, but that doesn't make it inherently false.

Again, I'll use the Snowden and Greenwald example. When Snowden began leaking documents to Greenwald who then wrote for the Guardian, I found his writing to be very professional.

I can say the same thing you've said about the Guardian about media outlets on any side of the aisle. Fox, MSNBC, Breitbart, Mother Jones, etc...

Like I said right above, I don't doubt that. But when it comes to controversial issues, I try not to read or look at biased news sources. I never actually read that particular article about Snowden but I'll take your word for it.  

 

In this particular case nothing concrete was proven. They through one interview out of a guy who sounds like he's BSing a story that never happened. There aren't that many facts that they provide. Instead they turn to loaded words to attempt to persuade the reader to believe it's "denying innocent civilians their rights." 

No doubt, I don't deny that. That's why I try to look at unbiased, and unfiltered news sites when it comes to controversial issues. In opening up the doors, you may very well risk the safety and confidentiality of potential informants, witnesses, detectives, etc.

Like I said right above, I don't doubt that. But when it comes to controversial issues, I try not to read or look at biased news sources. I never actually read that particular article about Snowden but I'll take your word for it.

In this particular case nothing concrete was proven. They through one interview out of a guy who sounds like he's BSing a story that never happened. There aren't that many facts that they provide. Instead they turn to loaded words to attempt to persuade the reader to believe it's "denying innocent civilians their rights."

I suspect we'll see some more in the way of details come out in the next few weeks/months.

I suspect we'll see some more in the way of details come out in the next few weeks/months.

Unlikely. This hasn't exactly been "new news".