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

It's a hot topic, people will dig. Will anything come of it, we'll just have to wait and see.

The Young Turks did a great job at covering this. I invite everyone here to watch this video, the whole thing. This guy is well known for making sense.

 

The Young Turks did a great job at covering this. I invite everyone here to watch this video, the whole thing. This guy is well known for making sense.

 

I like Cenk Uygar but I don't think this particular video did much more than what the Guardian article provided, although it was a decent brief summary of the piece. 

The Young Turks did a great job at covering this. I invite everyone here to watch this video, the whole thing. This guy is well known for making sense.

 

It's a biased guy, throwing more bias on an already biased article. 

It's a biased guy, throwing more bias on an already biased article. 

He's an independent anchor, he's free to speak his mind. 

He's an independent anchor, he's free to speak his mind.

This is true, but Pavelow isn't wrong.

This is true, but Pavelow isn't wrong.

I'm not understanding where the bias would be coming from, isn't he just really opinionated? Its not like anyone wants this stuff to be happening.

I'm not understanding where the bias would be coming from, isn't he just really opinionated? Its not like anyone wants this stuff to be happening.

Opinionated = biased. That doesn't make what he has to say valid or invalid, but his opinion was crystal clear in his reporting of the matter.

Opinionated = biased. That doesn't make what he has to say valid or invalid, but his opinion was crystal clear in his reporting of the matter.

Alright, I buy that.

Alright, I buy that.

I do like watching Cenk Uygar though. Not so much the rest of the Young Turks, but definitely him. I respect him and I think he's got integrity, he doesn't automatically tow the liberal or Democratic line.

Opinionated = biased. That doesn't make what he has to say valid or invalid, but his opinion was crystal clear in his reporting of the matter.

No, not really. You can have an unbiased opinion, but in this case he is very biased.

 

 

These guys aren't any different than any other media source; just spewing bullshit about the law because they saw a couple episodes of Law & Order. He makes a mention of how the guy wasn't ever read his Miranda rights. Anyone who does even the slightest bit of research will find that you are only required to be read Miranda if they are asking you questions that could incriminate you. It is entirely possible to arrest someone and not once read them Miranda. The police can ask you questions about who you are such as your name, address, DOB, etc. and they are still not required to read you Miranda because those questions do not incriminate you of anything.

 

This is what I mean when I say that our media, mainstream or otherwise, is going down the drain. None of these guys want to research a topic, they aren't journalist anymore they are just people that read words off a piece of paper that is put in front of them. The stuff that guy said just makes my opinion of him lower. If you don't know what you are talking about then don't say anything; go do some research on what you are talking about then come back and talk. If there is something I see people talking about on here and I don't know much about it (or even if I think I know about it) I will do some quick reading on the topic so I don't sound like a dumbass when I join the conversation or I just don't say anything at all.

No, not really. You can have an unbiased opinion, but in this case he is very biased.

 

 

These guys aren't any different than any other media source; just spewing bullshit about the law because they saw a couple episodes of Law & Order. He makes a mention of how the guy wasn't ever read his Miranda rights. Anyone who does even the slightest bit of research will find that you are only required to be read Miranda if they are asking you questions that could incriminate you. It is entirely possible to arrest someone and not once read them Miranda. The police can ask you questions about who you are such as your name, address, DOB, etc. and they are still not required to read you Miranda because those questions do not incriminate you of anything.

 

This is what I mean when I say that our media, mainstream or otherwise, is going down the drain. None of these guys want to research a topic, they aren't journalist anymore they are just people that read words off a piece of paper that is put in front of them. The stuff that guy said just makes my opinion of him lower. If you don't know what you are talking about then don't say anything; go do some research on what you are talking about then come back and talk. If there is something I see people talking about on here and I don't know much about it (or even if I think I know about it) I will do some quick reading on the topic so I don't sound like a dumbass when I join the conversation or I just don't say anything at all.

That's fair, you're correct.

 

I completely understand that they can ask you for the kind of information you've listed without reading you your rights. That should be obvious to anyone. However, in this specific case, I highly doubt that over the course of 17 hours, the police didn't interrogate a man brought in on terrorism suspicions. 

That's fair, you're correct.

 

I completely understand that they can ask you for the kind of information you've listed without reading you your rights. That should be obvious to anyone. However, in this specific case, I highly doubt that over the course of 17 hours, the police didn't interrogate a man brought in on terrorism suspicions. 

It is possible that they were waiting on something and didn't interview him. Or maybe this guy is lying and he was read Miranda. So far this guy hasn't given me a reason to believe him.

It is possible that they were waiting on something and didn't interview him. Or maybe this guy is lying and he was read Miranda. So far this guy hasn't given me a reason to believe him.

Again, you've made  completely fair points. I suppose now it'll be a matter of waiting for new information. 

He did claim to have been interrogated, in which case he would have to be read a Miranda warning. He also claims to have asked for a lawyer; if you're being interrogated, then even if they don't read you a warning you can still request a lawyer and they have to give you one before continuing to question you.

I have no objections to having a place they don't publicize. Nor is it an issue to interview some kinds of people there -- that's an excellent place to talk to informants and undercover officers. But I draw the line at trying to hide that people held there are being held there.

trying to hide that people held there are being held there.

Allegedly. Again, based on the amount of bias and exaggeration I have seen coming from this story makes me question how much of it is actually true.

He did claim to have been interrogated, in which case he would have to be read a Miranda warning. He also claims to have asked for a lawyer; if you're being interrogated, then even if they don't read you a warning you can still request a lawyer and they have to give you one before continuing to question you.

I have no objections to having a place they don't publicize. Nor is it an issue to interview some kinds of people there -- that's an excellent place to talk to informants and undercover officers. But I draw the line at trying to hide that people held there are being held there.

He could have been held as an unlawful combatant. Extremely rare and exceeding circumstances, but could be true.

Another story about someone held at Homan Square is out. It may not prove anything directly, but it is another person making claims similar to the first story.

 

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/26/exclusive-chicago-black-site-detainee-speaks/