The disappeared: Chicago police detain Americans at abuse-laden 'black site'

Fuck british media, it's sensationalist, has a low level of credibilty, and sucks monkey nuts. how 'bout that, choirboy?
 
.. I'm confused, what's The Guardian got to do with it? I thought this was MSN. Not that there's a whole lot of difference to some extent, but still, NOT The Guardian.
Or were you making a joke?
 
the original article is from the guardian. I don't think any media is completely objective but I peg the average British daily at a far lower level of trustworthiness than, say the Wall St Journal or NY Times.
Pick up a copy sometime and witness how much fluff and sensationalism your average british paper is made of.
None of the practices from this article, although they're all fucked, yeah, are unique.
It's just a bunch of barely related stuff cobbled together to sell copies (like the Chicago PD officer turned Guantanamo interrogator. What does that have to do with the "nato 3"?)
I'd say the big issue is folks not having their data entered into the computer system after their arrest.
It's actually legal for the cops to hold you up to 24 hours w/out charging you, fucked as it is. (23 hour 59 minute "detention" is perfectly legal)
 
I caught the detention thing too, and found it a little odd that they would follow *that* by the book, while not booking in a timely manner. Especially since the prisoners aren't officially detained in the first place, it would be easy to fudge the books. Here's the immorality: they know "misplaced paperwork" and the like can be covered up and excused, but keeping someone 24+ hours is a legal hassle and liability, so they make sure *not* to do THAT.
 
MURT said:
the original article is from the guardian. I don't think any media is completely objective but I peg the average British daily at a far lower level of trustworthiness than, say the Wall St Journal or NY Times.
Pick up a copy sometime and witness how much fluff and sensationalism your average british paper is made of.
None of the practices from this article, although they're all fucked, yeah, are unique.
It's just a bunch of barely related stuff cobbled together to sell copies (like the Chicago PD officer turned Guantanamo interrogator. What does that have to do with the "nato 3"?)
I'd say the big issue is folks not having their data entered into the computer system after their arrest.
It's actually legal for the cops to hold you up to 24 hours w/out charging you, fucked as it is. (23 hour 59 minute "detention" is perfectly legal)
Click to expand...
Yes, you can be 'held for questioning' without being charged. You can't not be 'in the system' in some way. There is a chain of custody and you must be 'signed over' from one person/department to the next. They may play games about allowing you to contact a lawyer, such as "We're still in the booking process." But if you're not being booked then they are outright just denying you your rights. And IF it is normal at this one location that a lawyer does find out where you are at and shows up at the door and they don't accommodate him in a timely manner then that is also rather suspicious.
 
Jaguwar said:
I was having a discussion with my boyfriend about the general pop just last night. I argue that 99%of people LIKE being governed, being told what to do, bring forced into compliance. Most see no other way. In that regard, the problem is more about the general population than about the government they used to know to protect themselves from. Does that make sense, or am I talking out my butt?
Click to expand...


No, I agree entirely.

To Quote Crass: "Systems aren't made of bricks they're mostly made of people"

It's a war for hearts and minds. People need to be educated and learn that they don't HAVE to live under a goverment/ruler/etc. Just because that's the way 'its always been' is bullshit.
 
old thread i know but just thought i'd correct a few inaccuracies - The Guardian is not owned by Rupert Murdoch and never has been.... its owned by the Scott Trust Limited... its also not generally considered a tabloid or particularly sensationalist - its one of our more factual newspapers with a distinct left wing slant... i don't put much faith in the UK news media but as papers go there are a lot worse !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top