Chicago Police Apparently Has Their Own Guantanamo

Homan Square in Chicago. Kind of
a Chicago Police Guantanamo Bay. Probably
very unconstitutional. Will it be stopped?  

I've long been suspicious of heavy military equipment owned and operated by local police.

You know, tanks, missile launchers, all that kind of stuff that risks blurring the line between protecting and serving the public and turning areas to tense military zones.

But if a bombshell article in The Guardian is true, I had no idea it was this bad.

It turns out the city of Chicago has what amounts to its own Guantamano, a secret interrogation compound called Homan Square, which the Guardian called the "domestic equivalent of a CIA black box."

That means family or attorneys could not find people who might have been in there, people spent days inside shackled, sometimes beaten, and almost always denied basic Constitutional rights.

The horrifying Guardian article details the following:

"Keeping arrestees out of official booking databases.
Beating by police resulting in head wounds
Shackling for prolonged periods
Denying attorneys access to the "secure" facility
Holding people without legal cousel for between 12 and 24 hours including people as young as 15"

The Guardian said at least one person was found unresponsive in Homan Square and later died.

Not surprisingly, the Guardian said Chicago Police Department officials would not respond to any of the newspaper's questions.

It appears Homan Square has been operating since the late 1990s, but it's been so secretive that there's been little public attention. People who were brought or imprisoned there tend not to talk about. Apparently, it's been made known that discussing it could make Chicago Police act rather unpleasantly toward people who open their mouths.

Many of those brought there are people arrested at protests. I guess out of concern for terrorism.

But many people who are unconstitutionally shelved into Homan Square are just rank and file drug dealers and similar accused criminals. Why not just book them like you normally do when they are arrested?

More sane police officials seem to be quite appalled by Homan Square. It's true police often have an office or building somewhere in which most people don't know what's going on. It's usually a quiet little getaway where police can talk with informants without blowing anybody's cover

Hey, you gotta do things like that in police work, so that's cool.

But Homan Square is different: Says the Guardian:

"But a retired Washington DC homicide detective, James Trainum, could not think of another circumstance nationwide where police held people incommunicado for extended periods.

'I've never known any kind of organized, secret place where they go and just hold somebody before booking for hours and hours and hours. That scares the hell out of me that even exists or might exist,' said Trainum, who now studies national policing issues, to include interrogations, for the Innocence Project and the Constitution Project."

Trainum should be scared on two levels. One, as he pointed out, that this civil liberties hellhouse in Chicago exists, as he points out. He should also be scared that other police departments have their own versions of Homan Square, and we don't even know about it.

Of course, the next important question is who in Chicago knew about this. How high up the chain of command does this go?

But the Guardian article does suggest quite a little coverup. This place seems to violate the official rules of the Chicago Police Department, though I'm sure people follow a lot of looser unofficial rules, too.

The Guardian quotes a former Chicago detective and current private investigator names Bill Dorsch:

"Transferring detainees through police custody to deny them access to legal counsel, would be a 'career ender,' Dorsch said. 'To move just for the purpose of hiding them, I can't see that happening.'"

Then why haven't any cops, detectives or brass had their careers ended by the shenanagans at Homan Square?

I know, I know, focusing on this Guardian piece makes me look like I think all police agencies are a corrupt criminal racket. Obviously, that's not the case. I still have faith in most police departments.

I also know that Chicago has a rich and sordid history of corruption, and Homan Square seems to be just part of that, um, tradition.

But given the fact that this exists, and for all I know exists elsewhere, is disconcerting to say the least.

We keep getting a steady drumbeat of cases concerning police brutality, overreactions and such in the news, and that seems to be unrelenting. Like the case I read about today of a sheriff dragging a mentally incompetent woman by the feet through a Florida courthouse. 

Some of the police unions think police officers and departments can do no wrong. However, every organization has bad apples, and I worry police have more than their share. So why not weed out the bad ones.

Meanwhile, there are some people out there who think all police are awful. That risks encouraging a few wingnut wackos to go off and shoot some innocent cop. That's already happened, of course.

I'll repeat what I've said in the recent past: Maybe it's time for police departments to recognize that when people criticize some of their tactics, that doesn't mean we are anti-police. It can't hurt to at least listen to the critics. If the argument is bullshit, then fine.

But some critics might be exactly right about their police criticism. Really. It's time for reform.

If the Guardian's reporting is correct, time to disband the place One Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba is quite enough. We don't need more in the mainland United States.

Cops' Oversensitivity To Criticism Rolls On, Making Our Eyes Roll

Cops turn their backs on New York Mayor Bill de Blasio
as the mayor eulogies slain cop Rafael Ramos.  

Over the weekend, cops in New York turned their backs to the city's mayor, Bill de Blasio, gave a eulogy for NYPD officer Rafael Ramos, who, along with Officer Wenjian Liu, were murdered in cold blood by a deranged guy with a beef against the police.

Earlier this month,  Cleveland Browns wide receiver Andrew Hawkins wore a shirt during pre-game warmups that read, "Justice for Tamir Rice and John Crawford III."

The shirt was in reference to a kid with a toy gun that looked like a real one who was recently shot dead by Cleveland Police, and a Walmart shopper who was holding an air gun (but not menacing anyone.)

And predictably, some of the police union spokespeople practically had strokes being upset over some pretty mild protests.Judging from the reaction by the police union in Cleveland, you'd think Hawkins bombed police headquarters or something.

In the case of de Blasio, police union officials say the mayor has "blood on his hands" for even suggesting there could be some police re-training to prevent deaths like that of Ed Garner, who died in an apparent chokehold during an arrest by the NYPD.

A grand jury declined to indict an officer involved in Garner's death, prompting protests and calls for reform or retraining by de Blasio.

In New York, the pushback from police is at least understandable, since two officers were senselessly murdered. But still, showing such disrespect at a funeral to me is over the top. Especially since de Blasio isn't exactly out there saying all cops are scum.

He's just saying that there might be a problem if people are dying in violent encounters with police over relatively minor crimes.

I don't have any trouble whatsoever with police reacting to, or criticizing news of deaths at the hands of police. It just that some of these protests, particularly the one over Hawkins in Cleveland are really over the top.

The local police union in Cleveland, Ohio
reacted with over-the-top outrage
when Cleveland Browns wide receiver
Andrew Hawkins wore this protest warm
up shirt before a recent NFL game.  

Police Patrolman Union President Jeff Follmer quickly sent out the following statement:

"It's pretty pathetic when athletes think they know the law. They should stick to what they know beest on the field. The Cleveland Police protect and serve the Browns stadium and the Browns organization owes us an apology."

Well, then.

As usual with this kind of fake outrage over a protest like Hawkins' there's some intellectual fallacies here.

"They should stick to what they know best on the field."

So what you're saying is since Hawkins is a football player, he should offer opinions only about football and nothing else?  So does Jeff Follmer have no opinions other than those that have something to do with policing?

I also saw no evidence that Hawkins denies that police protect and serve the Cleveland Browns stadium, so where did Follmer get that?

Anyway, no apology was forthcoming. The Cleveland Browns organization and the NFL said the police are free to express their opinions, and players like Hawkins can express theirs, as long as they do it in a responsible manner.

Then Hawkins unintentionally made the police union guy look incredibly stupid when Hawkins eloquently explained his protest and his shirt to ESPN after the game.

Hawkins basically said a call for justice should not offend or disrespect anybody, that he respects every police officer who "protects and serves all of us with honesty, integrity and the right way."

"My wearing the t-shirt was a stance against wrong individuals doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons to innocent people."

He went on to say that his mother taught him as a youngster the unfortunately reality was there are bad police officers scattered among all the good ones.

Hawkins says he gets it that officers must make snap decisions under difficult circumstances, that it can't always work out perfectly and it's a hard situation to be in.

"But if the wrong decision is made, based on pre-conceived notions or the wrong motives, I believe there should be consequence."

Then there's this Hawkins said that goes to the heart of the matter, something Follmer doesn't seem to understand:

"I have a two year old little boy. The same two year old little boy that everyone said was cute when I jokingly threw him out of the house earlier this year. That little boy is my entire world. And the Number One reason for me wearing the T-shirt was the thought of what happened to Tamir Rice happening to my little Austin scares the living hell out of me. 

And my heart was broken for the parent of Tamir and John Crawford knowing they had to live that nightmare of a reality. So, like I said, I made the conscious decision to wear the T-shirt."

Well, then.

And when I say "Well, then." I mean it in a totally different way than when I was mocking Follmer.

Hawkins thoughtful comments are why people are up in arms over police shootings. As if that wasn't obvious.

All this publicity over police shootings have officers feeling under siege. That includes the good officers who really do protect and serve, who are thoughtful, who are professional, who find ways to somehow show grace under life and death pressure.

But criticizing, or just raising questions over why so many black people seem to die at the hands of white police officers isn't indicting every police officer in the nation. I also think these questions are actually good for all police officers.

Wouldn't they want to weed out the bad cops and promote the good ones? Maybe instead of whining, the police unions who get the vapors and are ready to faint at the slightest criticism can offer their own ideas for reform.

It seems like police and other other law enforcement have been pretty unscathed by public scrutiny over the years and maybe that's made some of them think they are above the law, which is ironic.

Or maybe a few of them don't want things to change, and think maybe it's OK if some black people get killed on the streets at the hands of white officers.

Some of the police union leaders/squawkers doth protest too much. If you overreact that much to some people practicing their First Amendment rights, maybe you're trying to squelch the attention that could lead to reforms.

I really hope that's not what's going on.