I'm surprised that someone hasn't been shot yet. Unmarked camouflage officers in unmarked vans that do not identify themselves as officers sounds like they might get shot at if they try detaining the wrong person.
It's a no-win situation. If they fight back, they get labeled as terrorists. If they don't fight back, it provides positive feedback for the behavior and is likely to continue.
They aren't unmarked - their camouflage uniform clearly says "POLICE" on the front.
To be clear, do not shoot someone with POLICE written on their uniform, or even anyone you suspect might be a police officer, because you will spend the rest of your life in jail.
The pics I’ve seen show a small “police” patch in dark lettering over camo obscured by assault rifle straps and equipment. That’s not very clear in the dark when they don’t identify themselves and are putting a bag over your head
Especially with lots of alt-right military-cosplayers that frequent portland to stir up conflict. It's hard to tell who is a fed goon and who is an alt-right goon when they both shop from the same military suppliers. This has been going on for over a year.
Do you have an issue with undercover cops? Plain clothes cops? They all have unmarked cars. I dont hear anyone complaining....
The only reason people are freaking out is because they are going directly after antifa. You attack federal buildings, you get arrested.. or let go because NLG is a legal arm of Antifa and pays your bail.
> certain legal requirements, like the miranda warning
No. Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their rights," they can escape punishment. Not true. But if the police fail to read a suspect his or her Miranda rights, the prosecutor can't use for most purposes anything the suspect says as evidence against the suspect at trial.
Miranda must only be given prior to interrogation - it does not need to be given prior to arrest. Anything the suspect says is inadmissible until Miranda is read.
According to reports, Miranda is being read to people after they are taken away.
Was just in Portland last weekend. Other than the all the masks, and the awesome new outdoor dining where they shut down streets for restaurant patrons, it's identical to how it was the last time I was there in November.
These are authoritarian scare tactics to make the protestors stop protesting police violence, so that they can go back to the violent status quo and maintain the blue wall of silence. The outcry from the pro-militants about public property damage is a day late and a dollar short: the point of the protests is about the murder of innocent blacks by out of control police. Murder >> Vandalism.
Want the protests to stop? Address police brutality, don't escalate with random acts of surreal violence.
DHS is like that youngest kid that gets to do a lot more and get away with. Assume that what happened is legal and this type of `snatch and go` is a valid way to detain someone. Does it make it right? It doesn't sound like they were grabbing someone who had an arrest warrant against them. The state seem to not know that these detention were being made. Hard to know who is making the arrest. Hard to know what was being done during detention. Was their phone copied? Is that okay? Maybe more than just the local police have a bit too much power than they need.
Wow, that's a long list of mostly labeling minor property damage "violence". In a context where there have been some killings (car driving into demonstrations, shootings) - this seems like a clear case of wrong priorities along the lines of:
Have you seen pictures from Portland? It looks like the site of a third-world battle field.
I'm sure it sounds like minor property damage, but when you see what's happening, it's not as minor as you think.
Remember, these are the folks that destroyed the elk statue for some reason. Nobody is really talking about the fact that these riots have been going on for more than a month, so people don't know how bad it is.
If you’re looking to hear the other (pro-police) side of the story, I’d recommend checking out this video by YouTuber “Donut Operator”. He’s a former LEO and he makes pretty fair videos doing breakdowns of officer involved shootings and whether they were justifiable or not. He did some commentary on videos coming out of Portland.
He doesn’t defend police that hurt innocent people. His video on the George Floyd death doesn’t make any excuses for the officers. Plenty of other examples where he says the cops are in the wrong.
There is no "other side" for unidentified officers in unmarked cars with no accountability. There's no justifying that. This problem could be dealt with by forces who identify themselves and can be held responsible for violations.
Do you have some videos explaining the "other side" for the SS too?
Well said. The attempt to divide this into a binary issue is (sadly) predictable. Nobody here should support the use of these gestapo-style tactics from the federal government, ever. For anything. Full stop.
It's even more that they're unmarked. They also refuse to speak at all or identify what agency they work for or even that they are law enforcement officers. They are also fastidious about proper pandemic face covering
It's almost identical to Putin's little green men in Crimea in 2014.
I'm very curious how it would play out in court if someone seriously tried to resist arrest with one of these guys. Are you really legally required to comply with someone shoving you around who won't even identify themselves as being a law enforcement officer as they shove you into their rented minivan just because they have a tiny patch that says "Police"? What about if they're not even the police, they're a federal prison guard or something?
I see a lot of comments on HN, and elsewhere along the lines of "America is so terrible! Look how the police treat their own citizens!"
The difference between the United States and many (most?) other countries is in the article's title: The word "sue."
In America, aggrieved citizens have the right to correct their government. It's not always easy. It's rarely quick. But it can be done, and it has been done hundreds or even thousands of times in the past.
Do you think they would be protesting still if there was an easier way to petition the government to make actual changes?
Of course not. No one wants to potentially risk arrest and or be seriously injured in the political process. What we're seeing is the last resort of people organizing against a broken political system.
No. These (mostly teenagers) want change that most people don't want. That is why the process doesn't work for them - because they are the minority opinion. So that's why they resort to violence.
probably closer to 18 - 34 demo based on looking over a number of arrest records. WRT the 2nd part, look up general polling for defunding the police, or general sentiment for communism
You can sue the government elsewhere, it is maybe even harder than the US but also an option.
But eg in Europe you have parliamentary and independent, government-funded offices whose job is to look out for such events and protect the citizens without the need for them to sue the state machinery. Like lawsuits it doesn’t always work, but at least the entry threshold is much lower. You just write a substantiated complaint to such office.
For this or other reasons, police and related forces feel more accountable and cautious in dealing with people, and the crime rates don’t seem any worse for it.
It also deliberately hinders progress with things like first past the post elections and the electoral college.
America is flawed from a purely game theory point of view. It has a lot of bugfixes it needs to implement, hopefully sooner rather than later, otherwise it will likely fail.
I think these minivans is a rational and smart move (amoral, but that's another story). The protest is snowballing and there's not enough police-like forces that blindly support the current regime. The administration understands that victory loves preparation and starts preparing now: they normalize the minivans, so people get used to them and won't question this later when millions of such minivans show up on streets. Generic outfit and lack of ID allows to hire just about anyone to work as a police-like force. My bet is that "the minivans force" will get out of control once they realise that nobody is looking after them. On a side note, I know that many rich and wealthy people have expressed a sudden interest to spend an extended vacation in new Zealand a few month ago.
Unfortunately the way I see people defend this sorta stuff is that they tend to work backwards. They were detained because they are obviously criminals and they are obviously criminals because they are protesters and are guilty by association.
Though I have a feeling that if any of the anti-mask protesters were treated like this you'd see sentiment change rather rapidly.
In the US the main power of policing is detaining on suspicion. A non-officer can only detain or intervene after observing concrete evidence. So what you are saying is "how it works" but with the caveat it needs to be recorded as an arrest to hold the system accountable to society.
They are, however, stabbing people that ask them to put on a mask [1], or shooting them [2] or assaulting them in general [3].
And let's be honest here. If you want to associate all protesters with the rioters, then I'll associate all anti-mask violence with the anti-mask protesters. Guilt by association should be treated equally, correct?
My wife chided me saying "can we not go to Nazis right away?", so I corrected to the Stasi, or the KGB. I'm appalled. I live in a suburb of Portland. The worst that can be said about what's going on here is there's a lot of graffiti.
I don't know how anyone can claim that The US retains some special status of freedom now.
Hop on a bus and go across the river; go downtown. Neighborhoods which are on the western "downtown" side of the river, but north of Burnside, are fine. Drive up MLK and you'll see nothing out of the ordinary.
If you are looking at our city only through the lens of some biased cameraperson, then you are getting a limited view. Go outside.
Indeed, go to a park! Only the two parks across from the downtown courthouse are closed.
Edit: Downvoters, go outside and look at Portland. Or, if you don't live in Portland, consider carefully why you think that firsthand observations are worth discounting.
Sure, during his time at Quillette, he regularly posted the full names of left-wing protestors after being told not to by the individuals. He was caught on video hanging out with a right wing group associated with AtomWaffen planning to commit violence at a local bar. He wasn't reporting at the time, and only started when an anti-facist group showed up.
Agreed. And no one should be okay with the police standing down while rioters smash public buildings, vandalize and desecrate public spaces and burglarize innocent local businesses. What is the fair middle ground, and how do we get there?
I’d suggest the fair middle ground is to loosen state power by defunding police departments and reinvesting in communities.
I keep seeing this sentiment voiced, but from a ground level looking up it comes off as closeminded because it implies that “riots” and “protesting” are different things. The reality is no one in portland tried to burn down the justice center, if they did they would be shot on sight. Whats happening is people are disrupting their societies to make a point to the people who run it that they’re doing a poor job. That’s a noble endeavor, no matter the means.
America’s founded on white supremacy, and America’s maintained white supremacy. I think it’s inspiring that people are targeting the police forces of their cities, who are in no uncertain terms the major enforcers of a rotten status quo.
>That’s a noble endeavor, no matter the means. America’s founded on white supremacy, and America’s maintained white supremacy.
That's fair. But understand that not everyone agrees with this, and will be willing to do what it takes to defend their way of life. What does the end-game look like?
“Protests.” Let’s be honest on both sides. What’s going on in Portland is violent rioting. “Demonstrators” don’t burn cars in the street, but rioters do.
Ok hold up. I actually live in Portland. There is definitely underplaying of the criminal activity going on by the media, but these are NOT riots.
Now I am not sympathetic to those who claim that Police aren't justified in declaring many of these unlawful gatherings, but I am also not sympathetic to those calling it riots. What is actually happening from my local perspective is that there are mostly peaceful protests with a minority who are engaging in criminal activity. And this is coming from someone whose building's lower windows are boarded up and has seen a rash of attempted break-ins to facilities like our mail room.
But regardless of the gray area of how local Police are trying to walk the line between shutting down criminal activity and respecting the majority's freedom of assembly, it is NOT ok for Federal Agents to be acting in any way besides securing Federal properties. Border Patrol is not local law enforcement. Federal Protective Service is not local law enforcement. Neither should have authority to do anything related to local law enforcement and they most definitely should not be doing anything off of Federal property. It's not their job to police Portland and no one wants them policing Portland; no matter what your views on the current state of unrest that much should be true.
So let me be honest, these aren't riots. Take it from a local...but also note that this local is not a participant so my perspective is from an arm's length at best.
> So let me be honest, these aren't riots. Take it from a local...but also note that this local is not a participant so my perspective is from an arm's length at best.
I'm a local, that lives within a 5 block radius of where this has been going on for weeks. I'd call them riots. I've seen with my own eyes, both sides shooting munitions at each other. Property is being destroyed. People are being assaulted.
This [0] happened last night. These videos have become so common over the past month, they're turning into the norm. I was woken up at 1:30 am this morning listening to PPB giving rioters a 5 minute warning to vacate before they start applying force. It's out of hand. I'm not surprised at all that the Feds have come in to defend Federal property and restore order.
> I'm a local, that lives within a 5 block radius of where this has been going on for weeks
Neat, I also live 5 blocks away from the Edith Green - Wendell Wyatt Federal Building.
And what I said is that there is violence going on and PPD has been trying to walk the line of declaring unlawful gatherings while respecting freedom of assembly for the majority who are non-violent. I am fine with Federal agents defending Federal property; I am not ok with Federal agents using unmarked vans to leave Federal property and snatch suspects.
You offered your proximal living location as a claim to credibility. I offered my own proximity as an equal claim to credibility. And I did stay on target, let me re-quote myself:
> And what I said is that there is violence going on and PPD has been trying to walk the line of declaring unlawful gatherings while respecting freedom of assembly for the majority who are non-violent.
Since it seems like it wasn't clear let me try to elucidate. There IS violence going on that is not acceptable. But there are ALSO peaceful protests occurring. It is my perspective that the MAJORITY of participants are not violent, but this is not an excuse for the violent behavior of the minority.
It's not accurate to broadly classify all the protests as riots. It's also not accurate to call all protest participants rioters. Doing so is a gross simplification; as gross a simplification as those trying to say these are just peaceful protests.
Orthogonal to this unfortunate line the PPD has been forced to walk for an extended time, Federal agents should not be doing anything other than securing Federal property. To again quote myself:
> I am fine with Federal agents defending Federal property; I am not ok with Federal agents using unmarked vans to leave Federal property and snatch suspects.
So rather than resort to a false adhominem (claim that I didn't stay on target), perhaps you could instead forward the conversation.
Although, perhaps it is best we politely leave things as they are since I think enough has been said. But if you think there are things I should be made aware of or still have something to add, I welcome further civil discourse.
Ah I think I see the disconnect. I was trying to make a nuanced observation that these aren't just riots. Re-reading my original comment, I find my phrasing lacking so mea culpa.
So it would seem re-reading the thread with that context, we actually agree. There is riotous behavior occurring, although not all participants are rioters. Regardless, Feds shouldn't be doing anything other than securing Federal property.
Feel free to add nuance to the summary, not trying to speak for you, just recapping as best I can.
These are absolutely not violent riots. They are organized protests with specific demands, and are generally supported by the people who live here.
If we're being honest, then we should recall the way CHOP in Seattle was characterized by the right as some sort of Mad Max murder hellscape, and how that bore virtually no resemblance to what was happening. We should consider how this movement may be similarly misrepresented by conservative voices to present a vision of the left-leaning Pacific Northwest as somehow "out of control".
But regardless of the protests, we have militarized federal agents patrolling the streets of a city where they are not welcomed by city or state leadership. It should scare the shit out of everybody. I stand with Mayor Wheeler and city leadership in wishing they would leave.
I wouldn't call it hyperbole. Men in fatigues, who decline to identify themselves as law enforcement, are grabbing protesters off the streets and putting them in unmarked minivans. There are videos of this. From the article:
> On July 12 a peaceful protester was struck in the head with an “impact weapon” and sustained severe injuries, according to the AG’s office. On Thursday, it says, “an unmarked minivan with undercover federal agents wearing generic green military fatigues” forcibly detained a second protester, who was later released.
They’re wearing uniforms, arresting people suspected of crimes, and then releasing them. That is not even remotely similar to “secret police disappearing people.”
Let’s be reasonable and honest about what is going on here.
Can you point to anything that says they're identifying which agency they're with via "agency patches"? That's not mentioned in the article.
Also, having "police" on their uniforms is meaningless. If you want to know where they disappeared someone to, are you going to look up "police" in the phone book and give them a call? Give me a break.
Burning cars, so what? Parisians riot like this about every 18 months or so and the state doesn't call out the secret police and somehow the country still exists.
The initial detention of suspected criminals usually is “extrajudicial” in that it’s done by police without a warrant from a judge. These are federal officers instead of the local police (who should be handling this, except that they’re being hamstrung by local officials’ pandering to the mob). But that doesn’t make them “secret police.”
Whilst it's potentially interesting, this submission will probably get flagged by other users who can see that the flame value outweighs any curious discovery.
There are a few comments which follow the guidelines and encourage discussion though, but more that are quick to temper.
I’m no lawyer, but the article implies that the purpose of the lawsuit is not to seek compensation but to stop the Federal Government from continuing these operations.
The States should prevail, because under the Constitution the Federal Government does not have police powers and under the 10th Amendment police powers are reserved for the states.
Now the limit on the Federal government police powers has eroded slowly (like all limitations on the federal governments power under the constitution), so you could point to the FBI, secret service, ICE/CBP...but if the Federal Government prevails it would be a giant leap in erosion of State rights and limitations on Federal powers. Basically it would be negating the 10th Amendment and authorizing the Federal Government to establish their own police and unilaterally deploy them nationwide.
In short the States should prevail based on police power and 10th amendment arguments, but I wouldn't foreclose this being the spark the Federal Government is looking for to gain the police powers they have always wanted. If the Federal Government prevails over the States here, you can anticipate a "commerce clause" argument where the Federal Government will use mental gymnastics to claim State failures to police their States effect interstate commerce, so the Federal Government must have the right to step in with their own police powers and regulate.
That’s the plenary “police power” you’re thinking of, and it has a lot more to do with the constitutionality of legislation than with actual police work. It doesn’t mean that federal officers can never engage in police-like activities.
We have seen federal agents acting as police and detaining and arresting individuals on the streets over objections from the Governor and Mayor.
If you are going to support these acts:
1. Cite any legal precedent where Federal government has policed and made arrests over state/local government objections?
2. Identify the Federal Criminal Statute any of the suspects violated authorizing these "arrests"? (presumably even if you believe the Federal government has the power to police over State/local objections, you hopefully agree they don't have the power to make arrests without probably cause a crime was committed, so what is are the federal criminal statutes?)
3. Now even supposing the Court did side with the Federal Government, finding that they have police powers they may unilaterally deploy over objections from local governments and that the arrests here were lawful, you would still tons of other Constitutional issues. For example: in all the arrests I have seen, I have not seen any miranda warnings, post arrest I have yet to find any confirmation the arrestees were afforded their constitutional rights to an attorney...seeing as the Federal agents to date have not had these traditional police powers I think it is fair to assume they haven't received this basic training, and for that reason alone even if the Fed had these powers they are still likely violating numerous constitutional rights in each arrest.
Before invoking the powers under the Act, 10 U.S.C. § 254 requires the President to first publish a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse. So if this is your precedent and there is no Presidential proclamation, then you would agree Trump has engaged in illegal acts?
>2. Attempting to burn down the federal courthouse would probably violate federal law, one would think.
There have been multiple "arrests" on video, and in the video the individuals were not attempting to burn anything down, much less a federal courthouse, in fact they weren't even near a federal courthouse and had no materials in their hands to suggest they could burn anything down.
>3. You’re just speculating. There’s no reason to think the arrestees aren’t being mirandized and given access to counsel.
There is video of some of these "arrests" including the prior to the interactions, the initial interactions, the detention, the "arrest" and placement into unmarked vans...in these videos there was no Miranda given. Since when is verifiable video evidence speculation?
But yes, my point is even if a court ruled the Federal Government has this power, there would still be many other Constitutional protections that apply, and based on what we have seen there seems to be those kinds of violations based on verifiable video evidence. I have also yet to see anyone who was arrested be bonded out nor make a public statement through any attorney...where are these arrestees held? Have they been afforded the right to an attorney? Have they appeared before a Judge for bail?
1. I don’t know if this is exactly what’s being relied on here. You asked for any example, and this is one.
2. It’s easy to trim videos to remove the incriminating parts. You can make anyone look like the bad guy with selective editing.
3. Maybe they mirandized them as soon as they were in the van? We have no idea. Anyway, failure to mirandize doesn’t make an arrest illegal—it just means that if the suspect says something incriminating before the Miranda warnings, it can’t be used against him later.
The fact that you haven’t seen anyone bonded out is meaningless.
You missed the part of that statement that was emphasized. I was saying that the fact that you personally haven't seen it happen doesn't mean it isn't happening.
> I was saying that the fact that you personally haven't seen it happen doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Yes, when bail hearings aren't seen, its good proof they aren't happening because its contrary to legal procedure. Are you claiming all people snatched off the streets have had bail hearings in secret and for some reason the court orders aren't being made public? You do realize news would show up to these bail hearings if they were happening and otherwise the Court orders would be public record right?
You have the President bragging about these actions:
"We’ve done a great job in Portland," Trump said. "I guess, we have many people right now in jail, and we very much quelled it. And if it starts again, we’ll quell it again very easily. It’s not hard to do if you know what you’re doing." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/17/report...
The fact people would be in still be in jail as opposed to being brought before a judge for a bail hearing shifts the burden, sure some could have been denied bail (on the merits), but either way the Judge/Court order would exist, the fact there are no court orders is prima facie evidence they are not happening, there are ongoing violations of constitutional rights.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also condemned the reported actions of the agents.
"Usually when we see people in unmarked cars forcibly grab someone off the street, we call it kidnapping," the organisation wrote on Twitter. "These actions are flat-out unconstitutional and will not go unanswered." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53453077
Anyway its clear this won't go anywhere, because unless I see that which does not exist, in your opinion the same can not be excluded from existence...which is obviously an impossible burden. Should unmarked militarized federal officers occupy your city and snatch you off the streets, I wish you the best.
I mean, it's not like these people are just being disappeared. "Federal officers have charged at least 13 people with crimes related to the protests so far, while others have been arrested and released . . . ."
Taking a guess, the reason they're kidnapping many people just to release them without charges is because they're fishing for people with out of state IDs to strengthen the claim of federal jurisdiction. The lack of arrest paperwork fits with this - if they kept a paper trail of all their plainly unlawful attempts, it would risk upsetting whatever narrative they use to charge the unlucky ones.
It may also be partly about proactively anticipating civil lawsuits for false imprisonment and other violations of civil rights. If there is no record of these arrests it will frustrate future civil claims, where the Feds will just deny ever arresting claimants and for the most part unless on video there will be no evidence of the claim.
Since this took place outside the Federal Courthouse during a riot where members of that group were attempting to burn down the courthouse, the Federal Officers have jurisdiction to arrest and prosecute any suspects at the event.
The officers in question have no duty to identify nor use police marked vehicles (note their uniform DOES say POLICE on it).
As long as the officers present the suspects in court with convincing evidence that they were personally involved, they're going to federal prison.
source: Best friend is a federal officer.
tldr: Do not try to burn down a Federal Courthouse. You will not pass Go. You will not collect $200.
It will turn out the way everything else turns out in the age of fruit fly attention spans and everyone trapped in arms races for that attention - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen%27s_race
Because they're being conducted by unidentified agents of the state and there isn't a thorough public record of it. The idiom refers to state records, not to public knowledge or visibility.
This presumes that local law enforcement with the requisite authority to allow this, such as the county sheriff, has not assented to the Federal agents operating in their jurisdiction. Many of the complaints are coming from people (like the Mayor of Portland) that have no meaningful authority over the operation of the Federal government in their jurisdiction. And the people that do have authority are quiet.
It looks more like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and the right hand doesn't need the left hand's permission to do it.
Are they police, though? I was under the impression that federal agents are not police?
Should they not identify as whatever agency they are? I would even imagine (but I could be wildly wrong about this) that for example an FBI agent is not allowed to identify as a police officer?
Federal agents often wear "Police" because that is the most well recognized word to indicate law enforcement - and works in multiple languages.
The point is to ensure that arrestees know they are law enforcement.
There is no legal requirement to indicate they are police, let alone the specific department they are in. An undercover officer can arrest someone without any badge or marking at all.
> an FBI agent is not allowed to identify as a police officer?
I don't know what gave you that impression. They are law enforcement officers with the jurisdiction to arrest anywhere in the US.
Aside from the that it really isn't clear (a small yellow patch on the front of an otherwise military-styled uniform, not to mention the unmarked vehicles), the definition of "police" really matters here. They aren't police as any regular citizen would understand them. They are U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents, whose objectives have nothing to do with the city of Portland or its residents.
It's insufficient because it doesn't identify someone as a member of law enforcement in a way that can actually be verified.
Someone in fatigues with a "POLICE" patch driving up in an unmarked van could be the police, or they could be Federal agents, FBI, ATF, ICE, or the like, or they could be some random militia acting like vigilantes. They could be protestors false-flagging. They could be anyone.
If someone was trying to kick in your door wearing generic fatigues and a patch that says 'POLICE' while refusing to identify themselves, would you let them in? I'm assuming that would be sufficient identity for you to agree that they are in fact police and they have a sufficient reason to kick in your door.
Unmarked vehicles filled with agents refusing to identify themselves whisking away protestors to unofficial sites to be interrogated (but released hours later without charges) is not "justice as usual". It's crazy that we're trying to justify this.
If they've truly done something wrong, issue a warrant or do a normal arrest like every other criminal. It's hard to see this as anything less than extra judicial intimidation.
This isn't about whether or not they get arrested. This is about certain ground rules and principles that the government must always uphold, even against unprincipled opponents.
Federal law enforcement officers, dressed in camo gear and without any identifying insignia, arresting and covering the faces of alleged rioters and stuffing them into unmarked vehicles and taking them God-knows-where is absolutely unacceptable.
These principles are what separates the government from the rioters. How are you going to hold the government accountable when you don't even know which government agency a certain police officer belongs to?
The uniforms in the videos clearly say "POLICE" on them. According to the people released, they were read their Miranda rights - and who cares that they are dressed in camo and using unmarked cars?
As long as the suspect is put before a judge, I don't see the issue.
A tiny amount of "police" text isn't worth much of anything. There is absolutely no defensible reason to hide the agency patch and badge number of every individual officer on the ground. There is absolutely no defensible reason to tie beanbags around the faces of arrestees. There is absolutely no defensible reason for the police to put arrestees into unmarked vehicles.
There is no way of ascertaining exactly who these federal agents are. This precludes court redress and is unacceptable.
I mean, they do seem to be sworn law enforcement, I just wonder if they are operating under any sort of valid remit that would make it reasonable to call them police.
This isn't idle banter, nor am I trolling for a ban or an FBI watchlist. The federal courthouse building [0] is one of several stone buildings downtown, built out of massive blocks of stone on the outside, with a core of steel and concrete. This building is basically a block-sized stone. I've been inside it a few times. I would not characterize it as flammable in the slightest.
Additionally, even during peaceful times, the courthouse blocks are designed to be guarded. Each courthouse is inset from the street and there are stone steps giving guards the high ground. I have personally had an experience where I was walking past this building, and I looked up the stairs at the door, and I slowed down. Within about five seconds, the door was open and a federal agent was asking me what I needed, while I was still standing on the sidewalk. The sidewalks are covered with spaces for police and federal agents to park, and again even during peaceful times, ever since 9/11 there have been multiple federal cars parked around these blocks.
So yeah, on both "how oxidize building" and "how not get shot by feds", I'd rate this courthouse 0/10, could not burn it and I'd get shot if I tried.
Carpeting is treated with fire retardant. Interior structures are built to fire code. Solid wood is flammable, yes, but difficult to ignite. Treated oak has even been used as a spacecraft re-entry heat shield - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanhui_Shi_Weixing .
If it's so easy to ignite that a few firework mortars can set it ablaze, then the US federal building security system is a joke just waiting for the next McVeigh and Nichols.
I’m not sure why you are arguing this. Arson is a horrible crime and the fact that it is being attempted towards fire resistant buildings (according to you at least, I’m not convinced) doesn’t matter. This makes me wonder if you also have a theory about why 9/11 towers couldn’t have fallen on their own...
Why am I arguing this? Your initial claim, that protestors are trying to burn down the federal courthouse, is totally unsubstantiated and smells like bullshit. It's worth arguing against because it paints protestors as violent agitators.
The horror of arson does not excuse extrajudicial precrime tactics. In fact, it is reasonably well-argued that no crime can excuse extrajudicial tactics, simply because committing crimes in the case of seeking justice for crimes will lead to never-ending criminal acts.
By what evidence are you not convinced that these buildings are fire-resistant? The positive circumstantial evidence is that, from both an encyclopedic source and firsthand hearsay, the building is composed of quarried stone, steel, concrete, marble, and bronze. The negative circumstantial evidence that you've brought up, that the office-interior decor may ignite and that the building may burn out from the inside, is not just speculative, but doesn't meet the original criterion: The building would not burn down just because it has fire damage inside. Even worse, once again your unfamiliarity with the building hurts, because you don't know about the marbled entryways and stonework walls, which don't have enough wood in them to sustain fire damage.
And then you bring up 9/11. What a red herring. What a non sequitur.
Finally, you failed to address a sibling point: That after the Oklahoma City bombing in the 90s, the Feds stepped up their stance on defending federal public buildings like courthouses. We are not really exaggerating the level to which these buildings have been secured. Again, this is something that you may have to visit and see for yourself to grok.
Please watch less Fox News, or whatever it is that is rotting your arguments in this way.
Arson is so horrible that it's worth sending in the DHS to override the local police?
No.
Emphasizing "flammability" is an unbalanced view which omits the ignition requirement which is part of Kednicma's "how oxidize building".
My theory on 9/11 is that the fire code kept the buildings standing until the heat from the unplanned-for fuel load caused the structural support metal to soften and weaken, leading to the collapse. Checking now, it's close to what Wikipedia describes.
Can you tell me why your question is at all relevant? Is your theory that firing firework mortars at this federal courthouse is so far out of code expectations that a special response is needed? If so, isn't that a huge flaw in the current system put in place after the OKC bombing?
Ironically, giving ideological ammo to the protestors that the system is rotten to the core and needs to be completely replaced. Unmarked rented vehicles kidnapping protestors that lead to interrogations in a secret offsite location sounds a lot like the Stasi or Nazi germany. No one should be ok with this, ever.
Where are the "second amendments against tyranny folks"? Oh, they probably support the police. Nice to see that when democracy is under attack, it's fine if they're just attacking the other side.
Seems like it's largely to shore up Trump's flagging poll numbers as the hope is that it plays well on Fox News. Feels like a fascist Nixonian "law and order" political calculation but like most Trumpian endeavors it will probably backfire.
edit:
Let's put this another way. If these were the anti-mask protestors or the anti-lockdown protestors how do you think this would go down? Do you think elements on the right would be okay with this? My feeling is that it would be a shit storm. But because it's happening to "left wing thugs", "looters" and "antifa" it's ok right? Whether you believe these people have committed crimes or not, having secret police round them up is completely unamerican. If they committed crimes, serve up formal arrest warrants, give them their Miranda rights and their day in front of a judge with lawyer representation.
Democratic values and human rights only exist for those who political positions we agree with, right? I forgot there was a clause in the constitution that allowed you to just skip articles because it happened to people you don't like /s
>Where are the "second amendments against tyranny folks"?
Not supporting the people who blame them for violence and want to take their guns away. Does that surprise you? Perhaps there is a lesson here somewhere.
What makes you think these protesters blame all gun owners and want to take their guns away? That seems like quite the reach and an over-generalization.
I think my point was that it was entirely a bad faith argument. They never cared about preserving freedoms, American democracy or the values that this country stands for. It was just a political tool in a cultural war chess game. It was to drive gun sales and get people out to vote.
They talk about having these guns to stand up to government overreach, preserving liberty and freedoms etc. Then when we have literal secret police in American cities taking away the very ideas of this country, they are nowhere to be found. They never believed it in the first place, or their interpretation is so skewed it's meaningless.
If your defense of freedoms or enforcement of American values is selective or entirely based on political ideology, what you actually believe is nothing at all.
Your placing awfully big demands on people you seem to hate. Perhaps they just don't think shooting people is the best strategy right now? Are they allowed to have other ideas than yours when it comes to how to respond to various situations? Many people are outraged over this and there will be various legal actions as a result I am sure. Maybe people want to see if the system works before starting an insurrection and getting themselves killed?
>They never cared about preserving freedoms, American democracy or the values that this country stands for.
I disagree, they do care about personal liberty and safety. If you are infringing on their rights, you aren't an ally.
>They never believed it in the first place, or their interpretation is so skewed it's meaningless.
This argument is so backwards it's hard for me to grasp. You have people saying "Ban guns! Ban guns!". Then the moment there's government overreach they cry, "where are the people with guns to defend us???"
I can tell you one thing: if the secret police were snatching 2A advocates off the streets, there would be a shooting war. This is why they want their guns, and right now, I'm sure they're happy they have them.
> If you are infringing on their rights, you aren't an ally.
Then they never cared about the values they hold dear. If you believe in "Freedoms" but those freedoms are entirely selective based on political ideology or convenience you believe in nothing. The constitution has no "rights whenever you feel like it" clause.
> "where are the people with guns to defend us???"
I'm actually not saying that at all. I'm not asking for anyone to defend anyone else. I'm noting the irony of how strong the arguments for the second amendment were mostly based around "standing up to government" and how much silence there is about very obvious and illegal government overreach. The exact same behavior that the 2nd amendment proponents literally said that's why they own guns.
It's just political hypocrisy and I'm pointing it out. They were certainly happy to show up in armed groups when their local bar was closed, but snatching people in unmarked vehicles to be taken to secret detention centers is ok?
I actually do not want 2nd amendment people to get involved at all, I feel they aren't well trained, they are mostly unequipped to handle the situation and based on most 2nd amendment people I know, I would not actually want them near any volatile situation. Rights for me and not for thee I guess.
>The exact same behavior that the 2nd amendment proponents literally said that's why they own guns.
This is about personal liberty.
When the secret police come for them, they will defend themselves with their guns. That's why they (claim to) own guns. Nobody buys guns to defend their right to own guns; they buy them to defend their own person and property.
The fact that someone else fights to take away their guns and then doesn't have guns themselves to defend against government overreach, well...how is that their problem?
That is only one aspect or part of the 2nd amendment proponents debate. There were many, many people who literally made the argument that the 2nd amendment exists to keep government in check. This is a very common trope or line of reasoning.
The libertarian crowd emphasized the personal liberty part more but the "government tyranny" argument was a huge part of the debate and discussion. So yeah, I call bullshit on this.
I think you misinterpreted the debate because I've never seen anybody sane advocating that armed citizenry should have been some kind of "super-police" that polices the government. "The check against tyranny" argument means that the armed people can put up resistance so a government that does not rule by consent of the governed may not last long.
But you didn't. You replied to those people that they could pry your guns from your cold, dead hands and they would be the first against the wall when the revolution came. You told us you and your guns were the only things keeping the only free state in existence truly free. You waxed poetic about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. You called anyone who believed in any form of gun control a coward and traitor, clucking with disappointment and condescending to them that "Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a bit of safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
And you were happy to rise up in arms over something as trivial as local quarantine ordinances requiring wearing masks in public or limiting your God given right to go to Applebees' any time you wanted.
But when it comes to actual secret police snatching people up off the street into unmarked vans, I guess it's fair game as long as it's "leftists" getting snatched.
Maybe its not just so much about "allowing" these acts because they are happening to "the other side", but just like most people who talk a big game when push came to shove they found themselves shitting their pants and realizing their worst fears about the government came true and their worst fears about themselves that they are all talk and it was easy to scream give me freedom or give me death until the armed government came for their freedom.
It seems to be about both. You can find plenty of comments from gun advocates in this thread claiming that these protestors deserve what they get because they're probably anti-gun anyway.
Yeah but you don't know if the posters aren't just trolling, and even if legit gun advocates you can't really expect them to come out and say this is what I always feared and never realized I was just talking shit about what I would do if this happened and surprised to learn I am just a coward that is scared of the government.
This is more evidence to add to the pile pro-2nd people have to never compromise. The last really bad one was police taking guns from people during Katrina.
This is probably far worse. There's no way it is legal, and if it somehow is, it is more evidence of how badly out of touch with reality most judges are.
Just out of curiosity, if the next headline is that the protesters have shot back at police or border patrol rather than be shoved into a van, what is your likely response?
Gun owners are just as likely to be on tyranny's side as against it. If it was truly about freedom and anti-authoritarianism not a single gun rights voter should be for the actions taken by the federal government in Portland. They would be against Trump suggesting to send in the army - in fact, they would show force against these things - not against masks.
Well if you don't use it to defend democratic values then I'd say you don't deserve those guns. The 2nd amendment was literally a hedge against these situations but many of those strong believers in the second amendment are conspicuously absent and probably side with the right wing fascist elements. Unfortunately many if not most gun owners seem to be entirely ok with eroding American democratic values and freedom so long as the other side "gets what's coming to them".
Yeah, because we’re tired of mayors and governors letting the real fascists own the streets, causing untold violence and damage. If those folks are breaking the law, it should be no surprise when they’re placed under arrest.
Getting really tired of these stupid strawman arguments being used to push an agenda that has nothing to do with current events. Why are you even talking about the 2nd amendment here? Why do you assume people that support the 2nd amendment are all right wing fascists?
Yes there is an apparent a correlation between groups, at least with how mass media portrays things. But at this point we need less animosity between libertarian sects with different backgrounds and different immediate concerns. Rather than continuing to alienate them for being wrong, figure out how to make friends with those "second amendments against tyranny folks".
Wheeler himself has denied it to be the case, however police actions and statements have strongly hinted it to be the case.
I believe right-wing media vastly blows the degree to-which this policy is in effect. The washington Times cites an incident where the police involve themselves at moments of mutual violence, but conducted no arrests. Portland's been a flashpoint for extremist violence for years.
"It’s time for our Mayor to do two things: tell both ANTIFA and Proud Boys that our City will not accept violence in our City and remove the handcuffs from our officers and let them stop the violence through strong and swift enforcement action. Enough is enough."
Please follow the site guidelines when posting here. Note this one:
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
It's a perfect Kafka trap, by resisting arrest by secret police in unmarked vehicles you can be labeled as a "domestic terrorist" later, justifying the arrest post-hoc.
It's especially concerning they have no ID or agency badges, as right wing extremists have been using the protests to dress up like soldiers.
Antifa was declared a terrorist organization. They were seen as co-opting a movement, instigating with violence throughout the country, especially in poor neighborhoods, and attempting to start a race-war. However you may feel about the designation, the means to stop them are deemed serious enough to warrant these measures.
Is this true? Was the identity right declared a terrorist organization as well?
Did "antifa" killed someone in the US? (Genuinely asking, i stopped following the new around may).
Because I will tell you that Antifa in europe is the leftist equivalent of the identity right (neonazis groups and white supremacists). So if antifa as a whole is deemed a terrorist organisation despite not having killed anyone while you have members of the identity right driving into a crowd or mass shooting people at a synagogue and the identity right as a whole is not at least declared a terrorist organization, this is a weird asymmetry.
No. There's been violence for sure, but 'antifa' as people claim have no murdered anyone nor caused any mass murders. Trump has said that he will declare them a terrorist group however.
The great irony of this all is that we have direct examples of the alt-right straight up murdering people during protests. Like Heather Heyer. But the Unite the Right rally 'wasn't responsible', it was just some rogue person totally unrelated to the alt-right (despite them cheering it on).
During these events, all protesters are considered rioters and thus are considered criminals. But during Unite the Right, not all protesters are considered neo-nazis despite marching with neo-nazis. Guilt by association for BLM, and then 'fine people on both sides' for neo-nazis.
We're at the point where the larger Republican establishment either needs to repudiate and remove this anti-American wannabe dictator, or they're going to find themselves at the guillotine alongside him. Our society cannot take another 6 months of economic destruction, brazen totalitarianism, and weaponized ignorance.
I can't tell if this comment is serious... What makes you think the White House orders these arrests?
I would imagine that the local Federal offices are happy to arrest people who attempt to burn down a Federal Court house, and would have done exactly the same under Obama, Clinton, Bush, or Trump.
My comment is genuine, but I can't see how yours could be. These kidnappings are not taking place at the federal courthouse, nor in direct response to attacks on it. By default, federal officers don't drive around in camouflage snatching people off the street.
These highly unusual actions are obviously being ordered by the White House. Trump has been pushing various justifications for how the federal government should have jurisdiction to squash the BLM protests. Cities have wisely come around to deescalating the fighting between their local police forces and protest crowds, but Trump has consistently worked to inflame the situation. This is his latest stunt.
