(07-19-2020, 07:11 AM)SilverFang01 Wrote: Deputy Secretary of DHS Ken Cuccinelli tells NPR not only are they not stopping the Portland tactics they're going to take them nationwide.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/dhs-under-boss-were-taking-this-national

And related thread:
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1284347817490874368?s=21

(07-19-2020, 07:05 AM)Matrix Dragon Wrote:

(07-19-2020, 06:04 AM)GethN7 Wrote: From what I understand, the guys doing the detaining in Portland have been identified recently, specifically as affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security, acting under what, according to my read of the law suggests, proper authority as determined by their federal charter.

Now, I want to go on record saying I'm a strong law and order type, but I also do admit it's concerning it's come to the fact organizations such as DHS are resorting to this. At the same time, I'd like to gently remind even the strongest anti-federal type it has long been a bulwark of US law that federal property and it's defense has always trumped state authority, a position Lincoln made clear in the American Civil War and which has stuck ever since.

While I support peaceable protest, attacks on federal property and/or it's employees can and will be met with by federal force. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

And I'd also like to remind people the authority to allow the DHS to act like this has long since legally passed the test of the Supreme Court thanks to a little thing called the PATRIOT Act, which I personally don't like, but has been defended thus far on legal grounds.

So while I utterly sympathize with those who consider this federal overreach, and even I'm disturbed it's come to this despite my own admitted biases, it is, however distasteful, legally enforcable. And said authority does trump the state so long as their DHS officials adhere towards detaining those who acted with destruction or harm to federal property and/or it's employees.

So, the response to graffiti and protests against police brutality is to grab people off the street at random in unmarked rental vans, intimidate them, then when they ask for a lawyer, release them onto the street without charge. It's to fire on protesters with 'less-lethal' ammunition that leaves victims crippled for life. Even if that bullshit is legal, and I have serious doubts about that, it's morally cowardly and disgusting, and a shining example yet again what your country has become. Video evidence keeps piling up. It's not the protesters that escalate to violence. It's the authorities, the heavily armed thugs in riot gear backed up by military vehicles, that are starting the violence and then blatantly lying about it, no matter how much evidence there is against them. They murder people on camera, and nothing is done. Your police, your border patrol, your goddamn prison officers, are being sent out to wage war on your own citizens, and you go 'oh well, it's legal for them to do that, so if you wanna protest, well, play stupid games win stupid prizes.'

(07-19-2020, 06:04 AM)GethN7 Wrote: From what I understand, the guys doing the detaining in Portland have been identified recently, specifically as affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security, acting under what, according to my read of the law suggests, proper authority as determined by their federal charter.

Now, I want to go on record saying I'm a strong law and order type, but I also do admit it's concerning it's come to the fact organizations such as DHS are resorting to this. At the same time, I'd like to gently remind even the strongest anti-federal type it has long been a bulwark of US law that federal property and it's defense has always trumped state authority, a position Lincoln made clear in the American Civil War and which has stuck ever since.

While I support peaceable protest, attacks on federal property and/or it's employees can and will be met with by federal force. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

(07-19-2020, 06:04 AM)GethN7 Wrote: And I'd also like to remind people the authority to allow the DHS to act like this has long since legally passed the test of the Supreme Court thanks to a little thing called the PATRIOT Act, which I personally don't like, but has been defended thus far on legal grounds.

(07-19-2020, 06:04 AM)GethN7 Wrote: So while I utterly sympathize with those who consider this federal overreach, and even I'm disturbed it's come to this despite my own admitted biases, it is, however distasteful, legally enforcable. And said authority does trump the state so long as their DHS officials adhere towards detaining those who acted with destruction or harm to federal property and/or it's employees.

(07-19-2020, 09:46 AM)robkelk Wrote:

(07-19-2020, 06:04 AM)GethN7 Wrote: From what I understand, the guys doing the detaining in Portland have been identified recently, specifically as affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security, acting under what, according to my read of the law suggests, proper authority as determined by their federal charter.

Now, I want to go on record saying I'm a strong law and order type, but I also do admit it's concerning it's come to the fact organizations such as DHS are resorting to this. At the same time, I'd like to gently remind even the strongest anti-federal type it has long been a bulwark of US law that federal property and it's defense has always trumped state authority, a position Lincoln made clear in the American Civil War and which has stuck ever since.

While I support peaceable protest, attacks on federal property and/or it's employees can and will be met with by federal force. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This raises the question: Were the people in question taken into custody on or near federal property?

According to the BBC report linked earlier in this thread, "Since at least 14 July, OPB reports, federal agents have been jumping out of unmarked vehicles throughout the city, and grabbing protesters seemingly without cause." How many Federal installations are there in Portland? Google Maps says they're in a seven-by-six block area (excepting the Reserve base) - that hardly counts as "throughout the city", but BBC isn't giving enough specifics to narrow things down.

(07-19-2020, 06:04 AM)GethN7 Wrote: And I'd also like to remind people the authority to allow the DHS to act like this has long since legally passed the test of the Supreme Court thanks to a little thing called the PATRIOT Act, which I personally don't like, but has been defended thus far on legal grounds.

I've never read the text of the PATRIOT Act. Does it allow ignoring Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)? All of the reports that I've seen indicate that this is the case on the ground in Portland.

(07-19-2020, 06:04 AM)GethN7 Wrote: So while I utterly sympathize with those who consider this federal overreach, and even I'm disturbed it's come to this despite my own admitted biases, it is, however distasteful, legally enforcable. And said authority does trump the state so long as their DHS officials adhere towards detaining those who acted with destruction or harm to federal property and/or it's employees.

Again, were they anywhere near Federal property? If not, then there appears to have been been an overreach of powers on the part of DHS.

(07-19-2020, 09:56 AM)robkelk Wrote: In that case, it looks like they're legally allowed to do what they're doing. Thank you.

(In Canada, the government has to invoke the Emergency Measures Act, previously known as the War Measures Act, in order to have that kind of power. The last time that was done was 1970. I guess I've gotten used to living in a free country, that I can be surprised at things like this that happen in other countries.)

(07-19-2020, 01:29 PM)Labster Wrote: The Border search exception, which allows border agents to search and detain without probable cause, applies to the homes of ⅔ of Americans.

To me Geth had a nice argument that it is all legal, and all of that logic could have been applied to the Fugitive Slave Act as well.  Sure it's legal, sure it's interstate commerce, sure it's stopping crime and enforcing public security.  But it is also wrong.