So, anyone here in Portland?

[SilverFang01]

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...s-national

And related thread:
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/12843...74368?s=21

[Matrix Dragon]

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...s-national

And related thread:
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/12843...74368?s=21

Because when you're clearly making a mistake, the Trumpian response is to escalate!

[classicdrogn]

Well if everybody is doing it, it can't be wrong! Everybody tells him! I'm starting to think that's the name of his imaginary friend. Or possibly the operator in the Russian/Reptiloid/Illuminati radio-implant in his head.

[Matrix Dragon]

Leave the Illuminati out of this.

[GethN7]

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.'

It's worth noting while I disagree with your overall contention of the situation, and while I'd argue the response of the authorities has remarkably restrained compared to the lawbreakers who have firebombed cars and buildings and tried to assault police including trying to blind them laser pointers, you do have a point about how it's contemptible it's come to the point federal authority has acquired the legal right to supplant police and skip the process of right reading to detain people who are suspected of assault or vandalism of federal property.

In that regard, I admit, I find it chilling. At the same time, this is a pretty extraordinary situation of mass civil unrest, and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made the Supreme Court decision that the suspension of certain freedoms may take place temporarily in the interests of public safety, so long as done under appropriately legal authority as signed off on by the Supreme Court, and DHS is doing just that.

I still lament we got to this point, and agree it's chilling this point got reached, but I disagree it's the authorities who are the real villains, else we'd be seeing a lot more senseless bloodshed than we have as they would have no compunction against murdering protestors (legitimate or otherwise) in broad daylight, witnesses or not.

[robkelk]

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.

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.

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.

[GethN7]

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.

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.

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.

Short version is that DHS may act as they see fit to defend federal institutions so long as they are within 100 miles of any legally recognized US border, including another country like Canada or the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Their radius of action is far more constrained otherwise, and I admit I'm not sure about the specifics in that regard. As for the PATRIOT act, yes, it does allow them to sidestep Miranda readings at the federal level unless they are by law the FBI or uniformed police.

[robkelk]

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.)

[Matrix Dragon]

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.)

The United States of America hasn't had real freedom or rights for a long time. All they have left is the paper thin defense of 'well, you know, it's technically legal.' Which, hey, lots of things are legal. Doesn't mean they're morally right in any way, shape or form. And those that hide behind that technicality rejoice in that knowledge.

[Matrix Dragon]

Right, I need to walk away from this thread before I punch a hole in the wall. This week I think I'll do some more local political work. Need to keep pushing to make sure police here don't end up like yours. Dozens and dozens of various alphabet agencies, all of which answer to various people... it's a problem any country can face after all, and having such a public example with yours helps us try and keep the corruption in line in ours.

[Labster]

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.

[GethN7]

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.

Never said it was moral, and I'm quite disturbed we got to this point. Just pointing out in this case, there is a legal shield behind what is going on, and it's already stood the test of the courts to make it legal.

[nocarename]

Did the idea that I once saw floated that this would apply for a 100 mile radius around any international airport finally get shot down then, or has it just not been trotted out in a while?

[Black Aeronaut]

Something to keep in mind, folks.

Unless your abductors positively identify themselves, anything goes.

Otherwise, how are you supposed to know that these are government agents pursuing their lawfully mandated duty, and not some human trafficking ring?

I know. "Agents did not identify themselves" hasn't been much of a defense this day and age as it's been practically reduced to hearsay.

But even so, I have a bad feeling that this is gonna get a lot worse before it gets better.

EDIT: And I know from painful experience that my "Bad Feelings" tend to be horribly accurate.

[classicdrogn]

If there was ever a justification to wear a body cam any time you're out in public... though that still doesn't help if the dudes in unmarked camo piling out of an unmarked van are in fact a lynch mob rather than actual feds.

[robkelk]

Portland's mayor tear gassed by federal agents

So much for law and order.

[hazard]

Well, that just got very interesting.

Not that it wasn't before, but this is an additional complication. Then again, did anybody expect any better than further police brutality? The ones in charge are cracking down on the peasantry, who cares if some nobodies get crushed under heel along with them?

[classicdrogn]

Well it is 2020 already, we're shockingly deficient in cybernetics, mohawks, wrap-around mirrorshades, and flying cars but at least the corruption and brutality can be brought up to snuff for that cyberpunk future we were promised.

[Labster]

At least we have the Tesla Cybertruck:

[Rajvik]

@GethN7
thank you for going more in depth for a response, i had to leave the thread when the immediate response was that of course Rajvik would back Trumps play here. The fact that no one even touched the content of what i said didn't help my temper.

Labster, your comparison to the Fugitive Slave Act is at best blowing smoke and at worst a strawman. For the time it was passed that particular piece of legal manure was perfectly legal however morally repugnant it was, (both then and now.)

What would be nice is if the mayor and police chief of Portland would deal with the problem instead of letting it run rampant to the point that the Mayor is trying to ride the Tiger that he has allowed to grow. Quite frankly this goes at least as far back as the ANTIFA "protests" where they took control of a major intersection in downtown Portland and blocked traffic. There was no permit requested, and no police used to disrupt the "protest" even when they started attacking people trying to go about their day.

[hazard]

Rajvik, AFAIK the way in which the local government of Portland has been handling the protests is actually how you handle protests. That is to say, so long as the protesters themselves act as a restraint on general rioting you keep the law enforcement action focused on the violence and otherwise led the population peacefully petition the government for a redress of their grievances in a group. Even when that is very inconvenient.

Because when you don't, a protest movement will not feel itself heard and it radicalizes.

The federal government's ham handed response to the situation in Portland, going over the objections of the local government and doing everything possible to be utterly unaccountable is going to cause exactly that. That's at best going to be unhelpful. Be glad that the US federal government elections happen within four months, there's hope for a peaceful revolution.

[Matrix Dragon]

He doesn't want a peaceful exchange of power and four years of your more rational people trying to steer Biden in a more central direction (Given Bidens role in helping Obama made things like the DHS worse, that'll be a challenge.) He's made it clear for years he wants more of what Trump's offering.

[Rajvik]

if they were were peaceful protests Hazard i would agree with you, but when they NIGHTLY turn into riots trying to burn a federal courthouse then they are not protests and should be treated as what they are riots. But i again point out that this is an old problem in Portland. maybe i need to dig up the videos to prove my point. i really dislike when you make me work for no real benefit as the lot of you will not believe it or turn a blind eye and make excuses.

Matrix, i love when there are peaceful exchanges of power, but i dislike when people do not bother to attempt to actually discuss points i have raised and go straight for the ad-hominem attacks. I find it fuckin hilarious that you think the leftist fringe that is pulling Biden's strings are the "Rational people" quite frankly the only person that was on the Democratic debate stage that was even more left of Biden WAS Bernie who IS a communist. (or maybe i should not malign those who decide to live in communes and give him the proper label of a MARXIST/STALINIST SOCIAIST but it is easier to call him a communist as people rightly label communists with the soviets)

[nocarename]

If it doesn't bother someone, it's a parade not a protest.

Now I love a good parade, I've marched in a few as part of the University Band, but they aren't the same thing and should not be confused.

If the desired outcome is that the protests stop then I'm not clear, personally, how shooting anything, of any lethality, at the protesters would make them calm down and stop protesting. I guess if you killed them, there would eventually be a shortage of people present, but if that's off the table then you are looking at some combination of physical endurance and mental endurance.

I assume that the plan from the Feds is to just to just physically keep going longer than any Portland protesters. Maybe? That and mind games with people being bundled into unmarked vans-that would increase the stress levels for everyone involved I'm sure. It does seem flawed in that if the protests are still going when the election happens then you have a, let's call it mobilized, base. That's four months away, of course, but time is so weird right now I'm not sure what four months really means anymore.

[classicdrogn]

So... where were these guys when a bunch of protesters toting actual semiautomatic weapons stormed federal buildings in April? Liberate Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia, but fuck Oregon, amirite?