Perhaps it’s time to return Portland to the Chinook.
It belongs to the people, not “the feds.” It is “our building” in the larger sense.
I don’t agree with, and in fact, detest the fact that protesters are setting fires, which I think severely muddies the waters of these conflicts – don’t give them a chance to say lives were at stake. I will defend peaceful protest to the grave, and I will defend protests that involve some degree of property destruction done by a few, where it is not the aim of the protest. But setting fires at occupied buildings needs to stop.
So, my reactions to the local police have been mixed, depending on what exactly has been going on.
But the feds are scary. This city was not under siege from the protesters, but it feels more like it is under occupation by troops now. I live here, and I have not seen a single violent incident in person. I’ve been to a few protests that did not involve violence (by protesters or police). Protesters have been targeting a few select buildings.
What the feds are doing is by far the scariest thing since it all started. I’m not sure if the OP got answered, but the most clearly illegal thing the feds are doing is that it looks like they are grabbing people without probable cause. You can hold someone for some amount of time before charging them, but you have to have probable cause to believe that they committed a crime. Picking up people, holding them for a few hours without formally arresting them, and scaring the crap out of them, then letting them go without charges strongly suggests that they have no probable cause to pick them up in the first place.
Assuming law and order prevails, those federal officers are likely going to be facing some serious civil rights lawsuits. (Which ultimately means that we will all pay for it).
[quote=“SmartAleq, post:279, topic:915638, full:true”]
The moms did NOTHING to warrant being teargassed and shot at. And that fence is a few panels of temporary chainlink that’s been a sore spot for the entire protest.[/quote]
Yes, it’s a few panels of chainlink fence, what does the length or material of the fence have to do with anything? Why did you bring that up?
Are you saying that if the fence was made of wood and was a bit longer then the agents would have been justified but due to being short and just chainlink then those fences are always ok to tear down?
And in what way is the fence a “sore spot”?
Absolutely, this is clearly a bold power political move by trump and Barr, that was their Reichstag fire. Scary as hell.
By the way, dont demonize the poor dudes ordered to do those things. Some may be enjoying it, other dreading it. Since it is not blatantly illegal , they have little choice. And by demonizing the agents, people are playing right into Barr’s hands- that is exactly what he wants.
It is Barr and trump who are the real bad guys.
I agree. As I said previously, I’m glad the ACLU exists and hope they push back on this.
So what is your opinion about Seattle CHOP and the takeover by protesters of that portion of the city? Seems like the same principle should apply.
I couldn’t drive through there to pick up my son (who lives near there), which is about the same as you not being able to walk on the sidewalk due to the fence.
I can only assume you were equally enraged by those protesters in Seattle.
If you think it is a question of convenience, it sounds like you are a bit confused.
Your wish is granted:
No, because I don’t find the activities or persons of the Seattle protesters to be terrifying and a direct threat to my life and wellbeing, just like I had no qualms with making a delivery to the middle of the downtown area of Seattle during the '99 WTO riots. Those are my people, we have common cause. Cops and I don’t even inhabit the same world and their world, quite frankly, sucks. My grandson is active in the Portland protests and my nephew is active up in Seattle and I applaud them both. They’re fighting for the rights of regular citizens against creeping fascism and neither one of them knows what shoe leather tastes like. Good boys, the pair of them.
Well you support the political violence then. It’s very bizarre to be in favor of political violence in order to further a radical leftist agenda which the local leaders are enabling by not enforcing laws against looting, vandalism, arson, assaults, etc. and then cry about the use of force to restore order.
The cause against police brutality has been hijacked by anarchists and other far left groups such as BLM and it’s unfortunate because law enforcement does need reform. Yet, anarchy is not the answer and is very counterproductive.
Care to cite where did he claimed that his relatives are involved in looting, vandalism, arson, assaults, etc?
Also missing is the evidence that they are anarchists. Then it is very silly to try to separate this from BLM as if 1) it is one of the reasons why there a protests now and 2) it is really a demand for more order, not anarchy, to ask for respect of the law from the ones in power.
Yes. They’re fascists. That’s what they do. Anyone who opposes them - even in a peaceful manner - is an enemy to be opposed. If you’re not 100% loyal to the Dear Leader you’re the enemy, the bill of rights does not apply to you, and you can be kidnapped, beaten, or killed at the whim of the fascists.
So you’re saying Federal agents can’t tell the difference between a few violent men and a bunch of non-violent women? You’re OK with Feds assaulting absolutely everyone who happens to be out at the time without regard to who is actually misbehaving and who isn’t?
Isn’t that getting awful close to Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius? Which Americans have longed seem to be OK with when applied to other people far away, but maybe now that it’s being applied to them they’ll understand what is so wrong about that attitude.
If you are not part of the Cult of the Dear Leader you’re a heretic. That’s the place we’ve come to.
Yes. That is the point. The fascists are trying to scare people into compliance and if a few people get killed along the way so much the better because it makes them look “tough”. The point is to scare and to terrify. What do we call people who terrify civilians for political purposes? I think there might be a concise word for that.
If Trump is re-elected in November that won’t matter - he’s already demonstrated a willingness to get his followers off the legal hook.
Attacking people exercising their First Amendment right to assemble is legal… how?
Abducting people - not arresting them but kidnapping them - is legal… how?
Wasn’t it established 75 years ago that “just following orders” is not a valid defense for committing crimes and atrocities?
It’s going to take more than the ACLU and lawyers to combat this. They have a role to play, but we’re past just taking this to court.
I’ll point out that Andrew Jackson - a president Trump admires - openly defied the Supreme Court and got away with it. It’s not enough to get a legal judgement, it has to be enforced. Who is going to enforce a cease and desist order against these fascists?
Of course, if Trump gets in and doubles-down, and quadruples down, all of us here showing we’re not a member of the cult might get to “enjoy” a ride in an unmarked van. Because internet anonymity only goes so far.
The cause against police brutality has also been hijacked by far-right provocateurs who have been repeatedly filmed engaging in vandalism and violence during peaceful protests, people who strangely keep getting left out when the right talk about who is responsible for fomenting unrest. Because apparently they’re fine with that.
The cause against police brutality has also been hijacked by a right-wing strategy of deliberately conflating the majority of peaceful protesters with a minority of looters and rioters (some of whom, as noted above, are there specifically for the purpose of escalating violence and destruction) in order to de-legitimize the very real issues they are protesting against, and further deliberately and repeatedly misrepresenting what those protesting police brutality are about.
It’s very bizarre to be in favor of political violence, conflict escalation and criminal activity in order to further a radical rightist agenda which the federal government is actively ramping up right now, carried out by the very organizations that are supposed to be enforcing the law and order those rightists claim to stand for. But I guess you’re right - some people are just willing to support political violence when it serves their personal agendas.
This is trump’s pre-election narrative: the leftists (Democrats, that is) are tearing down the country and the federal gummint must stop them with his national police force. I always thought Republicans were opposed to too much federal oversight. 
He and his backup singers are going to be belting this from now until November.
…For decades, conservative activists and leaders have warned that “jackbooted thugs” from the federal government were going to come to take away Americans’ civil rights with no due process and no recourse. Now they’re here—but they’re deployed by a staunchly right-wing president with strong conservative support.
…“New York and Chicago and Philadelphia, Detroit, and Baltimore and all of these—Oakland is a mess—we are not going to let this happen in the country, all run by liberal Democrats,” he (trump) said. “We’re going to have more federal law enforcement, that I can tell you.”
While law enforcement violating civil rights is sadly not new, Trump appears to be trying to do something novel in this country: establishing a force like interior ministries in other countries. The United States has a Department of the Interior, but it is unlike most agencies with that name around the world. Here, it oversees units such as the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Geological Survey. But in many countries, the ministry’s role is much broader and more powerful: Its role is to oversee the interior of the country.
One common tool for an interior ministry is a national police force. That can be a dangerous tool because an armed national police force at the disposal of the central government has a tendency to be misused. A repressive regime that is in danger, or simply faced with protests it finds troublesome, can use the national police to crack down, turning the force into an agency that protects the rulers, rather than one that defends the rule of law. Even in more democratic countries, a national police force can be a threat. In early post-Franco Spain, the Guardia Civil was a hotbed of fascist irredentism.
The United States has never had a national police force like this, for reasons that emanate from the country’s founding. While the federal government has grown ever stronger since independence, the federalism embedded in the American system militated against a national police force. (Even state police were slow to emerge.) The Founders were wary of establishing any permanent, armed force under the control of the federal government, even warning against a standing army.
“A standing military force with an overgrown executive will not long be safe companions to liberty,” James Madison told the Constitutional Convention. “The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.”
…
The Atlantic allows free access to four articles per month.
It’s clear that Trump is trying to intimidate protesters and provoke overreactions. He wants to create situations in which he can effectively create martial law, and the closer to election time, the better. The goal is chaos, because ongoing chaos becomes normalized. People become desensitized to it over time. And more importantly, they become desensitized to the response to it. This is what I’ve been trying to point out the last few years. This is where it could lead, and here we are.
He has said many times that he feels he works best in chaos.
I don’t ever want to hear a goddamn thing about “Checks & Balances” in the American systems of government and the reverence for the nigh infallible wisdom of the founding fathers.
A grimy little fascist has turned a democracy into a kakistocracy and no one seems to be able to stop him doing so.
Congress could have convicted him if it wasn’t filled with Rectal Remoras.
A 25th Amendment solution would be possible if not for the same reason.
What I am saying is that I disagree with misleading descriptions of situations, whether it’s from the left or from the right. It makes it difficult to actually discuss the real issues.
SmartAleq insists it was a line of non-violent moms, when the video shows:
1 - A typical group of protesters, not anything that I personally could tell was “line of moms”
2 - Violent actions - tearing down the fence that was between the protesters and the agents, and then a fire being lit at/near the building (I did not see the fire in the video, I am relying on the reporters description)
3 - The reporter clearly stating that the agents did not take action until the events in #2
Stating that is a “non-violent line of moms” is the type of misleading statement that Rush Limbaugh used to make regularly.
I never said it’s convenience.
SmartAleq stated:
And I pointed out the the protesters in CHOP did the exact same thing, they carved out a chunk of land and restricted access (to vehicles, to any form of video taping by most people (physical altercations enforced it) and other things).
So why is it ok for protesters in CHOP to carve out an area and restrict access and activities but it’s not ok for the federal agents (or whoever) in Portland to block off a sidewalk with a fence?