Should Federal Agents be Forcibly removed from Liberal Cities as a first step?

Politics & Elections
1
  • Yes, they should be removed forcibly.
  • No, we should maintain the status quo.

0 voters

I’ve been reading and participating in a great number of threads about the coming election, and the events going on in Portland, Chicago and elsewhere. Several threads have also discussed what will happen in the event of a Trump loss or victory, and the consequences if either is not accepted by the parties involved.
I would say that until recently, the overall opinion was that even if Trump lost, that our current system would be sufficiently strong to force an orderly (if not fully peaceably) transition of power. However I no longer believe this to be the case. Especially as a large number of federal authorities are only in ‘Acting’ positions and owe the entirety of their power to Trump’s direct mandate.
I see that there has been a definite trend to Trump’s actions, that he will push a few steps beyond what would have otherwise been unthinkable, and then check if there are any consequences. Each time, with the support of Republicans in the Senate, the answer has been no. Each next step goes further, and the process repeats. I think the tipping point was the use of Federal agents to violently remove protesters in DC - and now he has no reason to not go further.
Many of us in the forums have also been concerned that we should not push back, that by doing so we would give Trump the excuse he wants to declare martial law and perhaps even go as far as to suspend the election for the duration, or otherwise ensure his opponents do not get to vote.
These are valid concerns, BUT I feel we have already gone past the point of no return. If we do not stop at this point, then once again Trump will feel his actions have the approval of the American people, and see no reason or consequence. There is no point in not giving him a reason to declare martial law if he is using it de facto. If it isn’t challenged here, then it will certainly be used immediately prior and during the election based on his past actions and performance.
So, I feel that at this point the elected officials and Governors of the affected cities and states should either gather LEO (or if they feel that LEO would not work, declare martial law themselves and use the national guard) and forcibly detain Federal Agents who are not physically on Federal territory, for crimes such as impersonating a LEO, or possession of dangerous weapons/materials. I know that is wouldn’t like stand, just like the efforts of DHS and CBP, but by dragging them to jail, confiscating their equipment as evidence, and setting a high but legal bail we would send a clear message and force these events to the courts.
By doing this now, we have a chance to clear this mess prior to the most critical event, the election. I am also concerned that by doing this, we may give Trump a chance to go to the next step, and we may solidify a few voters who would otherwise be willing to let this election pass, but I suggest that the trends to date indicate this is the lesser risk.

Please, let’s all discuss this is a fair manner, because this is one of those times I’d love to be wrong. But I am honestly scared of where our country is going.

2

The U.S. has already fought the bloodiest war in its history over this issue, and it’s been decisively answered. 360,000 dead U.S. troops and 260,000 dead rebels say “no”.

3

Portland is not trying to secede from the Union, let alone to defend the (re)institution of slavery.

What is at issue here is indeed the Union and the Constitution: specifically the Fourth Amendment in combination with the First. But unidentified forces dragging people exercising their legal rights of assembly into unmarked cars are not on the side that gdave seems to think that they are.

But the poll gives only two options, and they’re both bad. Physically attacking those “federal” forces should not be the first step (if it comes to that we’re all screwed); but neither should their behavior be accepted (or else it may come to that, and we’re all screwed either way.) Sue them in the courts; post local police, state police, and/or the National Guard outside federal facilities and elsewhere as needed to protect protestors (and to prevent agitators, possibly outside agitators, from burning the place down while they’re at it; but primarily to defend the First); march on the House and the Senate; fill the streets up in every legal manner; ridicule them in the media and in the street; vote their backers the hell out of office (and guard the polls as needed while doing so.)

4

Assuming Biden wins, my preference would be for all officers involved in these activities be fired, both the ones on the scene and the ones giving orders. That would be the first step. Next would be having the new AG investigate and bring charges against those officers, up to and including Barr and Trump, for giving illegal orders.

As for what we can do now, my only answers are vote and encourage as many others to do so as well. Biden, however, should be all over this. The campaign ads write themselves, and if he doesn’t hammer Trump over this and ends up losing, this will be at the top of my list of reasons why he lost.

5

This is, without doubt, one of the most foolish ideas I have seen suggested- and you arent the only one to do this.

First the National Guard was federalized some time ago, they answer to the President as CinC.

Next- this is EXACTLY what trump and Barr are hoping for. They can then call it a insurrection, declare martial law, suspend habeas corpus, and most importantly, delay the election. That is the plan, and this idea directly leads to a decade of trump as dictator.

No, let the courts hammer it out. The AG of Oregon and the ACLU have filed suit. Roberts and Gorsuch have already signalled they wont put up with trump bullshit.

6

No, it’s not the officers fault. They are indeed- just following orders- which unless those orders are clearly and immediately illegal they must do. Indict Barr for this, and yes, some of the Officers who went too far, like the guy who fired that rubber bullet into the protestors head. Some need to be fired, a few indicted, along with Barr.

Demonizing the officers is exactly what Barr hopes people will do.

This is Barr’s fault- not the low rankers who have little choice. Blame Barr.

The Lincoln Project is already all over this, and Biden just has to sit back and watch.

7

I don’t know what “side” you think that I think the Federal officers are on. But if the Portland police, as suggested by the OP, actually attempt to forcibly disarm and detain Federal officers as a blanket policy, then that’s pretty much de facto secession. It’s no more a lawful or Constitutional action for the Portland PD to do this than it would have been for George Wallace to order the detention of U.S. Marshals for violating Alabama’s segregation laws.

8

In isolation, this seems like a really bad idea. I say in isolation because you weren’t clear what specifically this is in response to. There is probably some hypothetical action of Donald Trump & other unspecified actors which would justify a state’s confiscation of federal law enforcement agents. A state law against impersonating law enforcement officials or possession of dangerous weapons is not that justification.

~Max

9

I think at the moment they’re handling it the best way: through the courts. I do share a similar concern that this is opening the door to federal troops being active in major cities, but using force in this case is going to further precipitate things. They’re trying to build the rhetoric that this is all necessary, and any use of force will make that easier to believe.

I think this is more fuel to the fire that DHS doesn’t need to exist. ICE and DHS (which remember, didn’t exist before 2003) at best are federal jobs programs, and at worst, they’re another arm for the federal government to needlessly police people. They’re completely redundant and haven’t actually accomplished anything.

10

Oh and fun fact, DHS’ annual budget (~$50bn) is more than twice NASA’s.

11

Before ICE was formed, their duties were performed mostly by criminal investigative, detention and deportation resources of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and to a lesser extent by Customs. Similarly with DHS.

There are many things ICE & DHS need to do. But they also have invented stuff.

12

Your question is too vague. There are federal agents all over the place.
If you’re talking about the unmarked secret police, then your poll lacked the option I would have voted for:
They should be ordered, peacfully, to pack up their shit and go home.
ETA: I see my post is flagged as a response to thorny locust, it was intended as a response to the OP.

13

I am being alarmist, as I acknowledged in my OP, but I’m specifying action against the Feds acting in Portland, and I strongly suspect, in the near future in other communities as well. I do feel, as I stated earlier, that this is a poor option to deal with the issue, that the many lawsuits already filed would resolve it through the courts.

I, however, do NOT believe this will happen in a timely manner. And as other posters have pointed out over several threads, if Barr/Trump doesn’t agree with a courts opinion, he based on past behavoir, will either ignore it, or roll out another justification until there’s a second suit, then against on a different excuse and so on.

While not confirmed, I wouldn’t doubt this for a second. And this is after the existing legal complaints have been filed.

(forgive me for quoting fox news, but like to have points from the Right Wing POV)

Makes it clear they know and are aware that the adults and local government are asking nicely, and feel that they have no responsibility to comply.

Shows that in the case of previous Federal overreach, a lawsuit filed 6/4/20 (approx 1.5 months ago as of this post) show that it is open. Therefore based on expectations of this event, any actual court rulings against these actions, and their consequences on future elections will likely NOT occur until after the election.

Look, I’m not saying forcible evicting the Feds in Portland is a GOOD solution. If you have one, give me one, but right now, all that is happening is proving that the tactic works for Trump. He can and will use Federal agents as a de facto military against protesters. He does not care about consequences. And those who are following his orders have no reason to worry either as long as Trump is re-elected, as he has proven he can either pardon them - in fact, most of his officials are probably aware that they are more at risk if Trump does not succeed.

14

I’ll believe that when I see it. And how many troops does Roberts control?

15

We tried that in 1862. It didn’t work out.

16

There has to be some point where it becomes a matter of arresting someone in the process of breaking the law. What if we were instead dealing with a DHS officer who was robbing a bank? When the local cops show up, can the guy just say I’m with Homeland Security, you can’t arrest me? What if he claims his supervisor told him to rob the bank? What if it turns out that his supervisor did, in fact, order him to rob the bank? They let him go and wait for the courts to sort it out?

17

Of course there’s a point where local authorities can arrest a Federal law enforcement agent. If a DHS agent is in the midst of robbing a bank, of course local police can arrest them. But that’s not what the OP is advocating. OP is advocating pre-emptively arresting all Federal law enforcement agents in Portland who venture outside of Federal reservations.

To stretch your hypothetical, what if IRS agents raid a bank for violating Federal tax and anti-money laundering laws? Can local police arrest the IRS agents for “robbing” the bank? Doesn’t there also have to be some point at which local police can’t legitimately detain Federal agents? If there is, on which side of that point is the pre-emptive detention of Federal agents for “impersonating” law enforcement personnel?

Real life example from recent news: an assassination attempt on Sunday in New Jersey on a Federal judge killed her son and wounded her husband. By the OPs formulation, if FBI agents attempted to investigate the attack, they’d be subject to arrest by NJ police. Federal Marshals who attempted to give her and her family additional security outside of the courthouse would be subject to arrest. And so on.

And beyond all the philosophical and legal arguments, how would this work practically? Would the Portland PD set up checkpoints for a reverse papers check to identify and “forcibly detain” anyone carrying Federal law enforcement credentials? And what happens if the Federal agents don’t meekly submit to arrest on trumped up charges?

And, just by the way, those protesters in Portland? One of the main issues they’re protesting is brutality and civil rights violations by the Portland Police Department. The same department the OP wants to round up Federal agents to protect the protesters.

The OP seems to be confirmation of the horseshoe theory. They’ve come around from the left to meet the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association from the right. In fact, with the implicit contention that Federal law enforcement agents have no legal authority beyond Federal reservations, they seem to have moved past that point and met the Freeman on the Land. For that matter, even Freemen generally only target specific, identified individuals to charge with specific, enumerated “crimes”.

I originally replied to the OP because, well, Someone Was Wrong on the Internet. I doubt that this is going to be a productive discussion, and I think I’ve more than said my piece, so I probably won’t be returning to this thread.

18

My take on the situation, and proposal for how I think things should go, is as follows.

  1. Ordinary people, like Chris David and the Portland wall of mom’s, are out peacefully protesting. The vast majority of the protestors are peaceful and law abiding, but there are a very few people mixed in who aren’t. Thus, Portland PD is dispatched to the protests to deal with those few who are breaking the law.

  2. The commander on the ground of the Portland PD orders the officers at the protest to enforce the law. In theory this shouldn’t be a controversial order.

  3. Since protesting is not against the law, the Portland PD will stand by and watch the protestors as they protest while focusing on arresting the specific few individuals who are looting / destroying private property / etc.

  4. Federal law enforcement, seemingly DHS officers outside of their regular uniforms, show up. IMHO they are there, in essence, to improve Trump’s reelection chances, not because the situation on the ground is so out of control that the Portland PD needs reinforcements.

  5. The DHS officers, in order to intimidate the protestors, start to detain people who have not been breaking the law, essentially kidnapping them and then releasing them because they haven’t actually broken the law.

  6. Portland PD officers, seeing innocent people being kidnapped, arrest the individuals doing the kidnapping.

  7. If the Portland PD officers refuse to do so, they are dismissed from duty at the protests and replaced by officers who will follow orders to enforce the law, i.e. intervene when someone is caught red handed kidnapping an innocent civilian.

  8. If the Portland PD commanders refuse to issue such orders, they are replaced by their civilian bosses, the mayor, city manager, county commissioners, whoever it is that in Portland is in charge of making hiring decisions for the PD.

  9. If the civilian bosses refuse to make those changes, should they be necessary, they get voted out by the people in favor of someone who will make the necessary personnel changes to the Portland PD.

Where does this line of thinking fail?

19

I don’t think your line of thinking fails. Just beginning with #5, this stuff won’t happen. It’s just we haven’t been “here” for a long time if we have at all. Orders coming down from the top are being obeyed. Honestly, my first thought when seeing that Navy vet STANDING THERE GETTING HIS ARM BROKEN was “wow, are those guys assholes”. I realize they would say they are just following orders, but I don’t know how they could look in a mirror after watching themselves. At some point we may have to rely on people like that to do the right thing. It’s not looking good.

20

We should arrest someone who’s robbing a bank, regardless of who he is. We should also arrest someone engaged in kidnapping, regardless of who he is.

We shouldn’t just arrest all federal agents willy-nilly. There are an awful lot of federal agents, and the vast majority of them really are just doing their jobs, serving important functions that need to be served, and doing so in an ethical and appropriate way. Just like anyone else, we should only arrest the ones committing crimes.