I’m in full agreement with this.
To stretch out my line of reasoning, my steps 6 through 9 should apply just as well at the federal level. The main issue is a practical one. It’s a lot easier for the citizens of Portland to vote out a mayor who supports criminal conduct committed by Portland PD than it is for the citizens of the US to vote out a POTUS who supports, and is now himself ordering, criminal conduct by US law enforcement.
First of all, this is a massive goal post shift from the OP’s resolution that “Federal agents [should] be forcibly removed from liberal cities.”
Secondly, this line of reasoning starts to break down around Step 4 (what is the legal requirement that DHS personnel be “inside” their “regular uniforms”?), but collapses at Step 6.
Portland PD see individuals who appear to be kidnapping someone. They intervene, but the “kidnappers” identify themselves as Federal agents executing an arrest under Federal law.
As a legal and historical issue, the Civil War pretty decisively settled the argument over whether state and local authorities can over-ride Federal law and use force against Federal officials.
As a practical manner, do you really think the armed DHS officers are at that point are simply going to surrender? What if they try to counter-arrest the Portland PD officers for obstruction of justice and assault on a Federal officer?
And, again, somehow you’ve circled around from the left to meet the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association from the right. Would you support the CSPOA if they started arresting ATF agents enforcing Federal gun legislation?
The problem is that these particular officers are not executing an arrest under federal law. Unlike an ATF agent enforcing federal gun laws, the officers who beat Chris David and kidnapped Mark Pettibone aren’t enforcing federal law. What they’re doing is acting as as Trump’s brownshirts.
I do not agree with the bleak choices of the OP. But, I believe strong action should be taken by the City of Portland.
I assume there is a problem of jurisdiction. On Fed property, the Feds have jurisdiction. Not so on the streets. No, doubt the Feds in the streets are violating city ordinances. So, target an individual, get a court order and snatch him off the street. Charge him with disorderly conduct, discharging a weapon in the city limits, denying protesters civil rights, impeding traffic and jay walking. That individual would then become the focus of the media and the circus would begin.
Another possible ploy would be to stop one of the mini-vans away from the Federal Courthouse. Tape the doors shut and put it on a waiting flat bed to be spirited away to some safe compound. Upend the van a couple of times with a tow truck to get their attention. Then take their weapons, cell phones, clothing and papers and further transport them to a point unknown. Then find out from the Feds who is in charge so they can give the property back (just a vehicle that got towed). After a while release them unobserved. Deny it all and pick up a couple more.
The goal in both cases is to get into the game, draw media attention and expose the identity of the players.
This reminds me of a running gag in season 2 of The Wire, where (stop me if I get the details wrong) the longshoreman’s union, in a spat with the Baltimore PD, steals a PD van and ships it all over the country, mailing photos of it from every stop to the deputy chief – who eventually goes from furious to amused as the prank goes on.
Probably a bad idea for Portland, though. /hijack
To start with, this would require them to show identification.
To continue with, ideally the local police would then ask ‘what is your probable cause for this arrest?’ If the federals can’t show any, they then have to let the person go, or else they are indeed behaving illegally. If they claim to have probable cause, the local police get their names and the location they intend to take the arrested person to, and make sure the arrested person will be able to contact their lawyer. If it turns out there wasn’t any probable cause, there’s grounds for a lawsuit; but in any case somebody knows who took the arrested person and is therefore responsible for that person turning up uninjured in a legitimate location.
I doubt there’s any law preventing local forces from following that unmarked van to check where it’s going, either; or from recording the whole thing and putting it on public record.
Whether the local cops will actually do any of that I don’t know.
Sounds good to me!
Probably so. Trump doesn’t go from furious to amused. He only goes from furious to more furious.
I’d like for that to be done, and have the guy’s supervisor come and pick him up in his orange jump suit. However, these Fed guys are not Peace Corps material. They like to hurt people, and they would probably fire on who ever tried to arrest them.
I think the causes for the Civil War are not the same as what this thread is about.
While most people believe that the Civil War was a war against slavery, it was not! It was a war between Federalism and States Rights. The south’s contention was: if they wanted slavery, it should be the state legislature’s right to keep that. The Federal government was taking the Constitution as a living literal document guaranteeing freedom to all human beings. The Emancipation Proclamation codified the Federal government position and the secessionist states lost the war [but obviously won the peace].
It has long been the provenience of the state governments to police their states, through state, county and local police departments. With the exception of Federal crimes, this policing system has worked very well [except for recently], and the Federal government has accepted this as the status quo of what American Law Enforcement, has been and what it is.
Recently Federal law enforcement actions in Portland. OR and the administration’s threat to send in the feds elsewhere has threatened the administration of local laws through out the USA. Again a potential conflict between Federalism and States Rights. This is what many of all political stripes are gravely concerned about.
The concerns about the upcoming national election are well founded! Examine the public record and statements by the administration regarding other world leaders who rule via totalitarian tactics. These foreign regimes are lauded by the administration. This is not public record psychoanalysis, this is common sense! If you see your neighbor having unsavory connections, chances are he is an unsavory person too. You are not going to befriend that person, you’ll stare clear!
With the election so close, our most effective tool to protect our 244 year old republican form of government is to vote! Let us all pray that if the results go the way the polls are suggesting, that the current administration does what every past administration has done in our history, who has not been successful in their reelection bid, behave in a gracious manner and assist the new President Elect take control and govern.
It was not. From the Union side it is true that it is mostly about keeping the Union. But the reason the South seceded is not states rights, but the South’s right - not as a state but as a region - to keep slaves. No other state right mattered because they didn’t believe in the right of the northern states to not enforce the Fugitive Slave act no matter how intrusive and corrupt it was. And they didn’t believe in the rights of the southern states either, which were not allowed to secede (ironically) .
Federal Agents should not be forcibly removed from Liberal Cities! The political atmosphere of any city or state should not dictate how federal police powers are administered. The management structure of Federal police agencies must adhere to the mandates of the US Constitution, and Federal Law. If any police agency is used for political ends, we are doomed as a nation! Remember, we are a nation of laws! Not of men!
Surely it was about State’s rights, foremost the right to keep slaves.
We will not mention New Jersey and Maryland, because Northerners are really, really cool people, and Southerners are traitorous, nasty people who marry their cousins.
So, you’re absolutely furious that Federal police agencies are detaining innocent people with no cause, no arrest, and no identification, right?
We are a nation of laws, after all! What do we do to those who break those laws?
Step 6, since then step 7 is “Trump and Bar declare a state of insurrection, declare martial law, send in troops, suspend habeas corpus, and cancel the elections.”
Which is what they are hoping for.
Nothing the DHS officers are doing is blatantly illegal. Police pick up people all the time for questioning.
Most of the time, from stories told, they pick a person up, mirandize them, then release them if they ask for a lawyer. Nothing wrong with that. As a single act.
Now of course- the pattern here is the big thing- intimidation, etc. That is why like a half dozen lawsuits have been filed, from the Ore AG to the ACLU. That is the right and proper way to do that.
The question is- are they “kidnapping” or taking people in for questioning? They are not legally “kidnapping”. And if you arrest any of those agent, you are playing into Barrs hands- Trump and Bar declare a state of insurrection, declare martial law, send in troops, suspend habeas corpus, and cancel the elections.
Which is what they are hoping for.
What they are doing is exceeding their authority , working outside their bailiwick and violating civil rights- all of which must be handled by the courts.
No, the Feds have jurisdiction inside the entire United States, which includes Portland, last time I checked.
Doing anything silly like this is what Barr wants- Trump and Bar declare a state of insurrection, declare martial law, send in troops, suspend habeas corpus, and cancel the elections.
That’s the plan.
The question about whether or not what the DHS officers are doing is blatantly illegal is really what is at issue. The case of Chris David in particular is the one that seems most like having crossed the line.
As far as your proposed Step 7, that’s where the men and women in uniform would determine the fate of the nation. Let’s say Trump and Barr were to declare martial law and order actual troops in. Assuming things have reached a point where it’s obvious what Trump and Barr are doing is blatantly illegal, that’s when it becomes a matter of the people receiving those orders to tell Trump and Barr that they refuse to carry them out.
What they would like even better is for us to just sit back and let them take over our country.
A Federal agent, due to the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution, does not have to answer to local police. Their answer would be “It’s is a Federal matter.” and it ends there. A Judge would ask those questions. And you dont need probable cause to detain someone for questioning.