secret forces in oregon cities, as in DC

[JimL]

That is pure nonsense Jim, it does not violate the Constitution. Where does the Constitution say that Federal police can't protect Federal property? That is just loony tunes..

They are not there to protect federal property, if they were all they'd need do is stand guard around them. That is not what they are there for, and not what they are doing.

[seer]

They are not there to protect federal property, if they were all they'd need do is stand guard around them. That is not what they are there for, and not what they are doing.

No Jim, they are arresting people who were attempting to deface or harm these properties.

[oxmixmudd]

That is pure nonsense Jim, it does not violate the Constitution. Where does the Constitution say that Federal police can't protect Federal property? That is just loony tunes..

Seer - the president is ordering troops into state and local municipalities for his own ends. They are not accountable, they do not announce themselves as you saw in that video, and they are arresting and detaining people without any application of due process or respect for their rights as US citizens. That is not acceptable behavior.

In his account:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...deral-arrests/

Source: above

as he was walking home from a peaceful protest did not tell him why he had been detained or provide him any record of an arrest, he told The Post. As far as he knows, he has not been charged with any crimes. And, Pettibone said, he did not know who detained him.

© Copyright Original Source

This is unacceptable. And it opens the door to forces commanded by the president assaulting, detaining, and questioning US citizens at his direction. It's yet another step too far.

Notice 'no record of his arrest'. Without that video, they could just deny it every happen, his word against theirs.

Is that what you support now seer? Goverment forces at the direction of the president that can shoot into crowds and leave a peaceful protestor in the hospital for weeks. That can just swoop in and arrest and detain people without cause, without a warrent, without a hard record of the event?

[rogue06]

No, I am going to continue to sound the alarm until you wake from your slumber. Originally, the president did not command military or police forces that had authority to act on us soil. The US army is never meant to be a domestic force. This is to keep the power of the presidency from wielding military or police power against us citizens. That authority is granted to the states and local governments.

This is an end run around that

And you are literally a fool if you think it will end well. You and those arguing in favor of the president apparently are ignorant of the simple fact that this is what authoritarian governments do, and that power in the hands of men corrupts them. How much more so if the man is already corrupt!

This attitude is the attitude of the young and immature who think somehow the lessons of history and wisdom do not apply to them. Only when they find out they in fact do apply, it is often too late.

a_flashback_elian_150422.nbcnews-fp-1200-630.jpg
I'm sorry. What was it you were saying?

[seer]

Seer - the president is ordering troops into state and local municipalities for his own ends. They are not accountable, they do not announce themselves as you saw in that video, and they are arresting and detaining people without any application of due process or respect for their rights as US citizens. That is not acceptable behavior.

In his account:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...deral-arrests/

Source: above

as he was walking home from a peaceful protest did not tell him why he had been detained or provide him any record of an arrest, he told The Post. As far as he knows, he has not been charged with any crimes. And, Pettibone said, he did not know who detained him.

© Copyright Original Source

This is unacceptable. And it opens the door to forces commanded by the president assaulting, detaining, and questioning US citizens at his direction. It's yet another step too far.

Notice 'no record of his arrest'. Without that video, they could just deny it every happen, his word against theirs.

Is that what you support now seer? Goverment forces at the direction of the president that can shoot into crowds and leave a peaceful protestor in the hospital for weeks. That can just swoop in and arrest and detain people without cause, without a warrent, without a hard record of the event?

So he was picked up, not charged and let go? And? It is possible that they got the wrong guy, that happens with any police force at times.

[oxmixmudd]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46879[/ATTACH]
I'm sorry. What was it you were saying?

Are you stupid enough to think I supported that? And was this a force directed by the president himself to perform said action? And was it not also widely criticized as well as an abuse of power, and is it not also so regarded to this day?

You kind of buried yourself there Rogue. It was bad then and it's even WORSE today. And if YOU are against the Elian Gonzalez raid, what the heck are you doing here supporting the President's actions?

[Maranatha]

They are not there to protect federal property, if they were all they'd need do is stand guard around them. That is not what they are there for, and not what they are doing.

The Feds can do more than that, by law. Any number of agencies, including DHS, can swoop in and arrest Domestic Terrorists with immunity.

If you want the law changed, the advocacy is the way to go. Or make sure Joe gets elected maybe. Either way, tell your people to stop the violence, obey the law, and do it the only way it can be done, change the law.

[oxmixmudd]

The Feds can do more than that, by law. Any number of agencies, including DHS, can swoop in and arrest Domestic Terrorists with immunity.

If you want the law changed, the advocacy is the way to go. Or make sure Joe gets elected maybe. Either way, tell your people to stop the violence, obey the law, and do it the only way it can be done, change the law.

There has been a long standing debate over the ability to take on terrorists w/o due process, BUT, that is NOT what we have here.

Unruly protestors are NOT terrorists, and they ARE (at least mostly) US citizens with a right to free speech. The fellow in the video is a peaceful protester. He had committed no crimes, let alone a terrorist act! Likewise the fellow shot in the head and laid up in a hospital recovering with his jaw wired shut.

If they are vandalizing property, then they are CRIMINALS, and still subject to due process. Terrorist is a whole different ball game than a criminal act during a protest. That (usually) involves weapons of mass destruction bombs, poison gasses, biological agents or other large scale threats against society as a whole designed to induce fear. Just spraying graffiti on a wall does not a terrorist make. Breaking windows doesn't either. And in fact, neither does setting fires. Those are all crimes, not terrorist acts in and of themselves. And the people committing them are still entitled to due process.

[Cow Poke]

Replace some of the words [Police and cops] and I daresay the British in the 1770s thought very much as you do!

How very quaint.

[Cow Poke]

How is the individual officer identified?

That's a pretty ignorant question, actually.

[Cow Poke]

You are going to continue to intentionally misrepresent things because you just can't help yourself.

I think Jim has stepped so deeply in the manure pile that it's now spewing from his mouth.

It is his absolute obsession with hatred of Trump through which he sees all of this that has caused him to build this case on absolute falsehoods.

He cannot POSSIBLY back down now.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That's a pretty ignorant question, actually.

It was a genuine question. Does the uniform of each officer show that individual's unique ID number?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

How very quaint.

Wherein lies the difference? The legal authority was being challenged by mobs looting, vandalising, and threatening government officials and buildings?

[Cow Poke]

It was a genuine question.

My apologies.

Does the uniform of each officer show that individual's unique ID number?

In general patrol practices, yes. In raids and dynamic responses, no.

There is a war on police in America, as the "peaceful protesters" in Portland so clearly state with their fine art. Kill all Cops, F- the police....
There are ambushes on police who are not even engaged in 'battle', but may be just sitting in their patrol car.

So, in riot situations, raids, and dynamic responses, no, it is not normal for an officer to have his name on his uniform or a number on his badge or shield.

[Cow Poke]

Wherein lies the difference? The legal authority was being challenged by mobs looting, vandalising, and threatening government officials and buildings?

This has been argued back and forth in various other threads - I have no interest whatsoever in battling this out again.

The very fact that the loony left insists on calling these anarchists "peaceful protesters" blows the British ships and their tea out of the water.