Nazi storm troopers now kidnapping citizens off the streets

Supreme Court rulings are neither law nor policy. A guy as smart as you are should know that.

 

Then what were you referring to if not the public safety exception? Again, couldn't get past your article paywall

 

@Mopar Dude @toughcoins I'd missed this before

CBP confirms that was them in the initial video taking a person into an unmarked vehicle.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/katu.c...-of-reported-dhs-arrests-in-unmarked-vehicles

 

Credited to the New York Times . . .

Delayed Miranda Warning Ordered for Terror Suspects
By Charlie Savage

March 24, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Federal Bureau of Investigation has instructed agents to interrogate suspected “operational terrorists” about immediate threats to public safety without advising them of their Miranda rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present.

A three-page F.B.I. memorandum, dated Oct. 21, 2010, also encouraged agents to use a broad interpretation of public safety-related questions. It said that the “magnitude and complexity” of the terrorist threat justified “a significantly more extensive public safety interrogation without Miranda warnings than would be permissible in an ordinary criminal case.”

“Depending on the facts, such interrogation might include, for example, questions about possible impending or coordinated terrorist attacks; the location, nature and threat posed by weapons that might post an imminent danger to the public; and the identities, locations, and activities or intentions of accomplices who may be plotting additional imminent attacks,” the memo said.

In the Miranda case, the Supreme Court ruled that if prosecutors want to use statements made by the defendant while in custody against him, police must have warned him of his rights before those statements were made. The court later created an exception for answers to questions about immediate threats to public safety.

The practice of reading Miranda warnings to terrorism suspects arrested in the United States has led to political disputes. In particular, Republicans, seeking to portray the Obama administration as soft on terrorism, criticized the reading of a Miranda warning to the main suspect in the failed bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009.

Obama administration officials said the warnings had not prevented interrogators from gaining intelligence from such suspects, and the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, testified in July 2010 that agents were already using a broad interpretation of the public safety exception to the Miranda rule in terrorism cases.

Still, in May 2010 Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. floated the idea of seeking legislation that would ask courts to interpret the public safety exception to allow lengthier questioning of terrorism suspects before the warning. The administration never produced such a proposal. But the October memorandum shows that the Justice Department decided on its own to encourage agents to take a broad interpretation.

The existence of the memorandum was reported by The New York Times in December, but the Justice Department refused to make it public. On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal published an article containing excerpts from the document, and The Times later obtained access to a full copy.

Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said that the memo could not alter a constitutional right. He portrayed it as clarifying existing flexibility in the rule — especially when investigators are willing to risk sacrificing the ability to use a suspect’s statements in trial.
In most cases, the memorandum said, after public safety questions have been exhausted, interrogators should advise the terrorism suspect of his rights. But in certain “exceptional cases,” agents may continue to ask questions without a Miranda warning “to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat.”

However, it said, such extended questioning must be approved by supervisors who would weigh “the disadvantages.” A footnote listed precedents ruling that prosecutors could not use self-incriminating statements made by a defendant before a warning.

 

I bet if we took a nationwide poll right now, the number of respondents favoring the arrest of these infantile, tantrum-throwing "demonstrators" would far outnumber those supporting their "justifiable" actions. These jerks do not have the backing of the American people.

 

It's the authoritarian impulses of the Trump administration affecting them. He's one small step from "disappearing" people from the looks of it. I wouldn't be shocked if we reach that point if he has another four years to work on it, and his liberty loving, flag waving, cross bearing cultists will no doubt cheer him the whole way.

 

Luckily, we live in a society, where people are supposed to go through due process and not be picked up off the streets by unmarked vehicles. Go ahead, arrest them and put them on trial, but don't do it using tactics like this.

 

Sorry, but police already use unmarked vehicles all the time . . . that's NOT an issue here.

 

And that broad interpretation would not have been possible without the public safety exception ruling. They even go so far as to say self-incriminating statements without the rights read couldn't be used in court, the broad interpretation was meant to be used to get information to stop imminent terror attacks.

Now, I abhor it as well, and a lot of things Obama did, but this isn't one of the things he did. Mueller's testimony also said they'd been doing it a long time in terrorism cases, and there's a paragraph in the article about the Republicans at the time criticizing Obama for reading a terror suspect their rights while "seeking to portray the Obama administration as soft on terrorism"

 

Not unmarked, civilian vehicles. Even unmarked vehicles say "police" on the plate. How could you possibly know these people were legit and not random people kidnapping civilians?

 

Thus, Obama's reactionary policy two years later.

 

I imagine, after deploying last minute, the feds had to use whatever vehicles were at their disposal. Under those extenuating circumstances, they had no other option. Fact of the matter is, the disrupters knew they were in the wrong, knew they deserved to be arrested, and were. Stop running to their defense . . . they deserve what the got, and you know it damn well.

 

This happened 4 days ago, they'd been in Portland since July 5th. Stop running to their defense, they are taking dangerous steps we must resist. Like I said, arrest them if you like, but don't do it like this.

Do you not remember the unmarked forces in D.C. just a few weeks ago?

 

The excuse makers for the Fascist thugs will go to any lengths to defend their Führer. It was same in Nazi Germany and it is the same today. That is how Fascism works. It gets the uneducated to buy in first and defend anything they do and then they are the last ones to have the secret police turn on them. Old story, different day.

 

Well you know, sometimes the government has to take extraordinary measures to protect freedom. The US Constitution is all very well, but when confronted with crazed mobs of antifa/Marxist/terrorist types, then it all comes down to the infinite wisdom of the infallible Attorney General Barr. If it takes the use of federal Special Squads to show the rotten anarchists who's in charge, then so be it. We should all be proud of the fine work they're doing.

 

That's a cute response . . . the Constitution says nothing of policing authorities having to wear identification or use marked vehicles when showing up to arrest someone. I'm sure we'd all prefer it that way, and we generally have it that way under normal circumstances, but when we have mass pandemonium like this, restoring order for the masses is the greater priority over indulgence of the destructive tantrums of these malcontents.

 

What a straight up moron. The very acts you describe violates the First Amendment. Why do these brain-dead idiots hate the U.S. Constitution?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Homeland Security Official Defends Portland ‘Kidnappings’ Amid Calls For Investigation
Unidentified federal agents in military-style gear are jumping out of unmarked vans to detain protesters, according to videos and personal accounts.

Ken Cuccinelli, the No. 2 official at the Department of Homeland Security, is defending an aggressive federal response to civil rights demonstrations in Portland, Oregon, which has included disturbing detentions described by some as “kidnappings.”

Several top officials in the state are calling for investigations amid growing national concern over Homeland Security’s actions, some of which have been caught on video and widely circulated on social media. Unidentified federal agents in military-style gear have taken to patrolling Portland’s streets in unmarked vans and detaining protesters over allegations of property damage and violence.

Asked Friday whether he would support such an investigation, Cuccinelli told NPR, “The more investigations, the better.”

DHS acting Secretary Chad Wolf announced July 1 that a new task force would be formed to enforce President Donald Trump’s executive order on protecting monuments and all federal property, which was signed in late June. The task force ― comprising officers from agencies including Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Marshals Service ― is conducting “ongoing assessments of potential civil unrest or destruction” so that it can “allocate resources to protect people and property.”

But many in Portland say that the federal officers are only making the city less safe for people to exercise their First Amendment rights.

“The current escalation of fear and violence in downtown Portland is being driven by federal law enforcement tactics that are entirely unnecessary and out of character with the Oregon way,” state Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said early Saturday morning. Her office is suing DHS, CBP, the U.S. Marshals Service and the Federal Protection Service, arguing that the detentions and enforcement tactics are illegal.

Cuccinelli defended the legality of his department’s actions.

“With as much lawbreaking is going on, we’re seeking to prosecute as many people as are breaking the law as it relates to federal jurisdiction,” he said on NPR.

DHS has outlined dozens of incidents in Portland to justify the presence of federal forces, including damage to federal buildings by fireworks and many instances of graffiti.

Speaking to The New York Times, unnamed officials claimed that legal authority for the response comes from a section of U.S. law that allows DHS to recruit federal officers to help the Federal Protective Service, an agency it oversees that is charged with protecting federal property.

The aggressive response from DHS has sown worries that the department could soon start sending unidentified officers to other cities around the country where anti-racism protests have marched on since the late-May killing of George Floyd, a Black man, by a white Minnesota police officer.

Cuccinelli seemed to confirm those fears, telling NPR, “This is a posture we intend to continue not just in Portland but in any of the facilities that we’re responsible for around the country.”

Protests continued Saturday night as demonstrators gathered outside the the Portland police union’s office. Protesters flipped nearby dumpsters and formed a barricade around the building, The Oregonian reported. Police declared the scene a “riot” and alleged demonstrators set a fire inside the building. Multiple people were taken into custody.

About five miles south, in downtown Portland, protesters dismantled fencing around a park and marched near a courthouse. Federal officers fired tear gas at protesters and struck at least one demonstrator with a baton, according to The Portland Tribune.


Opposition to the aggressive DHS response has been driven by alarming anecdotes and images posted to social media. One protester, Mark Pettibone, described being grabbed by federal officers with generic “police” badges and forced into an unmarked gray van, according to Oregon Public Broadcasting. Pettibone said he was brought to a federal courthouse the officers said they were in charge of protecting, and released after around 90 minutes after he refused to answer questions. Last week, a federal officer was caught on video shooting a projectile at a protester’s head, causing severe injury.

U.S. Attorney for Oregon Billy Williams said Friday that he had requested an inspector general investigation into the DHS actions, supported by both of the state’s senators and two of its representatives.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has deployed legal observers to the Portland protests, promised this week to sue.

“Usually when we see people in unmarked cars forcibly grab someone off the street we call it kidnapping — what is happening now in Portland should concern everyone in the US,” the civil rights group said in a statement. “These actions are flat-out unconstitutional and will not go unanswered.”

Trump on Sunday appeared to defend the deployment of federal officers to Portland.

“We are trying to help Portland, not hurt it,” the president tweeted, claiming the city’s leadership had “lost control of the anarchists and agitators.”

“We must protect Federal property, AND OUR PEOPLE,” he added. “These were not merely protesters, these are the real deal!”

Hayley Miller contributed reporting.

 

I'm so pleased that you're with the program. Dear Leader needs all the support he can get.

 

Big help you are . . . but I don't think he'll need your support come November.