5 ms·

Your comment has me confused, because the previous comment seems to have argued that there wasn't a change--2013 was under the prior administration. As for Por

by Natsu 6y ago

Your comment has me confused, because the previous comment seems to have argued that there wasn't a change--2013 was under the prior administration. As for Portland, that appears to be an unusual use of Federal authority, but as far as I can tell, they actually do have relatively sweeping legal authority, even if it's not often exercised (see the lawfare blog for some analysis thereof) and everyone is being processed in the regular court system. So it's not exactly the case of being "disappeared" that some reports claimed.

toast0 6y ago
> everyone is being processed in the regular court system. So it's not exactly the case of being "disappeared" that some reports claimed. One article had an account of someone abducted, searched, and released, and then the authorities said they did not have records of arresting him. If there's no records, it's not the regular court system, even if it happened in the court building.
- Natsu 6y ago
  From what I've read, the Oregon AG alleged that they were released by the prison they were taken to without charges, so apparently they refused to book them for whatever they were accused of in the first place. It's not clear to me what other records they would have in that case and again, this isn't exactly being "disappeared" given that they were turned over to the police for processing and then released without charges. Sounds more to me like some cops were lazy with the paperwork when they were going to release them anyhow. The feds have wide-ranging authority to arrest people and always have, though: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-heck-are-federal-law-enforcement-officers-doing-portland https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-heck-are-federal-law-enforc...
  - donavanm 6y ago
    Re: records it depends on the state DOJ. California will have a separate line item for each arrest, booking, arraignment, and release. I believe they also keep “administrative records” for each stop, but you dont get to see those when you request your own records. And yes, its possible to be arrested but then released when the duty sergeant/lieutenant refuses to book based on nonsense charges.
- ac29 6y ago
  Courts can move pretty slowly - I've never been arrested, but having gotten a handful of minor tickets over the years, it frequently takes months before there is any record of it entered into the system. I would certainly hope people getting arrested would have records fully entered within hours of their arrest, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it takes longer, especially if the person is released without any charges filed.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  Please stop substituting “detained” or “arrested” with “abducted” for dramatic effect. This is like saying that ICE puts kids in “concentration camps”.
  - mercer 6y ago
    They do, though.
  - toast0 6y ago
    What do you call it when people in an unmarked van stop you on the street and force you to go with them without telling you who they are or why? If that happened to someone you were walking with and they left you there, wouldn't you call police and report that your friend was abducted? Also, the government officials have claimed the people weren't arrested, and my understanding (which could easily be wrong) is being detained by law enforcement means you're not permitted to leave, not that you must go with them, so I'm out of words.
    - Natsu 6y ago
      You call it an arrest if they're US Federal Agents and they take you to the police station, but you're arguing against something that was never claimed in most of this.
    - Natsu 6y ago
      Just saw the ruling from the judge in this case. Oregon lost and, in particular, was forced to concede that the police were identifiable as such by virtue of the evidence they themselves submitted to the court. See footnote #3 in the ruling: http://opb-imgserve-production.s3-website-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/original/mosmanruling_1595629469209.pdf http://opb-imgserve-production.s3-website-us-west-2.amazonaw... --- It appears that the State has largely backed away from any argument that the federal agents were not at all identifiable as law enforcement. Mr. Pettibone acknowledges that their uniforms said “Police,” Pettibone Decl. [1-1] ¶ 3, and the video shows agents wearing clothing clearly marked as “Police.”
munificent 6y ago
> but as far as I can tell, they actually do have relatively sweeping legal authority I think that's splitting hairs in a not helpful way. As far as I can tell, the US actually does have legal authority to unilaterally declare war on the tiny nation of Lichtenstein and then carpet bomb it until all that remains are glowing embers. But doing so would be evil, and fortunately all previous and current US administrations have chosen not to do so. We shouldn't need to explicitly legally forbid all awful things that the US President could theoretically do. We should have leaders who stay well within the bounds of law, guided by the will of the voters, their own moral code, and a respect for the long-term consequences of their actions. The fact that Trump lacks all of those things to me does not mean that we should therefore be in the business of trying to outlaw every bad thing a President can do. That's an endlessly long list and if we've learned anything from the past almost-four years, it's that it doesn't really matter what the law says if Congress chooses not to enforce it. You can't fight corruption by writing more new laws that will also get ignored. You have to entirely remove corrupt people from power. No set of laws would somehow forcibly turn Trump into a competent President.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  >it's that it doesn't really matter what the law says if Congress chooses not to enforce it Congress...chooses not to enforce it? You're talking about Congress, commonly known as the executive branch of the triune government, which enforces the laws? It's at times like these I'm reminded of the saying...that fog is a sign of merging timelines.
  - steffan 6y ago
    Congress is the legislative branch
    - Natsu 6y ago
      That was grandparent's point, poking fun at the post before that for discussing Congress enforcing the law when they're the legislative branch, rather than the executive.
    - 6y ago

by Natsu 6y ago

toast0 6y ago

> everyone is being processed in the regular court system. So it's not exactly the case of being "disappeared" that some reports claimed. One article had an account of someone abducted, searched, and released, and then the authorities said they did not have records of arresting him. If there's no records, it's not the regular court system, even if it happened in the court building.

Natsu 6y ago
From what I've read, the Oregon AG alleged that they were released by the prison they were taken to without charges, so apparently they refused to book them for whatever they were accused of in the first place. It's not clear to me what other records they would have in that case and again, this isn't exactly being "disappeared" given that they were turned over to the police for processing and then released without charges. Sounds more to me like some cops were lazy with the paperwork when they were going to release them anyhow. The feds have wide-ranging authority to arrest people and always have, though: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-heck-are-federal-law-enforcement-officers-doing-portland https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-heck-are-federal-law-enforc...
- donavanm 6y ago
  Re: records it depends on the state DOJ. California will have a separate line item for each arrest, booking, arraignment, and release. I believe they also keep “administrative records” for each stop, but you dont get to see those when you request your own records. And yes, its possible to be arrested but then released when the duty sergeant/lieutenant refuses to book based on nonsense charges.
ac29 6y ago
Courts can move pretty slowly - I've never been arrested, but having gotten a handful of minor tickets over the years, it frequently takes months before there is any record of it entered into the system. I would certainly hope people getting arrested would have records fully entered within hours of their arrest, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it takes longer, especially if the person is released without any charges filed.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
Please stop substituting “detained” or “arrested” with “abducted” for dramatic effect. This is like saying that ICE puts kids in “concentration camps”.
- mercer 6y ago
  They do, though.
- toast0 6y ago
  What do you call it when people in an unmarked van stop you on the street and force you to go with them without telling you who they are or why? If that happened to someone you were walking with and they left you there, wouldn't you call police and report that your friend was abducted? Also, the government officials have claimed the people weren't arrested, and my understanding (which could easily be wrong) is being detained by law enforcement means you're not permitted to leave, not that you must go with them, so I'm out of words.
  - Natsu 6y ago
    You call it an arrest if they're US Federal Agents and they take you to the police station, but you're arguing against something that was never claimed in most of this.
  - Natsu 6y ago
    Just saw the ruling from the judge in this case. Oregon lost and, in particular, was forced to concede that the police were identifiable as such by virtue of the evidence they themselves submitted to the court. See footnote #3 in the ruling: http://opb-imgserve-production.s3-website-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/original/mosmanruling_1595629469209.pdf http://opb-imgserve-production.s3-website-us-west-2.amazonaw... --- It appears that the State has largely backed away from any argument that the federal agents were not at all identifiable as law enforcement. Mr. Pettibone acknowledges that their uniforms said “Police,” Pettibone Decl. [1-1] ¶ 3, and the video shows agents wearing clothing clearly marked as “Police.”

munificent 6y ago

> but as far as I can tell, they actually do have relatively sweeping legal authority I think that's splitting hairs in a not helpful way. As far as I can tell, the US actually does have legal authority to unilaterally declare war on the tiny nation of Lichtenstein and then carpet bomb it until all that remains are glowing embers. But doing so would be evil, and fortunately all previous and current US administrations have chosen not to do so. We shouldn't need to explicitly legally forbid all awful things that the US President could theoretically do. We should have leaders who stay well within the bounds of law, guided by the will of the voters, their own moral code, and a respect for the long-term consequences of their actions. The fact that Trump lacks all of those things to me does not mean that we should therefore be in the business of trying to outlaw every bad thing a President can do. That's an endlessly long list and if we've learned anything from the past almost-four years, it's that it doesn't really matter what the law says if Congress chooses not to enforce it. You can't fight corruption by writing more new laws that will also get ignored. You have to entirely remove corrupt people from power. No set of laws would somehow forcibly turn Trump into a competent President.

perl4ever 6y ago
>it's that it doesn't really matter what the law says if Congress chooses not to enforce it Congress...chooses not to enforce it? You're talking about Congress, commonly known as the executive branch of the triune government, which enforces the laws? It's at times like these I'm reminded of the saying...that fog is a sign of merging timelines.
- steffan 6y ago
  Congress is the legislative branch
  - Natsu 6y ago
    That was grandparent's point, poking fun at the post before that for discussing Congress enforcing the law when they're the legislative branch, rather than the executive.
  - 6y ago