3 ms·

> Peaceful protestors being brutalised by police has been documented in almost countless cases by now Yes, I've seen plenty of evidence for that[1]. On the ot

by tome 6y ago

> Peaceful protestors being brutalised by police has been documented in almost countless cases by now Yes, I've seen plenty of evidence for that[1]. On the other hand you said "protestors are being arrested by secret police in the US". That's quite a different claim and I haven't seen any evidence for that. I've heard a few reports and associated videos whose reliability I haven't been able to verify. [1] For the avoidance of doubt my belief is that that kind of behaviour does not belong in a civilised society.

oisdk 6y ago
I assume you're aware of police obscuring their badge numbers, and refusing to identify themselves? That phenomenon is at least as common as the actual police violence. While I have many problems with the following snopes article, I think the facts it presents are pretty incontrovertible: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/feds-unmarked-vans-portland/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/feds-unmarked-vans-portlan...
- Sacho 6y ago
  > I assume you're aware of police obscuring their badge numbers, and refusing to identify themselves? Er, is this what you would call secret police? The article's facts may be incontrovertible, but they don't agree with your description: "What's Undetermined While one person said he was detained without officers identifying themselves — and another viral video was interpreted by viewers as a case of the same thing — we have no verifiable evidence to prove or disprove whether agents in those cases explained for what federal agency they worked during the arrests."
  - oisdk 6y ago
    So what's undetermined in the snopes article is whether specifically those police that detained people in portland identified themselves or not. When I spoke about officers not identifying themselves I was talking generally, about the other cases from outside of portland, of officers obscuring their badges and not identifying themselves. But no, that's not really what I would count as secret police. I mean I think the distinction is a little arbitrary and before long you basically get to arguing definitions which is almost always a waste of time, but I think the actions of the police in the snopes article constitute an overstep that I think qualifies as authoritarian. Especially when those agencies were sent in specifically by the executive. Also, I should point out that the line you quoted is the one I have a problem with: > we have no verifiable evidence to prove or disprove whether agents in those cases explained for what federal agency they worked during the arrests. That's a very strange sentence to me: like how could you even prove such a thing? Have a video of the entirety of the person's interaction with the police? I think if we're being reasonable here that it's overwhelmingly likely the police didn't identify themselves in this case. But of course it's not feasible to have "evidence" for that kind of thing, so I suppose I can't go ahead and say I'm sure on the point.
    - Sacho 6y ago
      I think the "secret police" part is a red herring. My opinion is that the federal police were justified defending the courthouse, but were not justified hunting around for suspects in vans, unmarked or not(this is the state police's job!), but I don't think too many would agree that the federal vs state divide is what's important, which is why I didn't bring it up initially. I feel the anger against the federal agents is not rooted in principle, but the principles are used as a rationalization for removing an opposing force to the protests. Hopefully we can agree that it's well within police prerogative to prevent rioting, serious property damage(like trying set fire to buildings), possible violence. I am definitely willing to concede that Trump is a tactless brute, and sending the federal agents in like this was far from the best strategy. We could even perhaps tentatively agree that his actual goal is to disperse the protests under the guise of preventing rioting, but again, we'd have to agree first that the rioting is there. Which brings me back to the original post - is there protesting or violent rioting? Both. Is there secret police or not? Not really - there should be police to monitor the protests and prevent the rioting. If the state police is unwilling to do it, then the federal police may have to step in, although I'd have preferred to exhaust B through Y instead of going straight from A-Z.
      - oisdk 6y ago
        > Hopefully we can agree that it's well within police prerogative to prevent rioting, serious property damage(like trying set fire to buildings), possible violence. No, as it happens. I mean I get I'm probably outside the Overton window for hacker news, but I think we could probably find common ground on the principle that whatever else, the police should not use deadly force to prevent vandalism. This should include rubber bullets and batons, and I believe that tear gas also is not justified to prevent vandalism. I mean you have to understand that there are countries which don't experience the horrific brutality the US is going through right now. The police in these place isn't better because the government paid out millions to consultancy firms run by former cops, but because the role of the police is dramatically different, and almost always much smaller. > I am definitely willing to concede that Trump is a tactless brute, and sending the federal agents in like this was far from the best strategy. I don't like talking about Trump much in this context: the problem is far larger than him, and I think people talking about him alone are missing the point. The problem is overly-powerful police departments and unions which have massive political power in the cities they operate. Violence is used to increase this power, which in turn increases their funding and capacity for violence. We see this all the time with (for instance) the NYPD: their union directly threatened de Blasio's daughter, for instance. They also stopped patrolling in protest of the prosecution of their officers (famously crime dropped during this time). The only way to stop the cycle is to cut the power.
erikerikson 6y ago
Something that occurred to me might be referenced by that is the phenomenon of unidentified government personnel arresting protestors in Portland recently. It has been reported that they did not wear anything identifying the agency they work in or the particular individual (i.e. no equivalent of a badge number).
SteveJS 6y ago
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-us...
- SteveJS 6y ago
  Operation Legend Federal officials stage a major law enforcement operation in a city with zero coordination with the mayor of that city, who instead learns about it from twitter. https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/23/894548458/kansas-city-mayor-discusses-the-effect-of-federal-officers-presence-in-his-city https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racia... Operation Diligent Valor A top U.S. Homeland Security official on Monday defended the federal crackdown on protests in Portland, including the use of unmarked cars and unidentified officers in camouflage gear and said the practice will spread to other cities as needed. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-portland-valor/court-documents-reveal-secretive-federal-unit-deployed-for-operation-diligent-valor-in-oregon-idUSKCN24N2SH https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-portland-valo...
- SteveJS 6y ago
  ACLU lawsuit: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-federal-agents-portland https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-federal-agents... Restraining order issued against attacking journalists: U.S. District Judge Michael Simon today blocked federal agents in Portland from dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, or targeting force against journalists or legal observers at protests. The court’s order, which comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, adds the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Marshals Service to an existing injunction barring Portland police from arresting or attacking journalists and legal observers at Portland protests. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-issues-restraining-order-federal-agents-portland https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-issues-res...
- refurb 6y ago
  Oregon just had their attempt to remove federal police thrown out.[1] In a 14-page order, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman ruled that the state lacked legal standing to bring the suit and had “presented no evidence that these allegedly illegal seizures are a widespread practice.” [1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-charges-18-people-in-portland-with-federal-crimes-11595628641 https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-charges-18-p...

by tome 6y ago

oisdk 6y ago

I assume you're aware of police obscuring their badge numbers, and refusing to identify themselves? That phenomenon is at least as common as the actual police violence. While I have many problems with the following snopes article, I think the facts it presents are pretty incontrovertible: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/feds-unmarked-vans-portland/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/feds-unmarked-vans-portlan...

Sacho 6y ago
> I assume you're aware of police obscuring their badge numbers, and refusing to identify themselves? Er, is this what you would call secret police? The article's facts may be incontrovertible, but they don't agree with your description: "What's Undetermined While one person said he was detained without officers identifying themselves — and another viral video was interpreted by viewers as a case of the same thing — we have no verifiable evidence to prove or disprove whether agents in those cases explained for what federal agency they worked during the arrests."
- oisdk 6y ago
  So what's undetermined in the snopes article is whether specifically those police that detained people in portland identified themselves or not. When I spoke about officers not identifying themselves I was talking generally, about the other cases from outside of portland, of officers obscuring their badges and not identifying themselves. But no, that's not really what I would count as secret police. I mean I think the distinction is a little arbitrary and before long you basically get to arguing definitions which is almost always a waste of time, but I think the actions of the police in the snopes article constitute an overstep that I think qualifies as authoritarian. Especially when those agencies were sent in specifically by the executive. Also, I should point out that the line you quoted is the one I have a problem with: > we have no verifiable evidence to prove or disprove whether agents in those cases explained for what federal agency they worked during the arrests. That's a very strange sentence to me: like how could you even prove such a thing? Have a video of the entirety of the person's interaction with the police? I think if we're being reasonable here that it's overwhelmingly likely the police didn't identify themselves in this case. But of course it's not feasible to have "evidence" for that kind of thing, so I suppose I can't go ahead and say I'm sure on the point.
  - Sacho 6y ago
    I think the "secret police" part is a red herring. My opinion is that the federal police were justified defending the courthouse, but were not justified hunting around for suspects in vans, unmarked or not(this is the state police's job!), but I don't think too many would agree that the federal vs state divide is what's important, which is why I didn't bring it up initially. I feel the anger against the federal agents is not rooted in principle, but the principles are used as a rationalization for removing an opposing force to the protests. Hopefully we can agree that it's well within police prerogative to prevent rioting, serious property damage(like trying set fire to buildings), possible violence. I am definitely willing to concede that Trump is a tactless brute, and sending the federal agents in like this was far from the best strategy. We could even perhaps tentatively agree that his actual goal is to disperse the protests under the guise of preventing rioting, but again, we'd have to agree first that the rioting is there. Which brings me back to the original post - is there protesting or violent rioting? Both. Is there secret police or not? Not really - there should be police to monitor the protests and prevent the rioting. If the state police is unwilling to do it, then the federal police may have to step in, although I'd have preferred to exhaust B through Y instead of going straight from A-Z.
    - oisdk 6y ago
      > Hopefully we can agree that it's well within police prerogative to prevent rioting, serious property damage(like trying set fire to buildings), possible violence. No, as it happens. I mean I get I'm probably outside the Overton window for hacker news, but I think we could probably find common ground on the principle that whatever else, the police should not use deadly force to prevent vandalism. This should include rubber bullets and batons, and I believe that tear gas also is not justified to prevent vandalism. I mean you have to understand that there are countries which don't experience the horrific brutality the US is going through right now. The police in these place isn't better because the government paid out millions to consultancy firms run by former cops, but because the role of the police is dramatically different, and almost always much smaller. > I am definitely willing to concede that Trump is a tactless brute, and sending the federal agents in like this was far from the best strategy. I don't like talking about Trump much in this context: the problem is far larger than him, and I think people talking about him alone are missing the point. The problem is overly-powerful police departments and unions which have massive political power in the cities they operate. Violence is used to increase this power, which in turn increases their funding and capacity for violence. We see this all the time with (for instance) the NYPD: their union directly threatened de Blasio's daughter, for instance. They also stopped patrolling in protest of the prosecution of their officers (famously crime dropped during this time). The only way to stop the cycle is to cut the power.

erikerikson 6y ago

Something that occurred to me might be referenced by that is the phenomenon of unidentified government personnel arresting protestors in Portland recently. It has been reported that they did not wear anything identifying the agency they work in or the particular individual (i.e. no equivalent of a badge number).

SteveJS 6y ago

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-us...

SteveJS 6y ago
Operation Legend Federal officials stage a major law enforcement operation in a city with zero coordination with the mayor of that city, who instead learns about it from twitter. https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/23/894548458/kansas-city-mayor-discusses-the-effect-of-federal-officers-presence-in-his-city https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racia... Operation Diligent Valor A top U.S. Homeland Security official on Monday defended the federal crackdown on protests in Portland, including the use of unmarked cars and unidentified officers in camouflage gear and said the practice will spread to other cities as needed. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-portland-valor/court-documents-reveal-secretive-federal-unit-deployed-for-operation-diligent-valor-in-oregon-idUSKCN24N2SH https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-portland-valo...
SteveJS 6y ago
ACLU lawsuit: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-federal-agents-portland https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-federal-agents... Restraining order issued against attacking journalists: U.S. District Judge Michael Simon today blocked federal agents in Portland from dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, or targeting force against journalists or legal observers at protests. The court’s order, which comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, adds the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Marshals Service to an existing injunction barring Portland police from arresting or attacking journalists and legal observers at Portland protests. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-issues-restraining-order-federal-agents-portland https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-issues-res...
refurb 6y ago
Oregon just had their attempt to remove federal police thrown out.[1] In a 14-page order, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman ruled that the state lacked legal standing to bring the suit and had “presented no evidence that these allegedly illegal seizures are a widespread practice.” [1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-charges-18-people-in-portland-with-federal-crimes-11595628641 https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-charges-18-p...