3 ms·

Is there any indication as to what the federal agents think about it? They can’t be happy to be ordered to wage war against their own citizens.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
iron0013 6y ago
Well, they have an ethical duty not to follow those orders. Since Nuremberg, at least, “just following orders” has not been considered an acceptable defense for having committed atrocities.
- loopz 6y ago
  They will be fired and cancelled though. https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/05borderlands.html https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/05borderlands.html
- bendbro 6y ago
  > atrocities Soft times we live in when less than lethal riot control methods are considered on par with militarily executed genocides.
- missosoup 6y ago
  I'm not sure it's valid to equate Nazi genocide with riot crowd control. It's important to unpack this issue and disconnect the loaded politics from the reality on the ground. E.g. if exactly the same events were taking place but the crowd in question was far-right neonazies, would that change your opinion of what's going on? If so, then you need to unpack it and remove the political bias from your analysis. I think any rational person can agree that a mob trying to burn down a courthouse is not okay in a civilised society, regardless of what mob wants to do it.
yokaze 6y ago
Not to justify their actions, but from their perspective, things probably looks a bit different. For starters, considering they are federal agents, they have likely been ordered away from their families to take care of a, let's say chaotic situation. They probably think, they have to take care of a mess others caused. They are not their citizens, but people they have few things in common. Finally, they are not received well. The demonstrators and they are different people. You can see it in other countries too. Riot police from other regions are often a recipe for complications.
- rich_sasha 6y ago
  Yes, I see that it may well be at least unclear for them. But legal, moral responsibility aside, I would just imagine it is a sucky job to go fight your own citizens. I wouldn’t be surprised if that ends up a breaking point: uniformed forces refusing to continue being part of this battle. But maybe I’m wrong, hence my question.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    On the bright side, the JCS saw that refusing to begin is even better than refusing to continue (note the handwritten addition): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23412986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23412986 In our state-funded news, the headline about US agents in Portland ran with the subhead "like a private militia". (our reporters may have become biased when US police fired upon them, too.)
  - Applejinx 6y ago
    It would be nice, but from what I see in reactions to all this, I think not. I think the forces you speak of will either come to believe, or be persuaded, that they are entirely doing battle against enemy terrorists who don't 'count' as humans. It won't matter if they're moms or little children: they will uniformly be categorized as monsters and treated as such. There must surely be huge amounts of this already: wouldn't be nearly as much protest if it wasn't already well documented that cops and uniformed forces will blast their enemies with pepper spray and any weapon they're permitted to use. Humans simply don't fire pepper spray or projectile weapons at simple bystanders unless they're total psychopaths: what you see there is not so much a culture of total psychopaths, rather a group that believes the modern day equivalent of 'even the kids and old ladies are VC'. And in so doing, they make it become true, which is why military handbooks on this subject instruct you to back off and yield whatever's being targeted. The dangers of mobilizing popular opinion against the military invaders is far greater than losing whatever is threatened. In other words, if the protesters are trying to destroy the police station at Cable Street, there might be a reason why sending in feds to crush the rebellion by force will not work. It may simply underscore the problem in the minds of otherwise apolitical onlookers, and the pool of people available to join the opposition may be greater than you think, IF there's a reason to judge you negatively for siding with Cable Street and supporting their activities. And it's possible that you don't know what Cable Street means, if you don't live there. But if you're uniformed forces from elsewhere, maybe the whole point is that you don't live there, and you're being selected to go in specifically because you don't live there and can be trusted to categorize your enemies as monsters simply because they are battling something you're told is good and righteous.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

iron0013 6y ago

Well, they have an ethical duty not to follow those orders. Since Nuremberg, at least, “just following orders” has not been considered an acceptable defense for having committed atrocities.

loopz 6y ago
They will be fired and cancelled though. https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/05borderlands.html https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/05borderlands.html
bendbro 6y ago
> atrocities Soft times we live in when less than lethal riot control methods are considered on par with militarily executed genocides.
missosoup 6y ago
I'm not sure it's valid to equate Nazi genocide with riot crowd control. It's important to unpack this issue and disconnect the loaded politics from the reality on the ground. E.g. if exactly the same events were taking place but the crowd in question was far-right neonazies, would that change your opinion of what's going on? If so, then you need to unpack it and remove the political bias from your analysis. I think any rational person can agree that a mob trying to burn down a courthouse is not okay in a civilised society, regardless of what mob wants to do it.

yokaze 6y ago

Not to justify their actions, but from their perspective, things probably looks a bit different. For starters, considering they are federal agents, they have likely been ordered away from their families to take care of a, let's say chaotic situation. They probably think, they have to take care of a mess others caused. They are not their citizens, but people they have few things in common. Finally, they are not received well. The demonstrators and they are different people. You can see it in other countries too. Riot police from other regions are often a recipe for complications.

rich_sasha 6y ago
Yes, I see that it may well be at least unclear for them. But legal, moral responsibility aside, I would just imagine it is a sucky job to go fight your own citizens. I wouldn’t be surprised if that ends up a breaking point: uniformed forces refusing to continue being part of this battle. But maybe I’m wrong, hence my question.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  On the bright side, the JCS saw that refusing to begin is even better than refusing to continue (note the handwritten addition): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23412986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23412986 In our state-funded news, the headline about US agents in Portland ran with the subhead "like a private militia". (our reporters may have become biased when US police fired upon them, too.)
- Applejinx 6y ago
  It would be nice, but from what I see in reactions to all this, I think not. I think the forces you speak of will either come to believe, or be persuaded, that they are entirely doing battle against enemy terrorists who don't 'count' as humans. It won't matter if they're moms or little children: they will uniformly be categorized as monsters and treated as such. There must surely be huge amounts of this already: wouldn't be nearly as much protest if it wasn't already well documented that cops and uniformed forces will blast their enemies with pepper spray and any weapon they're permitted to use. Humans simply don't fire pepper spray or projectile weapons at simple bystanders unless they're total psychopaths: what you see there is not so much a culture of total psychopaths, rather a group that believes the modern day equivalent of 'even the kids and old ladies are VC'. And in so doing, they make it become true, which is why military handbooks on this subject instruct you to back off and yield whatever's being targeted. The dangers of mobilizing popular opinion against the military invaders is far greater than losing whatever is threatened. In other words, if the protesters are trying to destroy the police station at Cable Street, there might be a reason why sending in feds to crush the rebellion by force will not work. It may simply underscore the problem in the minds of otherwise apolitical onlookers, and the pool of people available to join the opposition may be greater than you think, IF there's a reason to judge you negatively for siding with Cable Street and supporting their activities. And it's possible that you don't know what Cable Street means, if you don't live there. But if you're uniformed forces from elsewhere, maybe the whole point is that you don't live there, and you're being selected to go in specifically because you don't live there and can be trusted to categorize your enemies as monsters simply because they are battling something you're told is good and righteous.