>The NYT footage clearly depicts uniformed individuals without identification detaining protesters. The people making the arrests are wearing identifying marki

>The NYT footage clearly depicts uniformed individuals without identification detaining protesters. The people making the arrests are wearing identifying marking as well as their badge number. Look at the man's shoulder where he is wearing a Border Patrol insignia with his badge number above it. You can see this in the original footage of the car based arrest. https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/103/7d8/36268f7317b3d89f028b34d88ac4725d66-portland-troops.rhorizontal.w700.jpg https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/103/7d8/36268f7317b3d89f028b... > The "local authorities" include the mayor of Portland and the governor of Oregon. Regardless of how one feels about the protests or their legitimacy, any proponent of state's rights should be very alarmed by the situation. They are elected officials representing their constituents, and in their own state their rights and desires should be respected. I think of states as laboratories of our democratic republic where localities are allowed to craft approaches and responses that best fit their needs. This is a good thing. It is incorrect though to defend states rights when the local government has allowed federal property to be attacked night after night without attempting to quell it. Federal police was not dispatched until the federal courthouse in Portland was breached by "protestors". If the state and local government refuse to defend federal property, what do you suggest that the federal government should do? And what does that say about those governments?