
Portland protesters say federal officers in unmarked vans are detaining them - hedora
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/17/portland-protests-federal-arrests/
======
hirundo
How can you have the right of habeaus corpus when nobody knows which agency
seized your corpus?

We urgently need a federal statute to require that armed federal agents wear
prominent identification. Even just a number that we can lookup for the
details.

Cops with no accountability are how we got in this mess and this anonymity
amounts to more of the same.

~~~
neonate
The article says which agency it was (CPB), and quotes the CPB as saying that
the agents identified themselves as CPB agents. It also says that they weren't
individually identifiable, which is an issue, but a different issue.

~~~
thephyber
I don't see the CPB supposedly identifying their agency as alleviating the
first issue your parent mentioned: habeas corpus. The litmus test is: can a
family/friend/attorney reasonably find the arrested/detained person within a
few hours?

------
disposition2
It is nice to see this finally getting the attention of national media. It was
a week or so ago I saw videos of some guy get shot in the face while holding
up a sign and another being kidnapped and dragged in to an unmarked car by
unidentified individuals for an unexplained reason.

------
exabrial
For everyone wondering what's happening, here's my theory. They're likely
using CCTV footage, either drone or fixed, to identify people in the crowd.
Most likely these are instigators that are inciting violence or destroying
property. They're waiting until the people are separated from the crowd, to
make sure that things don't escalate, then arresting them.

We need to follow up with the arrests and make sure due process is being
followed. If you're inciting violence or destroying property, you need to face
justice. If you're assembling peacefully, we need to monitore for/end the
abuse of power.

~~~
aedocw
Nice theory, except they are not being arrested. They are being detained, and
then released with no charges, and no apparent record of having been captured.

~~~
exabrial
Have a source? I don't think that's true. This is what I'm seeing.

[https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=25099...](https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=250994&ec=2)

------
Avshalom
just a reminder of the dress rehearsal from Standing Rock

[https://theintercept.com/2017/05/27/leaked-documents-
reveal-...](https://theintercept.com/2017/05/27/leaked-documents-reveal-
security-firms-counterterrorism-tactics-at-standing-rock-to-defeat-pipeline-
insurgencies/)

------
solarkraft
So what happens if you manage to shoot these (quasi- or even actual)
kidnappers in self-defense?

~~~
aerostable_slug
You'd get shot back, and you very well might lose the civil suit: In every
video I've seen, there's a big POLICE patch on their plate carriers.

That doesn't make what's happening super awesome, but OTOH it's not like these
are like the Russian Little Green Men in Ukraine, operating without any
visible affiliation whatsoever.

~~~
dragonwriter
> You'd get shot back, and you very well might lose the civil suit: In every
> video I've seen, there's a big POLICE patch on their plate carriers.

If having a POLICE patch is a license to commit violence without the target
having a right to self-defense, that’s...a problem.

> OTOH it's not like these are like the Russian Little Green Men in Ukraine,
> operating without any visible affiliation whatsoever.

It's exactly like that: LGM were armed troops that wore generic military-style
fatigues with no identification with a specific accountable organization,
though behavior and common sense linked them on some level to the Russian
governmwnr. These armed troops wear generic law-enforcement style gear with no
identification with a specific accountable organization, though behavior and
common sense link them to the US federal government. It's _exactly_ the same
thing, except that it's internal unaccountable repression and not an external
not-quite-plausibly-deniable invasion.

~~~
aerostable_slug
> If having a POLICE patch is a license to commit violence without the target
> having a right to self-defense, that’s...a problem.

I suppose so, but it's currently within the law to do so. In fact, the police
don't always have to identify themselves as the police in certain exigent
circumstances (!). It's also a common myth that universally the police must
identify themselves personally and give a badge number. That's up to
department policy.

I support reform in these cases, at the least requiring officers to wear
patches that uniquely identifies them ("X25" or something) for later use in
court. That said, what we are seeing is within the bounds of the law today.

>It's exactly the same thing

No, it really isn't. Men in civilian clothing or blank fatigues blowing things
up with zero identification is indeed distinguishable from men in uniform with
American flag and POLICE patches.

~~~
OnlineCourage
> No, it really isn't. Men in civilian clothing or blank fatigues blowing
> things up with zero identification is indeed distinguishable from men in
> uniform with American flag and POLICE patches.

How so?

~~~
aerostable_slug
A reasonable observer could conclude that they are almost certainly American
law enforcement. Is is difficult to tell that these German fellows are police
officers?

[https://i.redd.it/b6xjl7nugoq41.jpg](https://i.redd.it/b6xjl7nugoq41.jpg)

The LGM had no patches, no flags, nothing to indicate to a reasonable observer
where they were from or what authority they might have. This was more
pronounced with LGM in civilian clothing:

[https://i.redd.it/2sukgo8bjjl41.png](https://i.redd.it/2sukgo8bjjl41.png)

I'm not a giant fan of the cammies. I think a solid color would suffice for
all but snipers and it looks less militaristic. But that doesn't negate the
fact that all of the videos show men with POLICE patches in the middle of
their plate carriers and American flags on their uniforms.

~~~
yeetawayhn
> A reasonable observer could conclude that they are almost certainly American
> law enforcement. Is is difficult to tell that these German fellows are
> police officers?
> >[https://i.redd.it/b6xjl7nugoq41.jpg](https://i.redd.it/b6xjl7nugoq41.jpg)

Based on the comments here, it is difficult for these people. Perhaps they are
not reasonable observers?

------
erentz
This has been going on for a while. It started with using unidentified units
at the DC protests. Then the clearing of protestors for the photo op. Now
they're roaming the streets in unmarked rentals in Portland abducting people.
This is against the wishes of the Governor and the Mayor.

The DHS secretary visited Portland yesterday, this is what he saw that has
prompted him to send in these forces: pictures of graffiti [1].

For that he labeled these are violent extremists and violent anarchists. And
he has labeled these unidentified units abducting people as our valiant men
and women in uniform and patriots. This is war on terror language used in our
country, on our streets.

On Wednesday Trump, with AG Barr next to him named other "blue cities" in
addition to Portland: Seattle, Minneapolis, and Chicago.

If this chills you and you don't want to see it progress, call your
representatives and ask them to intervene to stop this.

[1]
[https://twitter.com/DHS_Wolf/status/1284095525122453504](https://twitter.com/DHS_Wolf/status/1284095525122453504)

~~~
erentz
Legit curious about the down voting. If we're going to allow news like this to
be posted, then what about my comment is not adding facts or to the
conversation? Is it because of this line: "If this chills you and you don't
want to see it progress, call your representatives and ask them to intervene
to stop this."?

~~~
nkurz
I upvoted to counter the downvotes, but I'd guess the downvotes were because
you described what some people feel were legal arrests as "abducting people",
and because you suggested the the DHS secretary sent in forces solely because
of graffiti. Your point of view is legitimate, but others might legitimately
disagree with it. I think just about everyone would agree with the "call your
representatives" part.

------
cameldrv
Oregon law seems straightforward:

ORS 162.367:

(1) A person commits the crime of criminal impersonation of a peace officer if
the person, with the intent to obtain a benefit or to injure or defraud
another person, uses false law enforcement identification or wears a law
enforcement uniform to give the impression that the person is a peace officer
and does an act in that assumed character. (2) Criminal impersonation of a
peace officer is a Class C felony. ... (3) As used in this section: ... Law
enforcement uniform” means clothing bearing words such as “police,” “sheriff,”
“state trooper” or “law enforcement,” or clothing that is an official uniform
or substantially similar to an official uniform of a law enforcement unit that
would make it reasonably likely that a person would believe that the wearer is
a peace officer. [1993 c.243 §2; 2005 c.259 §1]

ORS 133.005:

(3) “Peace officer” means: (a) A member of the Oregon State Police; (b) A
sheriff, constable, marshal, municipal police officer or reserve officer or a
police officer commissioned by a university under ORS 352.121 (University
police departments and officers) or 353.125 (Creation of police department and
commission of police officers); (c) An investigator of a district attorney’s
office if the investigator is or has been certified as a peace officer in this
or any other state; (d) An investigator of the Criminal Justice Division of
the Department of Justice of the State of Oregon; (e) A humane special agent
as defined in ORS 181A.345 (Humane special agents to enforce animal welfare
laws under direction of law enforcement agency); (f) A regulatory specialist
exercising authority described in ORS 471.775 (Service of subpoenas) (2); (g)
An authorized tribal police officer as defined in ORS 181A.680 (Definitions
for ORS 181A.680 to 181A.692); or (h) A judicial marshal appointed under ORS
1.177 (State plan for security, emergency preparedness and business continuity
for court facilities) who is trained pursuant to ORS 181A.540 (Certification
of judicial marshals).

There is a separate definition of "Federal Officer." A Federal Officer is not
allowed to wear clothing bearing the word "Police", because they are not a
police officer.

Impersonating a police officer is a class C felony, carrying a maximum
sentence of five years in prison.

~~~
pandaman
IANAL so I don't quite understand why would be a state law (Oregon in this
case) applicable to federal agents executing the federal law. Seeing that
internet is full of pictures of federal agents with "police" insignia (usually
together with the agency name, but not always) it appears that the federal law
allows this type of identification and, because of the Supremacy Clause, the
state law has no effect. Am I missing something here?

------
lumberingjack
This was happening in Cincinnati about 20 years ago and nobody believed me the
neighborhood I lived in was so bad with gang violence anytime you called the
police they showed up an unmarked clothing wearing masks in unmarked police
cars white and black

------
AlleyTrotter
How did he know they were federal?

~~~
Avshalom
The feds have said they're there. Not what they're doing exactly but they
haven't been hiding their presence. If you know they aren't local PD because
you've been there long enough to know what swat-ass PPD look like the choice
is vigilante cosplays or Fed, and Occam says fed.

------
marcusverus
This article offers scant evidence that this occurred.

A man claims that he was arrested "as he was walking home from a peaceful
protest" and taken to the courthouse in an unmarked vehicle. This strikes me
as unlikely to be the full story, but it is presented as the gospel truth. The
entire thing is based on the word of this guy. What did the Washington Post do
to verify the truth of this story? Anything?

The WaPo article refrences Oregon Public Broadcasting as a source, and their
article[0] contains more allegations:

> Federal law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles to drive
> around downtown Portland and detain protesters since at least July 14.

and

> Personal accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers
> driving up to people, detaining individuals with no explanation of why they
> are being arrested, and driving off.

Neither article links to these videos. So, in terms of supporting evidence,
we're left with the word of one man and a perfectly credulous article written
in a local publication.

Has anyone seen one of these videos?

[0][https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-
unm...](https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unmarked-
vehicles-portland-protesters/)

~~~
woopwoop
Here's one:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/hry8db/arme...](https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/hry8db/armed_troops_in_portland_oregon_are_taking_people/)

~~~
dTal
Many of the comments note a number of highly suspicious irregularities which
point towards this being some kind of asset extraction, as opposed to a
genuine arrest.

------
0max
This play is straight outta Vladislav Surkov's book. He's starting to look
like Putin's Kissinger. Look up the "little green men" in Ukraine.

