
Homeland Security Was Destined to Become a Secret Police Force - jbegley
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-dhs-was-destined-to-become-a-secret-police-force
======
johnyzee
Related to these mysterious federal agents in unmarked cars, I've often
wondered how private citizens are supposed to protect themselves against
someone impersonating law enforcement.

In this case, the 'officers' were not even dressed as law enforcement, and
either way, it is not very difficult to produce a reasonably convincing
replica of a uniform. How can you make sure that you are dealing with actual
law enforcement, when you submit yourself to them, they cuff you, take your
stuff, drive you away, etc.?

"Can I see your badge?" doesn't seem very effective, given that a badge can
easily be faked, but more importantly you'd probably, for good reason, be too
afraid to even ask. Is America really such a police state now that you are
just supposed to submit to anyone in a uniform? And does this not seem ripe
for abuse to everyone else?

~~~
openasocket
> Is America really such a police state now that you are just supposed to
> submit to anyone in a uniform? And does this not seem ripe for abuse to
> everyone else?

The snarky answer is: if people with guns come up to you and tell you to come
with them, you should probably comply, especially if they aren't cops. But
really you raise a good point, one that the ACLU's lawsuit explicitly brings
up.

I recall a case (I think in Myrtle Beach) where some police officers broke
conducted a no-knock warrant to arrest someone, but they did so in plain
clothes and did not announce that they were officers and that the person was
under arrest. The person, fearing for his safety, came out of his bedroom with
a gun and the officers shot him multiple times. He later sued. I remember the
opinion from the judges was absolutely scathing. They held that the officers
would be personally liable for damages (i.e. the would have to pay this guy
out of their own pockets, not just the city). I recall listening to oral
arguments and at one point the defense rhetorically said something to the
effect of "he had a gun, were the officers supposed to just stand there and
get shot?" And the judges essentially responded "yes".

Now part of that conclusion rested on the fact that he has a right to defend
his home, and there's some specific case law there ( I believe Heller calls
out defending your home specifically). But I wouldn't be surprised if it was
perfectly legal to refuse to go with someone who does not identify themselves,
and even to respond with force if they assault you. But it's probably not the
wisest thing to do. Best thing to do would probably be to record them and take
legal action. I think the craziest thing about this is that the people getting
arrested by these weird federal agents are all being released within hours
without charges, because these arrests violate all normal procedures. Actually
I kind of wish they would try to prosecute these protesters. Because you have
the right to face your accuser, and during discovery all of the information
about who these people are and who ordered them to do what would come to
light.

~~~
regularfry
If I were a malicious government I might start off by grabbing people off the
street then releasing them, to get people used to the idea that "it's not so
bad" and "don't struggle, they'll let you go without charge". After that
narrative has had time to sink in (days? weeks?), I'd redirect the people I'd
grabbed somewhere they weren't going to be released from instead. Not all at
once, mind, because if most, or at least some, or maybe one or two are still
getting released like before, there'll be confusion about what's actually
going on and violent resistance won't crystalise. Especially if it's random,
and there's no way to tell if someone's lost and hasn't turned up after
release, or if they've been vanished.

~~~
mindslight
IMO the catch and release is because they're fishing for the ones they can
make the strongest legal case for federal jurisdiction. Out of staters, social
media posts, cell location history, some other connection with the courthouse,
etc. Once they get some favorable precedents, they'll ramp it up.

~~~
no-s
>>IMO the catch and release is because they're fishing for the ones they can
make the strongest legal case for federal jurisdiction.

or maybe its just a subterfuge. maybe the catch and release was to disguise
interaction with confidential informants or undercover agents...

------
annoyingnoob
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting
the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies
it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie,
nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do
not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence
for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already
devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

-Martin Luther King Jr.

~~~
rasz
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution)

~~~
jbay808
... And? Did you post this in the wrong thread, or do you want to imply
something about the French Revolution's relevance to the above quote but can't
be bothered to explain your point? The French Revolution began as a bloodbath
and ended in Napoleon rampaging across Europe, so it would seem like a case in
point. Is that what you meant?

~~~
rasz
French Revolution is a perfect counter example nullifying MLK point. Yes, a
lot of violence and chopped heads can in fact establish better future for all.

~~~
cloverich
...the French revolution led to Napoleon though, and several more wars after.
Did they cause the better future? Was the substantial violence and ethnic
cleansing _following_ WW2 part of that future? I am far from an expert on the
subject but I've yet to hear the argument you are presenting. Curious to hear
a more substantive version of it.

~~~
rasz
French were already war happy without Napoleon. 30 year war, Spain,
Netherlands, Austria, then we get to French and Indian War and American
Revolution. If anything Napoleonic Wars brought peace and introduced never
seen before liberties. Obviously being a Pole makes me strongly biased.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Warsaw](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Warsaw)

~~~
koheripbal
> _If anything Napoleonic Wars brought peace_

I can't tell if this is a serious comment or not.

~~~
rasz
You'd know if you were Spanish, British or French.

------
clarkevans
There is speculation [1] that the federal officers deployed to Portland
include not only government employees, but also private security contractors.
This seems reminiscent of "Pinkerton's National Detective Agency". If
accurate, this undermines the legitimacy of the deployment, and perhaps
explains why official identification for many of the officers is not provided.

[1] [https://medium.com/@wkc6428/the-lead-federal-agency-
respondi...](https://medium.com/@wkc6428/the-lead-federal-agency-responding-
to-protesters-in-portland-employs-thousands-of-private-db137349f8b0)

~~~
ideals
In such a case, shouldn't this be a good application for facial recognition
software?

These federal police should show up in databases confirming their identities,
whether that's a federal db or a relatives FB page.

Maybe we should be using ClearView AI to keep the police honest.

~~~
Kednicma
The police cover their faces, and make face coverings illegal. In the past,
this has worked very well; the main change now is that we have a social
expectation that law-abiding folks will wear face coverings, and in even more
of an inversion, folks without face coverings are suspect.

In neither situation would facial recognition systems make things better for
the populace.

------
Dwolb
The key point this writer is making

> we are watching the perfect and perhaps inevitable combination of a
> domestic-security superagency and a President who rejects all mechanisms of
> accountability, including the Senate confirmation process.

Accountability appears to be broken with a two party system.

Combined with a President who’s willing to push boundaries and a federal
agency built to act more swiftly with broader powers, we could see a lot more
civil strife before this term is up.

~~~
rsynnott
I think the presidential system is also a factor; it makes it a little too
obvious and immutable where the blame lies. In a parliamentary system, there’s
much more scope for the ruling party to resolve this sort of thing by, say,
quietly sacrificing the minister for justice, without much blame attaching to
the PM (even if it’s their fault to begin with). In a presidential system it’s
harder to do this without criticising dear leader. I can’t imagine many
republican leaders are actually very happy about this whole mess, but very few
of them are willing to publicly break ranks and they have limited ability to
check the executive even if they do.

~~~
happytoexplain
>I can’t imagine many republican leaders are actually very happy about this
whole mess, but very few of them are willing to publicly break ranks

I think this is one of the most fundamental factors in the breakdown at higher
levels of discourse. Most liberals I personally know used to put a strong
emphasis on benefit of the doubt and pragmatism when it came to judging
Republican leadership - there was always plenty of strong criticism, but there
was also a lot of "well, in such-and-such case, they are just doing what they
honestly think is best for the country". But that attitude is now utterly
gone, because of the silence of such leaders on the incredibly overt hatred
and unreasonableness of Trump and other proponents of spite-motivated
authoritarianism. They still have plenty of good faith for _Republicans_ , but
what's changed is that they now have absolutely zero for Republican _leaders_.
What's happening is awful.

~~~
rsynnott
That has, looking from the outside, been one of the weirdest aspects of the
whole Trump thing to me. Traditionally, prime ministers in parliamentary
systems are _terrified_ of their own parties; it's their own party who can
most conveniently get rid of them, and even very popular leaders will be
conscious of this. I understand that it's less so in the US system (as it's
much harder for the party to get rid of the president) but even still, the
level of support for Trump by republican leadership seems bizarre.

Like, there _have_ to be quite a few of them who have misgivings about this
(either on a 'this is wrong' basis, or, more cynically, on a 'we will suffer
for this electorally' basis), but practically none have voiced any.

~~~
pandaman
The President of the US is elected by the people, not his party. The only
thing the party can do to the president is to sabotage the next election and
give it to the opposite party. While Democrats probably think its a rational
thing for Republicans to do, some Republicans might disagree.

------
hintymad
I'm confused. Did people attack federal buildings or not? If they did, is it
expected that local police should intervene? If local police should but
didn't, is it lawful that federal agents moved in? There are streams of videos
that showed there were two groups: those who held peaceful protest before
1:00am or so, and those who rioted after 1:00am. Are those video telling the
truth? Or are they edited out to mislead us? When did the federal agents move
in? Did DHS director tell the truth in DHS' public debriefing? Did the video
about riots played by Kayleigh McEnany tell the truth?

Or all I saw are a bunch of alt-right propaganda? Or violence is the voice of
unheard so by asking these questions I'm a disgusting evil person? And no,
those are not rhetorical questions. I honestly don't have answers. For one,
the so-called "arson" in front of the courthouse looked so small. It looks
just a bunch of people burning cardboard for fun or for protesting. Probably
still illegal, but I wouldn't call it violent or arson.

~~~
parrellel
It certainly doesn't help that the right wing of the twitter-verse keeps
posting videos and images of riots in other decades and countries and
attributing them to Portland. It's such a bizarre mindfuck seeing repurposed
videos from Ukraine or South America presented as the north west.

~~~
hintymad
Yeah, especially when trustworthy news and facts are all the more important
now.

------
rsynnott
A particularly nasty case of nominative determinism; giving it such an
obviously sinister name was never going to work out well.

------
low_key
Of course it was. I've even referred to it as the "Department of Motherland
Security" since its inception.

------
smitty1e
> The creation of the D.H.S. marked a shift in the way that Americans think
> and talk about the country, and about people.

Oh, please.

We went from being "these United States" to being "the United States" after
the Civil War, and not without reason.

A century back, under Wilson, we brought in 16A, 17A & the Federal Reserve.

If there is substantial interest in redistributing power, not wealth, via
Washington D.C., then we need
[https://conventionofstates.com/](https://conventionofstates.com/)

Anything less is so much Mary Kay on the swine herd.

------
vz8
Every so often, I look at a headline and think to myself before clicking:

To VPN, or not VPN: that is the question.

~~~
ColanR
I imagine that for such a threat model as you imply, a VPN would do rather
little.

~~~
manquer
Depends on the country the VPN provider is based out of.

While there are many soft power actions like blocking payments etc to outright
hacking American LEA can do to extract data from other countries orgs but
legally there are no tools like NSL and FISA courts to get it .

------
sky_lounge
The premise of the article has almost nothing to do with current events.

One can dislike how/why DHS was created and also believe that order needs to
be restored the area by the feds.

As for the "unmarked cars" picking people up, what is actually happening to
these people? Is it catch and release? It seems pretty tame to me.

Should they just let the protesters/rioters burn down the courthouse?

As to whether they are protesters or rioters, ask whether you think Peter
Schiff could do what he did during occupy and stroll into the crowd attempting
to debate and defend capitalism with the folk (which I think he failed to do
at all, but more just the fact he was able to try it there is significant)?
The answer is of course not; he'd probably be beaten or severely injured.

~~~
annoyingnoob
>As for the "unmarked cars" picking people up, what is actually happening to
these people? Is it catch and release? It seems pretty tame to me.

Its illegal to detain people for no reason. How will you feel when it happens
to you?

> Should they just let the protesters/rioters burn down the courthouse?

That is an interesting perspective. And its one that a lot of people currently
hold toward the police. Does one (or even a few) bad apple spoil the bunch?

Do you think that protesters like the Navy Vet, Naked Athena, the Wall of
Moms, and even the Mayor of Portland really want to burn down a Federal
building?

~~~
sky_lounge
> Its illegal to detain people for no reason.

I agree and I find these events troubling. But I also want to put them in
perspective.

> Does one (or even a few) bad apple spoil the bunch?

I don't understand the point you're making here.

> Do you think that protesters like the Navy Vet, Naked Athena, the Wall of
> Moms, and even the Mayor of Portland really want to burn down a Federal
> building?

As another commenter said, there are about 3 different groups with different
adgendas operating in the area.

~~~
annoyingnoob
Who exactly is calling for the the courthouse to burn? That is my point, while
there may be some troublemakers the vast majority are not. While some find
calls to defund the police offensive, others find the call to stop people from
exercising their rights offensive.

~~~
sky_lounge
> Who exactly is calling for the the courthouse to burn?

The point of a mob is that having diffuse boundaries there is no central
leader, planning, or accountability

~~~
annoyingnoob
> there is no central leader, planning, or accountability

So the response should be police with no identification, planning, or
accountability? And assault everyone?

~~~
sky_lounge
> police with no identification

[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/feds-unmarked-vans-
portlan...](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/feds-unmarked-vans-portland/)

If this happened at all, there have only been 2 _possible_ cases, and given
that extent, we are not talking about a widespread phenomenon. The scope of
the discussion and ramifications should account for that.

> police with no.. planning, or accountability?

Yes, I think an institution has a lot more of those things than a mob does.
And just because that is true doesn't mean police need to be reformed. But i'm
responding to your direct coments.

> And assault everyone?

Are they 'assaulting everyone?" I don't know what events you're talking about
anymore.

~~~
annoyingnoob
You admit that there are possible cases where human rights were violated and
yet you see no problem with that - that goes directly against our constitution
and our natural rights as humans. So far there has been no accountability for
the Feds.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/26/leaf-
blower...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/07/26/leaf-blower-wars-
how-portland-protesters-are-fighting-back-against-tear-gas-forming-walls-
veterans-lawyers-nurses/)

"Typically, police fire the agent once or twice to clear crowds and encourage
people to move away from an area, said Michelle Heisler, the medical director
of Physicians for Human Rights. But in Portland, federal agents have been
unleashing the chemicals repeatedly for hours. This sustained cascade makes it
difficult for peaceful demonstrators to avoid being hit and runs the risk of
ensnaring bystanders in the area, she said."

I find it sad that you hold the symbolism of a building over the lives and
fair treatment of your countrymen.

------
bfieidhbrjr
There are really 2, 3 or 4 protests.

There's the BLM daylight protestors... There's the "moms" in the evening...
Then there's the anarchists/antifa at 2am.

Before you judge what the DHS is doing, watch the videos from 2am. I think
many people are watching the peaceful daytime videos and seeing DHS as
overreacting. Which it would be.

I don't think it's overreacting to people setting the court house on fire,
hitting police in the head with hammers or destroying businesses. You can find
videos of this easily even though the "protestors" tend to beat up and eject
"unofficial" camera people.

And they've been doing this for 2 MONTHS, way before DHS arrived with a
mission to protect federal property, which we all pay for.

~~~
thebooktocome
Truly crimes worthy of being wounded, maimed, and killed without either
indictment or trial.

~~~
refurb
Portland lost their injunction in front of a judge yesterday. I’m assuming
they put forward their best evidence and the judge said they “provided no
evidence these _allegedly_ illegal seizures are a widespread practice”.

[https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/645981db-2a88-3304-ae89-094ca25...](https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/645981db-2a88-3304-ae89-094ca2527aac/oregon-
loses-request-for.html)

~~~
wool_gather
Federal judiciary can be maddening unwilling to hold executive security
apparatus to account. I'm reminded of the NSA surveillance lawsuit, that was
shrugged away with the same "lack of standing". And the same question
lingering -- then, your honor, who exactly _does_ have standing?

~~~
aspenmayer
It creates a catch-22-enhanced version of Who’s On First[1][2], except it’s
Who Has Legal Standing? It results in judges being hesitant to rule as they
ought due to intentional muddying of the jurisdictional hierarchy of
bureaucracy and who is able to claim standing and harm. It’s a shell game
designed to disempower everyone in the courtroom to the boon of those who can
never or will never be brought inside one.

What if change through the courts is impossible because it would take longer
than any one person’s life to acquire standing to sue, and have the case
heard?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_on_First%3F](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_on_First%3F)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-
fg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg)

------
tlear
Watch streams from the night time in Portland, then come back. Rioters try to
stop anyone from filming but stuff still comes out.

~~~
maxerickson
The people not protesting peacefully are confined to ~3 blocks, and there are
not large numbers.

The Portland police declare a riot each night (regardless of the state of the
crowd) and start crowd control procedures, where they force people out of
areas with noxious gas and other violent methods.

~~~
koheripbal
They may be fewer people, and they may be confined area, but they are
literally the reason federal officers are there.

Peaceful protests are not a problem to anyone.

------
graycat
For another view, can read the comments of Disqus user JLM at the blog

[https://continuations.com/post/624305968188145664/help-
stop-...](https://continuations.com/post/624305968188145664/help-stop-fascism)

There the relevant law is quoted and explained.

So, in short, the DHS has the FPS (Federal Protective Service), and their job
is

> "... safeguarding Federal owned and leased facilities and has been since
> 1790.

The FPS is part of the DHS.

...

The Customs and Border Protection unit is legally supporting the Federal
Protective Service because the particular unit -- the Border Patrol Tactical
Unit -- BORTAC -- is highly trained in riot control operations."

There are lots more details by JLM there including quotes of the relevant
laws, e.g., 40 USC 1315.

So, the FPS was in Portland to protect Federal property as in 40 USC 1315.

In simplest terms, the Federal work there in Portland was protecting Federal
property. Policing Portland in general was not part of the work.

The article mentioned "secret police": To set that aside, just read the JLM
quotes and explanations of the laws.

~~~
defnotashton2
Except they are blocks away from the courthouse.

~~~
graycat
There's an explanation for that, good, bad, or otherwise.

The claim is that they didn't want to dive into an angry, violent, dense mob
to arrest people because that would be dangerous.

For an arrest away from the action, all I saw was one video clip. For how
general that was, I saw no information.

I was concerned about that one video clip, but without more information I'm
ready to set it aside as poor judgment, a mistake, a one time thing, or some
such. I need more information.

But, still, broadly, the "FPS" was not there, in either theory or practice,
for the scary reason, Federal forces, not wanted in Portland, inserted to
_police the city_ , etc. Even given the one video clip, the FPS was clearly
not _policing the city_. And for protecting the Federal courthouse, they were
not _over doing it_ since the courthouse was significantly damaged.

Can read the reference I gave and conclude that the FPS, CBP, and DHS were
just doing what the laws said they were supposed to do.

For the laws, does anyone have any better ideas how the Feds can protect Fed
property? Uh, supposedly that is actually not the job of the local police,
that usually there is an agreement that the line is the center line on the
street in front of the Fed building with the FPS on their side and local
police on the other.

IMHO the Portland case does not look like some start on _Federal secret
police_.

For the Chicago case, as best as I can see from the media, the Feds are there
just to help local police with murder, etc. investigations and not on the
street police work and were invited in by the mayor of Chicago.

------
js2
There's this quiz on the web where you're given a dozen names and have to
guess if they are the names of My Little Ponies or porn stars. In that vein,
here's another quiz:

Story 1: In the late evening hours, the sound of sporadic gunfire was heard
all over the city. There were many white vans driving around the streets
searching for people. During one incident, plainclothes police jumped out of a
sliding door, grabbed a civilian and then sped off.

Story 2: They had barely made it half a block when an unmarked minivan pulled
up in front of them. "I see guys in camo. Four or five of them pop out, open
the door and it was just like, 'Oh s __*. I don 't know who you are or what
you want with us.'" Law enforcement officers have been using unmarked vehicles
to drive around and detain protesters since at least Tuesday. Personal
accounts and multiple videos posted online show the officers driving up to
people, detaining individuals with no explanation about why they are being
arrested, and driving off.

Now here's the quiz part: which of these describes Tiananmen Square and which
describes Portland, OR?

1\.
[http://www.jeffwidener.com/index.php?/stories/2016/09/tankma...](http://www.jeffwidener.com/index.php?/stories/2016/09/tankman/)

2\. [https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-
us...](https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-
vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland)

~~~
koheripbal
Tiananmen Square is the one where they massacred civilians with machine gun
fire. That's the difference.

~~~
js2
Authoritarianism doesn’t happen all at once. Trump continues to test his
limits. The DHS is currently being run by someone who was never approved by
Congress and in violation of the law for how long an acting director is
allowed to be in place. The DHS officers are now pushing our several blocks
away from the Federal buildings.

Compare Trump’s response to how the government responded to the Occupation of
the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge where a federal building was occupied for
40 days and cost the Federal government millions of dollars. But the Feds
didn’t escalate the situation like Trump and the DHS are attempting to do.

This is a three block area of Portland. The city is not overrun. The protests
are largely peaceful. I don’t condone the graffiti or anyone trying to damage
the building but the Federal response is over the top and unjustified.

Trump would like nothing more than a huge escalation in events.

That there’s any similarity between the events in Tiananmen and in Portland by
the authorities is not okay.

~~~
koheripbal
> Authoritarianism doesn’t happen all at once.

I don't think protecting the Courthouse is authoritarianism AT ALL. It's
protecting a Federal building.

> The protests are largely peaceful

The anarchists are not protesters. They aren't at all the same people. The
vast numbers of peaceful protesters don't change the need for police to
contain the ~200 anarchists trying to destroy the Federal Courthouse.

> Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

This is an insane comparison. A major west coast Federal Courthouse, home to
the US 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals as well as a number of Federal
offices, is absolutely NOTHING like occupying a small park Welcome center:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/MalheurN...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/MalheurNWRHeadquarters.jpg)
. Was that even a serious comment?

> I don’t condone the graffiti or anyone trying to damage the building but the
> Federal response is over the top and unjustified.

The Federal response doesn't go far enough. The people attacking the building
need to be arrested and sentenced to prison for attempted arson of a Federal
Courthouse - ideally by the judges who's courthouse they are trying to burn
down.

> Trump would like nothing more than a huge escalation in events.

I agree. So they should stop trying to burn down the Federal Courthouse.

> That there’s any similarity between the events in Tiananmen and in Portland
> by the authorities is not okay.

There isn't of any significance. You can always claim "similarities" when your
bar for such is so low. Hitler and Trump both breathed oxygen - did you know
that? Obviously he's a Nazi leader reincarnate.

------
webwielder2
If Osama bin Laden “hated our freedom” as Bush said, then mission
accomplished.

~~~
leafboi
Why are Americans so obsessed with freedom? It's the catalyst for peoples
freedom to not wear masks and go to the beach during a pandemic.

Freedom has pros and cons. The historical foundations of Freedom in America is
an idealistic notion that should be tempered with modern knowledge about the
price and complexity of freedom.

My friend in China has told me that the crisis has largely been contained in
in their country. The irony here being they have less freedoms than we do but
they can now go out in public without worrying about transmitting or receiving
covid.

~~~
entee
Because we believe it is the way to maximize individual happiness and that
individuals are inherently valuable. To take an individual’s liberty is to
violate something sacred that the person has just by being alive. You have to
have a very strong justification, with a high bar.

This does come with tradeoffs, but I don’t think the masks and beach are part
of that tradeoff. People can and will voluntarily take on inconvenience for
the good of others, but they have to be convinced. Our dysfunctional president
has actively fought against creating a consensus that we should move as one
against this virus. When the US decides to do something together, especially
in the modern era, we do it incredibly well mostly without sacrificing human
rights (with some obvious historical injustices we have to remedy). What is
happening here is a failure of leadership, not a failure of liberty.

------
fallingfrog
Reminds me of this scene from the watchmen. An example of art anticipating
reality.

[https://youtu.be/ShTVpGuzk1M](https://youtu.be/ShTVpGuzk1M)

~~~
fallingfrog
Come on guys the Comedian shoots a guy with a tear gas canister and then says
“what happened to the American Dream? It came true!” That’s pretty on the
nose.

------
aswanson
It's like Homelander from "The Boys". An unaccountable menace that had a
public image as a defender, reporting to dark interests.

------
ed25519FUUU
As someone who has advocated for strong states rights (a position that’s
traditionally not held by the progressive left over the last decade) I find
these times to be interesting, and full of ideological dissonance.

People are asking for a federal mandate on masks, but at the same time want no
federal enforcement of these laws? How about neither?

I hate seeing a world where “federal police” come in and squash local
protests, and it bugs me that previously state rights advocates are calling
for it.

~~~
treeman79
Ban the police crowd is the weirdest thing.

No police means maximum freedom quickly followed by complete Anarchy. Then
back to some sort of restrictive government.

~~~
rsynnott
Most people aren’t suggesting literally banning the police, but rather either
decapitating and reorganising (RUC would be an example) or dissolving and
replacing wholesale (Stasi would be an example).

~~~
ed25519FUUU
I feel like this argument is an example of gaslighting. The people who are
calling to defund the police literally mean defunding the police.

Presumably the ones that make this call are hoping an ideological paramilitary
arm (such as antifa) can fill the power vacuum left behind.

Those that want reform are asking for reform.

Don’t be gaslit.

~~~
megameter
Gaslighting occurs with respect to a current situation, not a hypothetical.

Here are top results on Google for "defund the police."

 _“Defund the police” means reallocating or redirecting funding away from the
police department to other government agencies ..._

 _“Defund the police” means reallocating or redirecting funding away from the
police department to other government agencies funded by the local
municipality._

 _" Defund the police" is a slogan that supports divesting funds from police
departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety and
community support, such as social services, youth services, housing,
education, healthcare and other community resources._

 _Instead of funding a police department, a sizable chunk of a city 's budget
is invested in communities, especially marginalized ..._

 _Police abolition means reducing, with the vision of eventually eliminating,
our reliance on policing to secure our public safety. It ..._

No sources in these results say "create a power vacuum". That is the invention
of critics. Please demonstrate otherwise.

~~~
treeman79
Google is extremely political. Search results are not trustworthy on anything
political.

------
cturner
This is political content. Every other news aggregation site on the planet
covers this stuff. It detracts from hacker news.

~~~
Afforess
What part of "Hacker" in "Hacker News" did you not notice? Hackers have always
been involved in politics.

 _This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the
beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying
for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn 't run by profiteering gluttons, and
you call us criminals. We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after
knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without
nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build
atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make
us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals._

(From the Hacker's Manifesto, 1986)

------
giardini
There is no "secret police force".

"Homeland Security" is a umbrella grouping of organizations that were
independent pre-9/11 and who were combined after 9/11\. Seemed like a good
idea, at the time!8-))

When you're arrested you're arrested by someone from a particular agency: a
Secret Service agent, a member of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the
Federal Protective Service, the USDA, INS, etc. Creation of DHS "merely"
brought 22 agencies under one umbrella for coordination. Of course, judgments
and plans made in haste often age poorly.

I'm not saying DHS is a good thing but there's a better explanation than the
alarmist "HS was destined to become a secret police force." See

"Break Up the Department of Homeland Security":

[https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/department-
homel...](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/07/department-homeland-
security-portland-border-patrol.html)

And remember Hanlon's Razor:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by
incompetence."

~~~
anthony_romeo
I have a corollary to that: “Never dismiss evidence of malice by applying
Hanlon’s Razor”

~~~
giardini
I always thought of Hanlon's Razor not as a way to dismiss evidence but as a
hurdle to prevent a rush to judgment. That is, it usually indicates that one
should _consider seriously_ and root out any evidence or possibility of malice
but not _assume by default_ that malice is afoot. And finally that sometimes a
cigar is merely a cigar.

IOW I think your corollary is precisely on point. Perhaps we should name it:
"Romeo's Corollary to Hanlon's Razor" has a nice ring to it!

