A retired US citizen emailed a DHS attorney urging mercy for an asylum seeker he had read about. Five hours later he received an email from Google advising him the federal government had served Google with a subpoena demanding information about him. Then they followed up by knocking on his door.
The federal government's concerted effort to intimidate citizens should concern every American.
With all due respect, if these protests are not being done with the coordination of local municipalities, then it is just illegally interfering with an ongoing police investigation, right? With how quickly and unorganized these pop-up I can't believe they're all government-sanctioned. If it blocks traffic, legally it needs a permit. (Or is this just some/my municipality?)
We're all well aware a database of domestic terrorists exist, right? Didn't anyone caught keying a Tesla get added just a few months ago? We all expect people purposely interfering with DHS to exist on that list...what's the shock here?
This isnt even in support of ICE. I just understand how the right to protest works....
If it blocks traffic, legally it needs a permit. (Or is this just some/my municipality?)
No, that would be an incredibly narrow reading of the bill of rights. It's also not how Americans have ever interpreted their rights. Blocking commerce has a long history as a form of protest in the US. It was used in the revolutionary war, the great railroad strike, the pullman strike, the suffrage movement, civil rights, etc. A lot of ink has been spilled trying to draw lines around what "peaceable" means and when a blockage becomes unpeaceable, but it's universally acknowledged that the bar is somewhat higher than whatever local ordinances happen to decide on.
Let's talk some more about the civil rights example though. MLK was famously arrested for his part in the Birmingham campaign for demonstrating without a permit. His response was to write his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" [0], where the famous quote that "Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws" originates. He directly addresses this issue of permits later in the letter:
For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
This is a grey area, look at some countries where you’ve had protesters block aid trucks to refugee camps saying that their national is imminent danger from these people. I think a key here is the degree and length of traffic blockage. When it is being used to essentially lay siege to a place it is ambiguous whether it’s violent or non violent. Temporary limited disruption of traffic is probably pretty firmly in the non violent column
All of the first amendment rights have gray areas. All possible sets of rights probably have the same issue, no matter what consistent moral framework you choose.
I'm saying such laws aren't legal when they run counter to the right to peacefully protest. The rest was a digression into the complexity of navigating that.
Nowhere did I say that. I think the regulations around protests are dumb. That doesn't make them go away. Its the same reason nothing was achieved after the BLM protests, when it's not 100% sanctioned by local government it will instead be labelled a riot by media companies, who still somehow have the boomer vote
Why would I care if a protest is done in coordination with the local municipality. Why would I care if traffic gets blocked. Why would I care if a DHS agent has their finger bit off? These things require a level of respect for a system I do not have. I hope this clears things up.
Which law is broken by holding up a sign on the sidewalk, not obstructing traffic, and shouting?
Which law is broken by telling people that masked, armed thugs (maybe ICE, maybe not, impossible to tell) are assaulting people in the area?
Which law is broken by recording and reporting on those masked, armed thugs who are assaulting and killing lawful protestors and other innocent civilians?
Which local, city, or state official deputized Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be legal Law Enforcers of local, city, or state traffic laws? The 10th amendment places this outside federal jurisdiction.
I'll do some pre-work for you -- this law mentions a crime only if there is "assault", which does not include protesting, community engagement, and journalism: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111
This is likely why there has been so few convictions for this first-amendment-protected activity, and why the administration is instead resorting to secret enemies lists, warrant-less kidnappings, uncountable unaccountable assaults, and summary executions.
> sidewalk, not obstructing traffic, and shouting?
Are these the people supposedly getting added to the database? We have no evidence of who's actually being added, just that people supposedly are.
>Which law is broken by telling people that masked, armed thugs (maybe ICE, maybe not, impossible to tell) are assaulting people in the area?
I don't think any law here is broken.
>Which law is broken by recording and reporting on those masked, armed thugs who are assaulting and killing lawful protestors and other innocent civilians?
Like them or not, reporting federal police activities to the people they are investigating is in fact disrupting a federal investigation.
>Which local, city, or state official deputized Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be legal Law Enforcers of local, city, or state traffic laws?
This one's gonna vary a lot based on your location, but generally the 287(g) program that most states signed up for does.
> Are these the people supposedly getting added to the database?
Yes, see the article. There would need to be evidence to the contrary to say otherwise.
> We have no evidence of who's actually being added
That is the nature of a secret enemies list. Keeping it secret is itself malicious, but the directive orders the addition of "agitators, protestors, etc.", making it clear that non-"agitating" protestors are included.
> Like them or not, reporting federal police activities to the people they are investigating is in fact disrupting a federal investigation.
I didn't see any law you cited which says that recording and reporting on those masked, armed thugs who are assaulting and killing lawful protestors and other innocent civilians is illegal. That's why I asked.
> This one's gonna vary a lot based on your location, but generally the 287(g) program that most states signed up for does.
287(g) does no such thing. As for location: Let's use Minneapolis as an example here, so you can be more specific.
B) The same way you make the jump from keying a Tesla to domestic terrorism? I'm not saying I support it, but it atleast makes more sense for someone illegally protesting federal agents to be considered "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
A retired US citizen emailed a DHS attorney urging mercy for an asylum seeker he had read about. Five hours later he received an email from Google advising him the federal government had served Google with a subpoena demanding information about him. Then they followed up by knocking on his door.
The federal government's concerted effort to intimidate citizens should concern every American.
https://archive.ph/b9ON8
"Urged" means ICE is already beyond accountability to anyone other than Trump, they're secret police. Trouble ahead!
What's there to explain? We should all know where fascism takes us.
The headline isn't quite right, the wording "urged to explain" suggests the problem is the contents of the memo, but
> "... demanded that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirm or deny the existence..."
shows the contention is it existing in the first place.
[dead]
With all due respect, if these protests are not being done with the coordination of local municipalities, then it is just illegally interfering with an ongoing police investigation, right? With how quickly and unorganized these pop-up I can't believe they're all government-sanctioned. If it blocks traffic, legally it needs a permit. (Or is this just some/my municipality?)
We're all well aware a database of domestic terrorists exist, right? Didn't anyone caught keying a Tesla get added just a few months ago? We all expect people purposely interfering with DHS to exist on that list...what's the shock here?
This isnt even in support of ICE. I just understand how the right to protest works....
Let's talk some more about the civil rights example though. MLK was famously arrested for his part in the Birmingham campaign for demonstrating without a permit. His response was to write his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" [0], where the famous quote that "Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws" originates. He directly addresses this issue of permits later in the letter:
[0] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....This is a grey area, look at some countries where you’ve had protesters block aid trucks to refugee camps saying that their national is imminent danger from these people. I think a key here is the degree and length of traffic blockage. When it is being used to essentially lay siege to a place it is ambiguous whether it’s violent or non violent. Temporary limited disruption of traffic is probably pretty firmly in the non violent column
All of the first amendment rights have gray areas. All possible sets of rights probably have the same issue, no matter what consistent moral framework you choose.
So are you saying you don't need a permit everywhere? Or some municipalities would just have a hard time actually enforcing their rules?
I agree it's against the spirit of what was written, but that's how I understand our current ruleset atleast
I'm saying such laws aren't legal when they run counter to the right to peacefully protest. The rest was a digression into the complexity of navigating that.
There is a place and time to protest. The place is always over there, and the time is always not now.
Nowhere did I say that. I think the regulations around protests are dumb. That doesn't make them go away. Its the same reason nothing was achieved after the BLM protests, when it's not 100% sanctioned by local government it will instead be labelled a riot by media companies, who still somehow have the boomer vote
Every successful protest was against the government's wishes. You think MLK got a permit?
Why would I care if a protest is done in coordination with the local municipality. Why would I care if traffic gets blocked. Why would I care if a DHS agent has their finger bit off? These things require a level of respect for a system I do not have. I hope this clears things up.
That's fine mate but there's consequences to those actions just like all the others.
Which law is broken by holding up a sign on the sidewalk, not obstructing traffic, and shouting?
Which law is broken by telling people that masked, armed thugs (maybe ICE, maybe not, impossible to tell) are assaulting people in the area?
Which law is broken by recording and reporting on those masked, armed thugs who are assaulting and killing lawful protestors and other innocent civilians?
Which local, city, or state official deputized Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be legal Law Enforcers of local, city, or state traffic laws? The 10th amendment places this outside federal jurisdiction.
I'll do some pre-work for you -- this law mentions a crime only if there is "assault", which does not include protesting, community engagement, and journalism: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/111
This is likely why there has been so few convictions for this first-amendment-protected activity, and why the administration is instead resorting to secret enemies lists, warrant-less kidnappings, uncountable unaccountable assaults, and summary executions.
> sidewalk, not obstructing traffic, and shouting?
Are these the people supposedly getting added to the database? We have no evidence of who's actually being added, just that people supposedly are.
>Which law is broken by telling people that masked, armed thugs (maybe ICE, maybe not, impossible to tell) are assaulting people in the area?
I don't think any law here is broken.
>Which law is broken by recording and reporting on those masked, armed thugs who are assaulting and killing lawful protestors and other innocent civilians?
Like them or not, reporting federal police activities to the people they are investigating is in fact disrupting a federal investigation.
>Which local, city, or state official deputized Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be legal Law Enforcers of local, city, or state traffic laws?
This one's gonna vary a lot based on your location, but generally the 287(g) program that most states signed up for does.
> Are these the people supposedly getting added to the database?
Yes, see the article. There would need to be evidence to the contrary to say otherwise.
> We have no evidence of who's actually being added
That is the nature of a secret enemies list. Keeping it secret is itself malicious, but the directive orders the addition of "agitators, protestors, etc.", making it clear that non-"agitating" protestors are included.
> Like them or not, reporting federal police activities to the people they are investigating is in fact disrupting a federal investigation.
I didn't see any law you cited which says that recording and reporting on those masked, armed thugs who are assaulting and killing lawful protestors and other innocent civilians is illegal. That's why I asked.
> This one's gonna vary a lot based on your location, but generally the 287(g) program that most states signed up for does.
287(g) does no such thing. As for location: Let's use Minneapolis as an example here, so you can be more specific.
a) which ongoing police investigation?
b) how do you make the jump from protesting an unjust administrative act to domestic terrorism?
A) The one ICE is performing
B) The same way you make the jump from keying a Tesla to domestic terrorism? I'm not saying I support it, but it atleast makes more sense for someone illegally protesting federal agents to be considered "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."