US and NA Politics (General)

[carlo87]

Jul 18, 2020 19:08:38 GMT -5 @baroniveagh said:

Here's why this business in Portland is particularly bad:

What is going on violates ors 133.245.  Not only is what is going on in Portland legally and ethically questionable, it's flat out illegal.

That's only if they are arresting them, which they aren't. Code 1315 gives them authority to investigate any crimes that happened on or to Federal property. Part of the "investigation" is questioning suspected material witnesses.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/1315?fbclid=IwAR2YF3-grM_UOFMCRpzJq6IBsYWY7THNjoBEACt90WLvKu66-7rhBI6CwcQ

[adurot]

Jul 21, 2020 2:47:29 GMT -5 carlo87 said:

Jul 18, 2020 19:08:38 GMT -5 @baroniveagh said:

Here's why this business in Portland is particularly bad:

What is going on violates ors 133.245.  Not only is what is going on in Portland legally and ethically questionable, it's flat out illegal.

That's only if they are arresting them, which they aren't. Code 1315 gives them authority to investigate any crimes that happened on or to Federal property. Part of the "investigation" is questioning suspected material witnesses.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/1315?fbclid=IwAR2YF3-grM_UOFMCRpzJq6IBsYWY7THNjoBEACt90WLvKu66-7rhBI6CwcQ

So you would be fine if an unmarked van pulled up and armed men in military uniforms grabbed you, threw a hood over your head, took you to an unknown location, and questioned you for a couple hours without ever telling you Who they were or why they grabbed you? You could have been involved.

[lonestarr777]

Carlo never fails to impress with how much of a piece of shit he is.

[dabbler]

Jul 21, 2020 4:01:37 GMT -5 adurot said:

Jul 21, 2020 2:47:29 GMT -5 carlo87 said:

That's only if they are arresting them, which they aren't. Code 1315 gives them authority to investigate any crimes that happened on or to Federal property. Part of the "investigation" is questioning suspected material witnesses.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/1315?fbclid=IwAR2YF3-grM_UOFMCRpzJq6IBsYWY7THNjoBEACt90WLvKu66-7rhBI6CwcQ

So you would be fine if an unmarked van pulled up and armed men in military uniforms grabbed you, threw a hood over your head, took you to an unknown location, and questioned you for a couple hours without ever telling you Who they were or why they grabbed you? You could have been involved.

Of course he is. The right is well known for their consistency, just look at Walrus' last post to see how consistent they are on important stuff life suits, let alone these small potatoes

[adurot]

www.lgbtqnation.com/2020/07/trump-administration-memo-explains-spot-transgender-woman/

[carlo87]

Jul 21, 2020 4:01:37 GMT -5 adurot said:

Jul 21, 2020 2:47:29 GMT -5 carlo87 said:

That's only if they are arresting them, which they aren't. Code 1315 gives them authority to investigate any crimes that happened on or to Federal property. Part of the "investigation" is questioning suspected material witnesses.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/1315?fbclid=IwAR2YF3-grM_UOFMCRpzJq6IBsYWY7THNjoBEACt90WLvKu66-7rhBI6CwcQ

So you would be fine if an unmarked van pulled up and armed men in military uniforms grabbed you, threw a hood over your head, took you to an unknown location, and questioned you for a couple hours without ever telling you Who they were or why they grabbed you? You could have been involved.

According to the authorities they are identifying themselves. Also this wasn't me backing them morally (that's a separate issue), just stating that it isn't illegal, which was the argument being made.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Jul 21, 2020 10:07:08 GMT -5 carlo87 said:

Jul 21, 2020 4:01:37 GMT -5 adurot said:

So you would be fine if an unmarked van pulled up and armed men in military uniforms grabbed you, threw a hood over your head, took you to an unknown location, and questioned you for a couple hours without ever telling you Who they were or why they grabbed you? You could have been involved.

According to the authorities they are identifying themselves. Also this wasn't me backing them morally (that's a separate issue), just stating that it isn't illegal, which was the argument being made.

"According to the unmarked people who are disappearing random protesters, they're actually identifying themselves after they've kidnapped people!"

Carlo, are you really this stupid? Your average police officer is required to identify themselves whenever asked (on the spot), and has business cards for such purpose, and always be wearing ID of some kind, i.e. a badge, but federal agents aren't? C'mon. You're just as bad as despic.

Oh, and once again, for something "you don't support", you sure are defending it. Again. For like the tenth time. It's almost like you actually DO support it and only trot that line out when it would look bad to come right out and say you support it.

[Deleted]

Jul 21, 2020 10:07:08 GMT -5 carlo87 said:

Jul 21, 2020 4:01:37 GMT -5 adurot said:

So you would be fine if an unmarked van pulled up and armed men in military uniforms grabbed you, threw a hood over your head, took you to an unknown location, and questioned you for a couple hours without ever telling you Who they were or why they grabbed you? You could have been involved.

According to the authorities they are identifying themselves. Also this wasn't me backing them morally (that's a separate issue), just stating that it isn't illegal, which was the argument being made.

Not according to DoJ they're not.  Oregonian Prosecutors are formulating charges as we speak. 

And further what they're doing does fit the legal definition of 'arrest' in this case, in that the person is compelled to go with the officer in question.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Trump has signed an EO in an attempt to prevent undocumented immigrants from being counted in the census.

Which is blatantly unconstitutional, and I'm sure despic and despic 2 carlo will contest whether or not it's unconstitutional because they probably haven't ever actually read the document they claim to worship.

(Oh, and in a totally normal and 100% presidential move, trump tried to get the British Open moved to his Scotland resort. No unethical use of the presidency for personal gain there!)

[dabbler]

Jul 22, 2020 0:55:36 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

Trump has signed an EO in an attempt to prevent undocumented immigrants from being counted in the census.

Which is blatantly unconstitutional, and I'm sure despic and despic 2 carlo will contest whether or not it's unconstitutional because they probably haven't ever actually read the document they claim to worship.

(Oh, and in a totally normal and 100% presidential move, trump tried to get the British Open moved to his Scotland resort. No unethical use of the presidency for personal gain there!)

I thought that was a Congress thing?

[adurot]

Jul 22, 2020 15:10:18 GMT -5 dabbler said:

Jul 22, 2020 0:55:36 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

Trump has signed an EO in an attempt to prevent undocumented immigrants from being counted in the census.

Which is blatantly unconstitutional, and I'm sure despic and despic 2 carlo will contest whether or not it's unconstitutional because they probably haven't ever actually read the document they claim to worship.

(Oh, and in a totally normal and 100% presidential move, trump tried to get the British Open moved to his Scotland resort. No unethical use of the presidency for personal gain there!)

I thought that was a Congress thing?

It is, and thus the blatantly unconstitutional nature of it.

[Emblematic Wolfblade]

Jul 22, 2020 15:34:46 GMT -5 adurot said:

Jul 22, 2020 15:10:18 GMT -5 dabbler said:

I thought that was a Congress thing?

It is, and thus the blatantly unconstitutional nature of it.

Exactly.

[tannhauser42]

But isn't it the purpose of the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of things?
Oh...right...



RBG, please don't die.

[semipotentwalrus]

Not sure how trustworthy this source is, but:

lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/two-dhs-officials-apparently-just-admitted-their-troops-have-been-violating-the-constitution/

Say it with me kids: un-con-sti-tu-tio-nal. This is why having a Geheime Staatspolizei is a bad idea.

[carlo87]

Jul 21, 2020 11:35:28 GMT -5 Emblematic Wolfblade said:

Jul 21, 2020 10:07:08 GMT -5 carlo87 said:

According to the authorities they are identifying themselves. Also this wasn't me backing them morally (that's a separate issue), just stating that it isn't illegal, which was the argument being made.

"According to the unmarked people who are disappearing random protesters, they're actually identifying themselves after they've kidnapped people!"

Carlo, are you really this stupid? Your average police officer is required to identify themselves whenever asked (on the spot), and has business cards for such purpose, and always be wearing ID of some kind, i.e. a badge, but federal agents aren't? C'mon. You're just as bad as despic.

Oh, and once again, for something "you don't support", you sure are defending it. Again. For like the tenth time. It's almost like you actually DO support it and only trot that line out when it would look bad to come right out and say you support it.

   How about according to a Judge that just ruled on the injunction sought by the state? He stated that in the videos provided to him as evidence by the state showed that the police had their uniforms clearly marked. 

   As for Federal officers not needing badges or identification, they don't, no. There is no Federal Statute on it, and the state laws don't supersede it while they are enforcing Federal Law, but they will need to do it while enforcing state laws.  Want a source? How about a left-leaning lawyer?  www.youtube.com/watch?v=uglv-fV1CqI   Start about the 13:15 mark.

Now, that's just what is legal. Ethically I think they should, and it's just a good idea overall. I'll definitely back you if that's your argument.  Saying it's the legally required is wrong though. Just laying down the facts.