So, anyone here in Portland?

[robkelk]

From what I understand, the guys doing the detaining in Portland have been identified recently, specifically as affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security, acting under what, according to my read of the law suggests, proper authority as determined by their federal charter.

Now, I want to go on record saying I'm a strong law and order type, but I also do admit it's concerning it's come to the fact organizations such as DHS are resorting to this. At the same time, I'd like to gently remind even the strongest anti-federal type it has long been a bulwark of US law that federal property and it's defense has always trumped state authority, a position Lincoln made clear in the American Civil War and which has stuck ever since.

While I support peaceable protest, attacks on federal property and/or it's employees can and will be met with by federal force. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

This raises the question: Were the people in question taken into custody on or near federal property?

According to the BBC report linked earlier in this thread, "Since at least 14 July, OPB reports, federal agents have been jumping out of unmarked vehicles throughout the city, and grabbing protesters seemingly without cause." How many Federal installations are there in Portland? Google Maps says they're in a seven-by-six block area (excepting the Reserve base) - that hardly counts as "throughout the city", but BBC isn't giving enough specifics to narrow things down.

And I'd also like to remind people the authority to allow the DHS to act like this has long since legally passed the test of the Supreme Court thanks to a little thing called the PATRIOT Act, which I personally don't like, but has been defended thus far on legal grounds.

I've never read the text of the PATRIOT Act. Does it allow ignoring Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)? All of the reports that I've seen indicate that this is the case on the ground in Portland.

So while I utterly sympathize with those who consider this federal overreach, and even I'm disturbed it's come to this despite my own admitted biases, it is, however distasteful, legally enforcable. And said authority does trump the state so long as their DHS officials adhere towards detaining those who acted with destruction or harm to federal property and/or it's employees.

Again, were they anywhere near Federal property? If not, then there appears to have been been an overreach of powers on the part of DHS.