Race in America - Riots Explode in Chicago

[seacoaster]

https://www.justsecurity.org/71696/form ... democracy/

“ I believe deeply that how our government’s security forces are seen by the American public is critical to their ability to protect us and our ability to maintain a healthy democracy. That belief comes from experience: I served for decades in the U.S. Marine Corps, as a Department of Defense spokesperson, and as the Trump administration’s first Department of Homeland of Security spokesperson. It’s as an American who cares profoundly about the missions of both DOD and DHS—and believes their reputations are essential to achieving those missions—that I’ve followed the Trump administration’s heavy-handed response to protests across the country in recent months, and especially DHS’s role in that response. And I’m appalled by what I’m seeing. It’s damaging to DHS, and it’s damaging to American democracy.

Last month, the sight of U.S. military forces on the streets of our nation’s capital surprised and angered many Americans, including military and veteran communities, former diplomats, former senior national security leaders, and the general public. While federal, state, and local law enforcement officers were actively involved in the response to protests in Washington, D.C., it was the mixing of men and women in military uniforms and equipment as part of the law enforcement response that sparked particular concern for me. Images of military and military-looking individuals threatening the use of force, and in some instances actually using it, raised crucial questions about the appropriateness of a militarized response to civil unrest.

During the protests in D.C., the military units deployed in and around the city were a mix of National Guard and active duty forces. They wore their normal camouflage uniforms. Some were armed, some were unarmed. Although the active duty units were not called into action, the deployment of a rapid response force from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division raised serious questions about the nature of the military’s response. National Guard units from the District and several states were deployed on the streets of Washington for several days. Some were involved in the controversial clearing of Lafayette Park for the president’s photo op at a church; and low-flying National Guard helicopters were used as crowd control measures. These actions sparked widespread condemnation and led the Secretary of Defense to order a formal investigation as well as Congress to hold oversight hearings.

It is through that prism—of a militarized response to protests and harsh public criticism of that response—that we should examine the ongoing federal response to protests in Portland, Oregon. In Portland, there are no military units – active duty or National Guard – currently involved. However, there is the perception of a military response—which is understandable, as DHS and other federal agencies have deployed law enforcement officers in military-style uniforms, wielding weapons associated with combat forces abroad. Their uniforms, equipment, and tactics have created the distinct appearance of yet another armed military response to protest and elements of civil unrest. Making matters worse, DHS’s leadership has indulged in harsh—indeed, militaristic—rhetoric in explaining and justifying its aggressive response. These actions, and others, are wrong, even dangerous.

It’s easy to lose sight of the big picture given the disturbing images and videos emerging daily from Portland. But it’s critical to step back and recognize the elements that make what’s unfolding in Portland such a dangerous step for DHS and for our democracy as a whole.

First, it’s worth remembering why DHS exists in the first place. The department was formed in the aftermath of 9/11. Less than two weeks after the attacks, former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge was appointed as director of a new office of homeland security in the White House. (Of note, Governor Ridge and other DHS secretaries have recently criticized the DHS response in Portland.) The Homeland Security Act of 2002, passed in November of that year, created DHS by bringing 22 different federal agencies together into one department. The creation of DHS was the federal response to the finding, after the 9/11 attacks, that no single agency within the government was responsible for securing the country. DHS’s primary mission at its inception was “to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States and reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism.”

While the core mission of DHS remains essentially unchanged, its roles and responsibilities have grown in response to various threats including cyber-attacks, election interference, drug smuggling and transnational criminal organizations. None of these threats appear to be present in Portland’s protests. So, at a minimum, whatever DHS is doing in Portland strays wildly from the reason DHS exists in the first place.

But it’s worse than just mission creep. DHS’s response to events in Portland represents at least seven elements that take key dangers of the militarized response to protest Americans witnessed in D.C. and attempt to launder them through the civilian apparatus of DHS. Each one is bad; taken together, they’re even worse:

1. Civil unrest in a U.S. city does not constitute a threat to the homeland and is outside the mission of the Department. DHS’s Federal Protective Service is charged with safeguarding federal property, like courthouses, but the employment of tactical units and their operations on streets increasingly far away from the federal buildings in Portland is questionable. Simply put, it’s just not clear how DHS’s mission includes whatever DHS is doing in Portland—which suggests DHS may be stretching, even overstepping, its authorities.

2. There was no request from state or local authorities for assistance. In fact, city and state leaders in Oregon have expressly said they don’t want DHS or federal forces operating as they have been in response to the protests. DHS operates in states, cities, and localities across the United States, normally in close coordination with local authorities. The aggressive DHS response in Portland is both unwanted and unwarranted, and it puts in jeopardy the cooperation with local authorities nationwide that is essential to DHS fulfilling its actual mission.

3. The wearing of military-style uniforms and equipment creates the appearance of an armed military response to civil unrest—a tactic more common to authoritarian regimes than to healthy democracies. The Secretary of Defense has expressed his concerns over this appearance, and several retired military leaders have spoken out against military involvement, or the appearance of it, in law enforcement actions against U.S. citizens whose activities constitute civil unrest, not anything close to a true homeland security threat such as rebellion or civil war.

4. The bellicose rhetoric from DHS’s senior officials has further inflamed the situation, rather than trying to defuse it. In addition, the heavy-handed federal response has worsened the situation and fomented even larger protests. It simply can’t be good for DHS or the country for DHS to be making matters in Portland worse rather than better.

5. President Trump’s rhetoric has been overtly partisan and political, focusing his ire on states and cities he labels as “Democrat” or “Radical Left.” The president’s words clearly politicize DHS’s response. DHS is a federal agency which serves all of the American people, regardless of party affiliation. To have DHS so closely tied to a partisan project tarnishes the department and risks its ability to earn public trust in the future.

6. The administration has a trust deficit and lacks credibility, so DHS’s defense of its actions are colored by mistrust. Even if DHS’s actions are within its authorities – and there remain valid questions about exceeding its authority – the Department’s words and deeds are often viewed with suspicion. That’s unhealthy for the situation in Portland; and it’s unhealthy for DHS in the myriad ways the department interacts with Americans (and others) each day across the country.

7. DHS has acting officials at senior levels throughout the organization, which calls into question decision-making that appears to be politically, rather than operationally, driven. The president has also made it clear he prefers “actings” so he can exert more control over them. Acting officials must be more concerned with pleasing the president in order to keep their jobs, and the two most senior DHS officials are seen to be behaving that way.

While Portland represents the most recent set of harmful actions by DHS, the damage to the agency’s reputation has accumulated in recent years, even before the scandal in Portland unfolded. First, President Trump’s oversized focus on the southwest border and his campaign promise of a border wall – or half of it anyway, since U.S. taxpayers are paying for the wall, not Mexico as Trump promised– took resources and focus away from DHS’s critical missions to protect the homeland. Under Trump, DHS has become the department of southwest border enforcement, not the Department of Homeland Security it was founded to be.“

Is there an exception to your logic here say if the white nationalists are equally targeted if they create public unrest? Would it equally bother you if the feds came down on them like a ton of bricks? My guess is many of my FLP friends would not be bothered as much. If local law enforcement can't handle the situation, they should ask for help. My belief is that is what they should do. If local law enforcement can't control the situation after several months, somebody in charge at the local level should have a plan B. If the local yokels that run Portland don't want to get control... fine by me. In fairness then don't ask me as a taxpayer to help you rebuild when the dust finally settles.

Well, there you would be wrong, for myself anyway. I think the author is correct when he says "civil unrest in a US city does not constitute a threat to the homeland." If a large white supremacist demonstration created unrest, it seems the worst thing one could do would be to crush it or oppose it with paramilitary troops -- under whatever unit banner. As you say, if local law enforcement -- in conjunction with local civil political leadership -- determine that they cannot manage the situation, and they ask for assistance, the federal government can then step in, again in coordination with the state civil authorities.

[old salt]

Asked and answered three times now. But you guys don't want to listen because none of you whiners have any interest whatsoever in actually addressing the entire reason the peaceful protesters are protesting in the first place.

Fly out the peaceful protesters to Wash DC and listen to them. Book time with Trump and McConnell. Listen intently. Bring in other relevant stake holders. Then craft legislation that fixes the problems. You know: how Government is supposed to work.

Then Republicans get to run elections in these cities saying "we heard your complaints, we acted on these complaints. Vote Republican in November...here are your candidates in Minneapolis, Seattle, and Portland".

Everyone wins.

They did PRECISELY this in Denver and Colorado. Streets are relatively calm now. It wasn't perfect. Representative democracy never is....

C'mon man. Get real. You don't have as many organized anarchists as they do in Portland & Seattle. They've been doing this there for years, seizing on any cause that presents an opportunity to riot & create mayhem. Remember the G20 & WTO riots.

The peaceful protesters aren't the problem. It's the anarchist rioters who are hiding behind & embedded within the peaceful protesters.

Had local PD's been allowed to respond early in Seattle & Portland, like they did in Denver, the Fed reinforcements would not have been needed.
If the presence of the Feds is the problem, Portland PD could take over external security of the Fed bldgs, allowing the Feds to stay inside, allowing the Fed reinforcements to go home. The (D) pols in OR refuse to order their Police & NG to guard just 2 Fed bldgs. They want the issue. They want the unrest. They want to be able to blame Trump for the chaos they refuse to quell.

[old salt]

Keep cheering on the facists Trumpcoc*suckers.

...another thoughtful reply.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.justsecurity.org/71696/form ... democracy/

“ I believe deeply that how our government’s security forces are seen by the American public is critical to their ability to protect us and our ability to maintain a healthy democracy. That belief comes from experience: I served for decades in the U.S. Marine Corps, as a Department of Defense spokesperson, and as the Trump administration’s first Department of Homeland of Security spokesperson. It’s as an American who cares profoundly about the missions of both DOD and DHS—and believes their reputations are essential to achieving those missions—that I’ve followed the Trump administration’s heavy-handed response to protests across the country in recent months, and especially DHS’s role in that response. And I’m appalled by what I’m seeing. It’s damaging to DHS, and it’s damaging to American democracy.

Last month, the sight of U.S. military forces on the streets of our nation’s capital surprised and angered many Americans, including military and veteran communities, former diplomats, former senior national security leaders, and the general public. While federal, state, and local law enforcement officers were actively involved in the response to protests in Washington, D.C., it was the mixing of men and women in military uniforms and equipment as part of the law enforcement response that sparked particular concern for me. Images of military and military-looking individuals threatening the use of force, and in some instances actually using it, raised crucial questions about the appropriateness of a militarized response to civil unrest.

During the protests in D.C., the military units deployed in and around the city were a mix of National Guard and active duty forces. They wore their normal camouflage uniforms. Some were armed, some were unarmed. Although the active duty units were not called into action, the deployment of a rapid response force from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division raised serious questions about the nature of the military’s response. National Guard units from the District and several states were deployed on the streets of Washington for several days. Some were involved in the controversial clearing of Lafayette Park for the president’s photo op at a church; and low-flying National Guard helicopters were used as crowd control measures. These actions sparked widespread condemnation and led the Secretary of Defense to order a formal investigation as well as Congress to hold oversight hearings.

It is through that prism—of a militarized response to protests and harsh public criticism of that response—that we should examine the ongoing federal response to protests in Portland, Oregon. In Portland, there are no military units – active duty or National Guard – currently involved. However, there is the perception of a military response—which is understandable, as DHS and other federal agencies have deployed law enforcement officers in military-style uniforms, wielding weapons associated with combat forces abroad. Their uniforms, equipment, and tactics have created the distinct appearance of yet another armed military response to protest and elements of civil unrest. Making matters worse, DHS’s leadership has indulged in harsh—indeed, militaristic—rhetoric in explaining and justifying its aggressive response. These actions, and others, are wrong, even dangerous.

It’s easy to lose sight of the big picture given the disturbing images and videos emerging daily from Portland. But it’s critical to step back and recognize the elements that make what’s unfolding in Portland such a dangerous step for DHS and for our democracy as a whole.

First, it’s worth remembering why DHS exists in the first place. The department was formed in the aftermath of 9/11. Less than two weeks after the attacks, former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge was appointed as director of a new office of homeland security in the White House. (Of note, Governor Ridge and other DHS secretaries have recently criticized the DHS response in Portland.) The Homeland Security Act of 2002, passed in November of that year, created DHS by bringing 22 different federal agencies together into one department. The creation of DHS was the federal response to the finding, after the 9/11 attacks, that no single agency within the government was responsible for securing the country. DHS’s primary mission at its inception was “to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States and reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism.”

While the core mission of DHS remains essentially unchanged, its roles and responsibilities have grown in response to various threats including cyber-attacks, election interference, drug smuggling and transnational criminal organizations. None of these threats appear to be present in Portland’s protests. So, at a minimum, whatever DHS is doing in Portland strays wildly from the reason DHS exists in the first place.

But it’s worse than just mission creep. DHS’s response to events in Portland represents at least seven elements that take key dangers of the militarized response to protest Americans witnessed in D.C. and attempt to launder them through the civilian apparatus of DHS. Each one is bad; taken together, they’re even worse:

1. Civil unrest in a U.S. city does not constitute a threat to the homeland and is outside the mission of the Department. DHS’s Federal Protective Service is charged with safeguarding federal property, like courthouses, but the employment of tactical units and their operations on streets increasingly far away from the federal buildings in Portland is questionable. Simply put, it’s just not clear how DHS’s mission includes whatever DHS is doing in Portland—which suggests DHS may be stretching, even overstepping, its authorities.

2. There was no request from state or local authorities for assistance. In fact, city and state leaders in Oregon have expressly said they don’t want DHS or federal forces operating as they have been in response to the protests. DHS operates in states, cities, and localities across the United States, normally in close coordination with local authorities. The aggressive DHS response in Portland is both unwanted and unwarranted, and it puts in jeopardy the cooperation with local authorities nationwide that is essential to DHS fulfilling its actual mission.

3. The wearing of military-style uniforms and equipment creates the appearance of an armed military response to civil unrest—a tactic more common to authoritarian regimes than to healthy democracies. The Secretary of Defense has expressed his concerns over this appearance, and several retired military leaders have spoken out against military involvement, or the appearance of it, in law enforcement actions against U.S. citizens whose activities constitute civil unrest, not anything close to a true homeland security threat such as rebellion or civil war.

4. The bellicose rhetoric from DHS’s senior officials has further inflamed the situation, rather than trying to defuse it. In addition, the heavy-handed federal response has worsened the situation and fomented even larger protests. It simply can’t be good for DHS or the country for DHS to be making matters in Portland worse rather than better.

5. President Trump’s rhetoric has been overtly partisan and political, focusing his ire on states and cities he labels as “Democrat” or “Radical Left.” The president’s words clearly politicize DHS’s response. DHS is a federal agency which serves all of the American people, regardless of party affiliation. To have DHS so closely tied to a partisan project tarnishes the department and risks its ability to earn public trust in the future.

6. The administration has a trust deficit and lacks credibility, so DHS’s defense of its actions are colored by mistrust. Even if DHS’s actions are within its authorities – and there remain valid questions about exceeding its authority – the Department’s words and deeds are often viewed with suspicion. That’s unhealthy for the situation in Portland; and it’s unhealthy for DHS in the myriad ways the department interacts with Americans (and others) each day across the country.

7. DHS has acting officials at senior levels throughout the organization, which calls into question decision-making that appears to be politically, rather than operationally, driven. The president has also made it clear he prefers “actings” so he can exert more control over them. Acting officials must be more concerned with pleasing the president in order to keep their jobs, and the two most senior DHS officials are seen to be behaving that way.

While Portland represents the most recent set of harmful actions by DHS, the damage to the agency’s reputation has accumulated in recent years, even before the scandal in Portland unfolded. First, President Trump’s oversized focus on the southwest border and his campaign promise of a border wall – or half of it anyway, since U.S. taxpayers are paying for the wall, not Mexico as Trump promised– took resources and focus away from DHS’s critical missions to protect the homeland. Under Trump, DHS has become the department of southwest border enforcement, not the Department of Homeland Security it was founded to be.“

Is there an exception to your logic here say if the white nationalists are equally targeted if they create public unrest? Would it equally bother you if the feds came down on them like a ton of bricks? My guess is many of my FLP friends would not be bothered as much. If local law enforcement can't handle the situation, they should ask for help. My belief is that is what they should do. If local law enforcement can't control the situation after several months, somebody in charge at the local level should have a plan B. If the local yokels that run Portland don't want to get control... fine by me. In fairness then don't ask me as a taxpayer to help you rebuild when the dust finally settles.

Well, there you would be wrong, for myself anyway. I think the author is correct when he says "civil unrest in a US city does not constitute a threat to the homeland." If a large white supremacist demonstration created unrest, it seems the worst thing one could do would be to crush it or oppose it with paramilitary troops -- under whatever unit banner. As you say, if local law enforcement -- in conjunction with local civil political leadership -- determine that they cannot manage the situation, and they ask for assistance, the federal government can then step in, again in coordination with the state civil authorities.

Your scaring me coaster. I find myself agreeing with you way more than I did in the past.

[jhu72]

Keep cheering on the facists Trumpcoc*suckers.

...another thoughtful reply.

… a reply worthy of your smart ass accusation.

[seacoaster]

https://www.justsecurity.org/71696/form ... democracy/

“ I believe deeply that how our government’s security forces are seen by the American public is critical to their ability to protect us and our ability to maintain a healthy democracy. That belief comes from experience: I served for decades in the U.S. Marine Corps, as a Department of Defense spokesperson, and as the Trump administration’s first Department of Homeland of Security spokesperson. It’s as an American who cares profoundly about the missions of both DOD and DHS—and believes their reputations are essential to achieving those missions—that I’ve followed the Trump administration’s heavy-handed response to protests across the country in recent months, and especially DHS’s role in that response. And I’m appalled by what I’m seeing. It’s damaging to DHS, and it’s damaging to American democracy.

Last month, the sight of U.S. military forces on the streets of our nation’s capital surprised and angered many Americans, including military and veteran communities, former diplomats, former senior national security leaders, and the general public. While federal, state, and local law enforcement officers were actively involved in the response to protests in Washington, D.C., it was the mixing of men and women in military uniforms and equipment as part of the law enforcement response that sparked particular concern for me. Images of military and military-looking individuals threatening the use of force, and in some instances actually using it, raised crucial questions about the appropriateness of a militarized response to civil unrest.

During the protests in D.C., the military units deployed in and around the city were a mix of National Guard and active duty forces. They wore their normal camouflage uniforms. Some were armed, some were unarmed. Although the active duty units were not called into action, the deployment of a rapid response force from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division raised serious questions about the nature of the military’s response. National Guard units from the District and several states were deployed on the streets of Washington for several days. Some were involved in the controversial clearing of Lafayette Park for the president’s photo op at a church; and low-flying National Guard helicopters were used as crowd control measures. These actions sparked widespread condemnation and led the Secretary of Defense to order a formal investigation as well as Congress to hold oversight hearings.

It is through that prism—of a militarized response to protests and harsh public criticism of that response—that we should examine the ongoing federal response to protests in Portland, Oregon. In Portland, there are no military units – active duty or National Guard – currently involved. However, there is the perception of a military response—which is understandable, as DHS and other federal agencies have deployed law enforcement officers in military-style uniforms, wielding weapons associated with combat forces abroad. Their uniforms, equipment, and tactics have created the distinct appearance of yet another armed military response to protest and elements of civil unrest. Making matters worse, DHS’s leadership has indulged in harsh—indeed, militaristic—rhetoric in explaining and justifying its aggressive response. These actions, and others, are wrong, even dangerous.

It’s easy to lose sight of the big picture given the disturbing images and videos emerging daily from Portland. But it’s critical to step back and recognize the elements that make what’s unfolding in Portland such a dangerous step for DHS and for our democracy as a whole.

First, it’s worth remembering why DHS exists in the first place. The department was formed in the aftermath of 9/11. Less than two weeks after the attacks, former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge was appointed as director of a new office of homeland security in the White House. (Of note, Governor Ridge and other DHS secretaries have recently criticized the DHS response in Portland.) The Homeland Security Act of 2002, passed in November of that year, created DHS by bringing 22 different federal agencies together into one department. The creation of DHS was the federal response to the finding, after the 9/11 attacks, that no single agency within the government was responsible for securing the country. DHS’s primary mission at its inception was “to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States and reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism.”

While the core mission of DHS remains essentially unchanged, its roles and responsibilities have grown in response to various threats including cyber-attacks, election interference, drug smuggling and transnational criminal organizations. None of these threats appear to be present in Portland’s protests. So, at a minimum, whatever DHS is doing in Portland strays wildly from the reason DHS exists in the first place.

But it’s worse than just mission creep. DHS’s response to events in Portland represents at least seven elements that take key dangers of the militarized response to protest Americans witnessed in D.C. and attempt to launder them through the civilian apparatus of DHS. Each one is bad; taken together, they’re even worse:

1. Civil unrest in a U.S. city does not constitute a threat to the homeland and is outside the mission of the Department. DHS’s Federal Protective Service is charged with safeguarding federal property, like courthouses, but the employment of tactical units and their operations on streets increasingly far away from the federal buildings in Portland is questionable. Simply put, it’s just not clear how DHS’s mission includes whatever DHS is doing in Portland—which suggests DHS may be stretching, even overstepping, its authorities.

2. There was no request from state or local authorities for assistance. In fact, city and state leaders in Oregon have expressly said they don’t want DHS or federal forces operating as they have been in response to the protests. DHS operates in states, cities, and localities across the United States, normally in close coordination with local authorities. The aggressive DHS response in Portland is both unwanted and unwarranted, and it puts in jeopardy the cooperation with local authorities nationwide that is essential to DHS fulfilling its actual mission.

3. The wearing of military-style uniforms and equipment creates the appearance of an armed military response to civil unrest—a tactic more common to authoritarian regimes than to healthy democracies. The Secretary of Defense has expressed his concerns over this appearance, and several retired military leaders have spoken out against military involvement, or the appearance of it, in law enforcement actions against U.S. citizens whose activities constitute civil unrest, not anything close to a true homeland security threat such as rebellion or civil war.

4. The bellicose rhetoric from DHS’s senior officials has further inflamed the situation, rather than trying to defuse it. In addition, the heavy-handed federal response has worsened the situation and fomented even larger protests. It simply can’t be good for DHS or the country for DHS to be making matters in Portland worse rather than better.

5. President Trump’s rhetoric has been overtly partisan and political, focusing his ire on states and cities he labels as “Democrat” or “Radical Left.” The president’s words clearly politicize DHS’s response. DHS is a federal agency which serves all of the American people, regardless of party affiliation. To have DHS so closely tied to a partisan project tarnishes the department and risks its ability to earn public trust in the future.

6. The administration has a trust deficit and lacks credibility, so DHS’s defense of its actions are colored by mistrust. Even if DHS’s actions are within its authorities – and there remain valid questions about exceeding its authority – the Department’s words and deeds are often viewed with suspicion. That’s unhealthy for the situation in Portland; and it’s unhealthy for DHS in the myriad ways the department interacts with Americans (and others) each day across the country.

7. DHS has acting officials at senior levels throughout the organization, which calls into question decision-making that appears to be politically, rather than operationally, driven. The president has also made it clear he prefers “actings” so he can exert more control over them. Acting officials must be more concerned with pleasing the president in order to keep their jobs, and the two most senior DHS officials are seen to be behaving that way.

While Portland represents the most recent set of harmful actions by DHS, the damage to the agency’s reputation has accumulated in recent years, even before the scandal in Portland unfolded. First, President Trump’s oversized focus on the southwest border and his campaign promise of a border wall – or half of it anyway, since U.S. taxpayers are paying for the wall, not Mexico as Trump promised– took resources and focus away from DHS’s critical missions to protect the homeland. Under Trump, DHS has become the department of southwest border enforcement, not the Department of Homeland Security it was founded to be.“

Is there an exception to your logic here say if the white nationalists are equally targeted if they create public unrest? Would it equally bother you if the feds came down on them like a ton of bricks? My guess is many of my FLP friends would not be bothered as much. If local law enforcement can't handle the situation, they should ask for help. My belief is that is what they should do. If local law enforcement can't control the situation after several months, somebody in charge at the local level should have a plan B. If the local yokels that run Portland don't want to get control... fine by me. In fairness then don't ask me as a taxpayer to help you rebuild when the dust finally settles.

Well, there you would be wrong, for myself anyway. I think the author is correct when he says "civil unrest in a US city does not constitute a threat to the homeland." If a large white supremacist demonstration created unrest, it seems the worst thing one could do would be to crush it or oppose it with paramilitary troops -- under whatever unit banner. As you say, if local law enforcement -- in conjunction with local civil political leadership -- determine that they cannot manage the situation, and they ask for assistance, the federal government can then step in, again in coordination with the state civil authorities.

Your scaring me coaster. I find myself agreeing with you way more than I did in the past.

Yeah, agreed. It’s unnerving. It’s 101 here in New Hampshire today and I was already lightheaded.

Hope your garden is sprouting.

[a fan]

C'mon man. Get real. You don't have as many organized anarchists as they do in Portland & Seattle. They've been doing this there for years, seizing on any cause that presents an opportunity to riot & create mayhem. Remember the G20 & WTO riots.

Yep. These are the same group of idiots.

The peaceful protesters aren't the problem. It's the anarchist rioters who are hiding behind & embedded within the peaceful protesters.

Yep. Agree again. So what happens when you actually listen to the peaceful protesters? They go away.

Been saying the same thing for pages of thread now: when the peaceful protesters, most of whom live in Portland, go away.....not only will the violent idiots not have anyone to hide behind...the peaceful protesters will want the violent idiots out of their community.

Problem is now solved.

Portland PD could take over external security of the Fed bldgs, allowing the Feds to stay inside, allowing the Fed reinforcements to go home.

Agreed. The Portland Mayor needs to step up, control the area and protect property from the morons.

But the underlying problems---the reason for the peaceful protester---will endure. Why not tackle the ACTUAL problem here?

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.justsecurity.org/71696/form ... democracy/

“ I believe deeply that how our government’s security forces are seen by the American public is critical to their ability to protect us and our ability to maintain a healthy democracy. That belief comes from experience: I served for decades in the U.S. Marine Corps, as a Department of Defense spokesperson, and as the Trump administration’s first Department of Homeland of Security spokesperson. It’s as an American who cares profoundly about the missions of both DOD and DHS—and believes their reputations are essential to achieving those missions—that I’ve followed the Trump administration’s heavy-handed response to protests across the country in recent months, and especially DHS’s role in that response. And I’m appalled by what I’m seeing. It’s damaging to DHS, and it’s damaging to American democracy.

Last month, the sight of U.S. military forces on the streets of our nation’s capital surprised and angered many Americans, including military and veteran communities, former diplomats, former senior national security leaders, and the general public. While federal, state, and local law enforcement officers were actively involved in the response to protests in Washington, D.C., it was the mixing of men and women in military uniforms and equipment as part of the law enforcement response that sparked particular concern for me. Images of military and military-looking individuals threatening the use of force, and in some instances actually using it, raised crucial questions about the appropriateness of a militarized response to civil unrest.

During the protests in D.C., the military units deployed in and around the city were a mix of National Guard and active duty forces. They wore their normal camouflage uniforms. Some were armed, some were unarmed. Although the active duty units were not called into action, the deployment of a rapid response force from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division raised serious questions about the nature of the military’s response. National Guard units from the District and several states were deployed on the streets of Washington for several days. Some were involved in the controversial clearing of Lafayette Park for the president’s photo op at a church; and low-flying National Guard helicopters were used as crowd control measures. These actions sparked widespread condemnation and led the Secretary of Defense to order a formal investigation as well as Congress to hold oversight hearings.

It is through that prism—of a militarized response to protests and harsh public criticism of that response—that we should examine the ongoing federal response to protests in Portland, Oregon. In Portland, there are no military units – active duty or National Guard – currently involved. However, there is the perception of a military response—which is understandable, as DHS and other federal agencies have deployed law enforcement officers in military-style uniforms, wielding weapons associated with combat forces abroad. Their uniforms, equipment, and tactics have created the distinct appearance of yet another armed military response to protest and elements of civil unrest. Making matters worse, DHS’s leadership has indulged in harsh—indeed, militaristic—rhetoric in explaining and justifying its aggressive response. These actions, and others, are wrong, even dangerous.

It’s easy to lose sight of the big picture given the disturbing images and videos emerging daily from Portland. But it’s critical to step back and recognize the elements that make what’s unfolding in Portland such a dangerous step for DHS and for our democracy as a whole.

First, it’s worth remembering why DHS exists in the first place. The department was formed in the aftermath of 9/11. Less than two weeks after the attacks, former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge was appointed as director of a new office of homeland security in the White House. (Of note, Governor Ridge and other DHS secretaries have recently criticized the DHS response in Portland.) The Homeland Security Act of 2002, passed in November of that year, created DHS by bringing 22 different federal agencies together into one department. The creation of DHS was the federal response to the finding, after the 9/11 attacks, that no single agency within the government was responsible for securing the country. DHS’s primary mission at its inception was “to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States and reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism.”

While the core mission of DHS remains essentially unchanged, its roles and responsibilities have grown in response to various threats including cyber-attacks, election interference, drug smuggling and transnational criminal organizations. None of these threats appear to be present in Portland’s protests. So, at a minimum, whatever DHS is doing in Portland strays wildly from the reason DHS exists in the first place.

But it’s worse than just mission creep. DHS’s response to events in Portland represents at least seven elements that take key dangers of the militarized response to protest Americans witnessed in D.C. and attempt to launder them through the civilian apparatus of DHS. Each one is bad; taken together, they’re even worse:

1. Civil unrest in a U.S. city does not constitute a threat to the homeland and is outside the mission of the Department. DHS’s Federal Protective Service is charged with safeguarding federal property, like courthouses, but the employment of tactical units and their operations on streets increasingly far away from the federal buildings in Portland is questionable. Simply put, it’s just not clear how DHS’s mission includes whatever DHS is doing in Portland—which suggests DHS may be stretching, even overstepping, its authorities.

2. There was no request from state or local authorities for assistance. In fact, city and state leaders in Oregon have expressly said they don’t want DHS or federal forces operating as they have been in response to the protests. DHS operates in states, cities, and localities across the United States, normally in close coordination with local authorities. The aggressive DHS response in Portland is both unwanted and unwarranted, and it puts in jeopardy the cooperation with local authorities nationwide that is essential to DHS fulfilling its actual mission.

3. The wearing of military-style uniforms and equipment creates the appearance of an armed military response to civil unrest—a tactic more common to authoritarian regimes than to healthy democracies. The Secretary of Defense has expressed his concerns over this appearance, and several retired military leaders have spoken out against military involvement, or the appearance of it, in law enforcement actions against U.S. citizens whose activities constitute civil unrest, not anything close to a true homeland security threat such as rebellion or civil war.

4. The bellicose rhetoric from DHS’s senior officials has further inflamed the situation, rather than trying to defuse it. In addition, the heavy-handed federal response has worsened the situation and fomented even larger protests. It simply can’t be good for DHS or the country for DHS to be making matters in Portland worse rather than better.

5. President Trump’s rhetoric has been overtly partisan and political, focusing his ire on states and cities he labels as “Democrat” or “Radical Left.” The president’s words clearly politicize DHS’s response. DHS is a federal agency which serves all of the American people, regardless of party affiliation. To have DHS so closely tied to a partisan project tarnishes the department and risks its ability to earn public trust in the future.

6. The administration has a trust deficit and lacks credibility, so DHS’s defense of its actions are colored by mistrust. Even if DHS’s actions are within its authorities – and there remain valid questions about exceeding its authority – the Department’s words and deeds are often viewed with suspicion. That’s unhealthy for the situation in Portland; and it’s unhealthy for DHS in the myriad ways the department interacts with Americans (and others) each day across the country.

7. DHS has acting officials at senior levels throughout the organization, which calls into question decision-making that appears to be politically, rather than operationally, driven. The president has also made it clear he prefers “actings” so he can exert more control over them. Acting officials must be more concerned with pleasing the president in order to keep their jobs, and the two most senior DHS officials are seen to be behaving that way.

While Portland represents the most recent set of harmful actions by DHS, the damage to the agency’s reputation has accumulated in recent years, even before the scandal in Portland unfolded. First, President Trump’s oversized focus on the southwest border and his campaign promise of a border wall – or half of it anyway, since U.S. taxpayers are paying for the wall, not Mexico as Trump promised– took resources and focus away from DHS’s critical missions to protect the homeland. Under Trump, DHS has become the department of southwest border enforcement, not the Department of Homeland Security it was founded to be.“

Is there an exception to your logic here say if the white nationalists are equally targeted if they create public unrest? Would it equally bother you if the feds came down on them like a ton of bricks? My guess is many of my FLP friends would not be bothered as much. If local law enforcement can't handle the situation, they should ask for help. My belief is that is what they should do. If local law enforcement can't control the situation after several months, somebody in charge at the local level should have a plan B. If the local yokels that run Portland don't want to get control... fine by me. In fairness then don't ask me as a taxpayer to help you rebuild when the dust finally settles.

Well, there you would be wrong, for myself anyway. I think the author is correct when he says "civil unrest in a US city does not constitute a threat to the homeland." If a large white supremacist demonstration created unrest, it seems the worst thing one could do would be to crush it or oppose it with paramilitary troops -- under whatever unit banner. As you say, if local law enforcement -- in conjunction with local civil political leadership -- determine that they cannot manage the situation, and they ask for assistance, the federal government can then step in, again in coordination with the state civil authorities.

Your scaring me coaster. I find myself agreeing with you way more than I did in the past.

Yeah, agreed. It’s unnerving. It’s 101 here in New Hampshire today and I was already lightheaded.

Hope your garden is sprouting.

Garden is doing great, my wife is doing great. I picked 2 eggplants today that looked like small purple bowling balls. Tomorrow they will be stuffed and served up for dinner. Some really nice tomatoes starting to ripen up. BLTs this weekend for sure.

[cradleandshoot]

C'mon man. Get real. You don't have as many organized anarchists as they do in Portland & Seattle. They've been doing this there for years, seizing on any cause that presents an opportunity to riot & create mayhem. Remember the G20 & WTO riots.

Yep. These are the same group of idiots.

The peaceful protesters aren't the problem. It's the anarchist rioters who are hiding behind & embedded within the peaceful protesters.

Yep. Agree again. So what happens when you actually listen to the peaceful protesters? They go away.

Been saying the same thing for pages of thread now: when the peaceful protesters, most of whom live in Portland, go away.....not only will the violent idiots not have anyone to hide behind...the peaceful protesters will want the violent idiots out of their community.

Problem is now solved.

Portland PD could take over external security of the Fed bldgs, allowing the Feds to stay inside, allowing the Fed reinforcements to go home.

Agreed. The Portland Mayor needs to step up, control the area and protect property from the morons.

But the underlying problems---the reason for the peaceful protester---will endure. Why not tackle the ACTUAL problem here?

Until the peaceful protesters kick the bad apples to the curb... nothing will change.

[ardilla secreta]

That eggplant will go well with the chicken feet.

[cradleandshoot]

That eggplant will go well with the chicken feet.

UUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh. Why did you have to go there?

[jhu72]

The perspective from Lexington VA.

[a fan]

Mocking?... Jesus H a fan, I'm depressed as hell. Violent crime is up in NYC, yeah, it's all just a coincidence.

So you're throwing yourself in with the 2+2= no, because squirrels can't dance logic crowd? Great.

Are we in the middle of a Pandemic? Yep.

Are tax revenues way down in every city and State in America? Yep.

How's unemployment looking? Particularly in a place like NYC where there hundreds of closed restaurants per square mile? Through the roof.

When did the spike in violent crime start tech? You're making fun of me, and have it all figured out----so you should know this without googling. We both know that you don't have a clue.

Now add in when the actual vote came along in NYC to make the budget cuts. Again, you should know that without googling. But we both know that yet again, you don't have a clue. And why are these cuts on the table in the first place, Tech? Are you going to play dumb again, and pretend we're not in a pandemic, and NYC was one of the hardest hit cities?

So let me help you out. NYC: From June 1- June 30th there was a 130% increase in shootings over the previous year. Murder is up 23.1% in the first six months of the year.

And you're telling me, and mocking me for "pretzel logic" because you're convinced that those statistics rose from a budget cut bill (your defund the police nonsense) that wasn't voted on until June 30th, 2020. And when do these cuts take effect, Tech? Do you know? Nope. Of course you don't.

Sense the problem with your "pretzel logic" yet, tech?


https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/pr0 ... -june-2020

[tech37]

The Portland thing started with protesters demanding that police should be legally accountable for excessive use of force.

Like a fan and others mentioned, protests were getting smaller and smaller over time until DHS rolled into town and poured a barrel full of gasoline on a dying fire. Now the protests are 10x as big, and no meaningful changes have been made to address some simple demands from the people.

If the Portland Police Bureau had met in good faith with the protesters back in may and worked together to come up with a plan, they could have avoided that whole mess. Unfortunately they don't like to give up power and admit there may be a problem. So here we are.

There are protesters and then there are anarchists...why so difficult not to admit that?

There are protesters and there are anarchists. Happy?

But saying they're all anarchists is like saying all cops are bad.

Are anarchists that launch mortar round fireworks directly at the police bad people. Why do they have to hide among the "peaceful protesters" ? Why don't the "peaceful protesters" do something about them. If the "peaceful protesters" are willing to stand around with their thumbs stuck up their ass they are equally as guilty as the anarchists are. Enough of this BS about the vast majority of protesters are peaceful. If the vast majority ignores the small minority then they are accepting their tactics by doing nothing about them. Why don't the anarchists organize their own protest independent of the peaceful folks so they can stand up and be counted. Why??? Because they are a bunch of f***ing cowards that are like cockroaches that don't like the bright light being shined on them. It is easier to hide behind other people and use them as your human shields.

Agreed. The protesters have been hijacked by the anarchists. So for the protesters who stand silently by and watch, let's barrow one of their phrases and turn it on them..."silence equals violence."

[old salt]

C'mon man. Get real. You don't have as many organized anarchists as they do in Portland & Seattle. They've been doing this there for years, seizing on any cause that presents an opportunity to riot & create mayhem. Remember the G20 & WTO riots.

Yep. These are the same group of idiots.

The peaceful protesters aren't the problem. It's the anarchist rioters who are hiding behind & embedded within the peaceful protesters.

Yep. Agree again. So what happens when you actually listen to the peaceful protesters? They go away.

Been saying the same thing for pages of thread now: when the peaceful protesters, most of whom live in Portland, go away.....not only will the violent idiots not have anyone to hide behind...the peaceful protesters will want the violent idiots out of their community.

Problem is now solved.

Portland PD could take over external security of the Fed bldgs, allowing the Feds to stay inside, allowing the Fed reinforcements to go home.

Agreed. The Portland Mayor needs to step up, control the area and protect property from the morons.

But the underlying problems---the reason for the peaceful protester---will endure. Why not tackle the ACTUAL problem here?

Until the peaceful protesters kick the bad apples to the curb... nothing will change.

Yep. ...& the peaceful protesters in Portland don't want the anarchists to go away. They're cheering them on. The local pols are afraid to stand up to them. The Mayor tried to patronize & mollify them -- they heckled him & rioted.

No DC kumbaya prayer circle will mollify the Portland protesters. There's nothing Trump can say or do that will satisfy them, other than to abandon the 2 Fed bldgs, cede them to the anarchist mob to loot & burn, then they'll blame it on Trump anyway. Does the Fed govt have to abandon Portland ? Move the Fed Court & other Fed offices elsewhere ?

What breaks the impasse, other than State & Local police regaining control & allowing the Feds to withdraw ?
Trump has given Portland & OR officials a Hobson's choice.

[DocBarrister]

Not sure how many of you have noticed that Trump has been following Nixon’s playbook from 1968. His “law and order” rhetoric is straight from Nixon’s 1968 campaign.

I think Trump would love to see mass riots and violence in a Democratic city as there were in Chicago that summer.

For both Nixon and Trump, it was a cynical racist strategy ... ramping up the fear of white voters about allegedly violent urban (read: people of color) protesters, polarizing the electorate and consolidating white support behind the supposed law and order candidate.

Trump is ignoring pleas from local officials, who express concern about escalating the violence in Portland and other Democratic cities (including Chicago). That’s because Trump WANTS to escalate the violence.

For Trump, his dream come true would be tens of thousands of left wing protesters violently confronting tens of thousands of local police, national guard, and his new federal vigilantes in a major Democratic City. Does anyone doubt this is what Trump really wants?

Trump apparently learned the wrong lessons from 1968.

DocBarrister

[Peter Brown]

Not sure how many of you have noticed that Trump has been following Nixon’s playbook from 1968. His “law and order” rhetoric is straight from Nixon’s 1968 campaign.

I think Trump would love to see mass riots and violence in a Democratic city as there were in Chicago that summer.

For both Nixon and Trump, it was a cynical racist strategy ... ramping up the fear of white voters about allegedly violent urban (read: people of color) protesters, polarizing the electorate and consolidating white support behind the supposed law and order candidate.

Trump is ignoring pleas from local officials, who express concern about escalating the violence in Portland and other Democratic cities (including Chicago). That’s because Trump WANTS to escalate the violence.

For Trump, his dream come true would be tens of thousands of left wing protesters violently confronting tens of thousands of local police, national guard, and his new federal vigilantes in a major Democratic City. Does anyone doubt this is what Trump really wants?

Trump apparently learned the wrong lessons from 1968.

DocBarrister

This might be a smart take if it wasn’t for the simple fact that all the left lunatics rioting today are white Antifa marxists.

Like you! Prove to us you haven’t participated in anti American riots!

[tech37]

Mocking?... Jesus H a fan, I'm depressed as hell. Violent crime is up in NYC, yeah, it's all just a coincidence.

So you're throwing yourself in with the 2+2= no, because squirrels can't dance logic crowd? Great.

Are we in the middle of a Pandemic? Yep.

Are tax revenues way down in every city and State in America? Yep.

How's unemployment looking? Particularly in a place like NYC where there hundreds of closed restaurants per square mile? Through the roof.

So based on that logic, why aren't a lot more people acting out the madness? We're all victims. Funny it's just those who live in or near large Dem run cities whose governments have condoned that madness. a fan you can spin it anyway you like, but de Blasio's lack of leadership (for one) has allowed NYC to fall into a state of disrepair, a barely livable city. So all the minutia and/or assumptions you spout, as to when and why, means nothing when you miss the big picture. de Blasio's handling of the events and failure to uphold law and order, has been horrendous. https://nypost.com/2020/07/25/bill-de-b ... ycs-mayor/

When did the spike in violent crime start tech? You're making fun of me, and have it all figured out----so you should know this without googling. We both know that you don't have a clue.

Now add in when the actual vote came along in NYC to make the budget cuts. Again, you should know that without googling. But we both know that yet again, you don't have a clue. And why are these cuts on the table in the first place, Tech? Are you going to play dumb again, and pretend we're not in a pandemic, and NYC was one of the hardest hit cities?

So let me help you out. NYC: From June 1- June 30th there was a 130% increase in shootings over the previous year. Murder is up 23.1% in the first six months of the year.

And you're telling me, and mocking me for "pretzel logic" because you're convinced that those statistics rose from a budget cut bill (your defund the police nonsense) that wasn't voted on until June 30th, 2020. And when do these cuts take effect, Tech? Do you know? Nope. Of course you don't.

Sense the problem with your "pretzel logic" yet, tech?


https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/pr0 ... -june-2020

[a fan]

So based on that logic, why aren't a lot more people acting out the madness? We're all victims. Funny it's just those who live in or near large Dem run cities whose governments have condoned that madness. a fan you can spin it anyway you like, but de Blasio's lack of leadership (for one) has allowed NYC to fall into a state of disrepair, a barely livable city. So all the minutia and/or assumptions you spout, as to when and why, means nothing when you miss the big picture. de Blasio's handling of the events and failure to uphold law and order, has been horrendous.

That's an ENTIRELY different message than your gripe that "Defund the police" led to more violence in NYC. Completely different conversation. So I take it were done with the "defund the police" nonsense that has nothing to do with the rise in violence in NYC in the 6 months previous to the budget cut vote.....and you'd rather talk about DeBlasio?

No problem. Yep, I agree. From where I sit way out here, it appears that DeBlasio isn't the best mayor NYC has ever had. Anything else?

I disagree about the cause, however. You think it's because they've "condoned" bad behavior in these cities. I think the problem is that policing in these cities is broken, which is what is leading to these long term problems in the first place. And yep, that blame. sits at the feet of Council and the Mayor.

[tech37]

So based on that logic, why aren't a lot more people acting out the madness? We're all victims. Funny it's just those who live in or near large Dem run cities whose governments have condoned that madness. a fan you can spin it anyway you like, but de Blasio's lack of leadership (for one) has allowed NYC to fall into a state of disrepair, a barely livable city. So all the minutia and/or assumptions you spout, as to when and why, means nothing when you miss the big picture. de Blasio's handling of the events and failure to uphold law and order, has been horrendous.

That's an ENTIRELY different message than your gripe that "Defund the police" led to more violence in NYC. Completely different conversation. So I take it were done with the "defund the police" nonsense that has nothing to do with the rise in violence in NYC in the 6 months previous to the budget cut vote.....and you'd rather talk about DeBlasio?

No problem. Yep, I agree. From where I sit way out here, it appears that DeBlasio isn't the best mayor NYC has ever had. Anything else?

I disagree about the cause, however. You think it's because they've "condoned" bad behavior in these cities. I think the problem is that policing in these cities is broken, which is what is leading to these long term problems in the first place. And yep, that blame. sits at the feet of Council and the Mayor.

This is what I said: "Jesus...DeBlasio should be proud. Anyone think this is photoshopped?"

Then this: "Why seacoaster? Seems relevant considering it's an example of racial policies run amok in NYC. No cops to be found, and if there was, what could they do?"

Then this: "I see, just a coincidence... So you think this would inevitably happen, despite all of the anarchy that has ensued since Dem mayor's forgot about law and order and put all the onus on police? Wow..."

Then this: "Mocking?... Jesus H a fan, I'm depressed as hell. Violent crime is up in NYC, yeah, it's all just a coincidence."

I never mentioned "defund the police" in this instance, kram did.

It was about de Blasio and his mishandling of things from the start. You spun it to your liking, but missed the main point.