Hacker News Reader

Comment by sky_lounge | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

>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?

> 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.

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.

> 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

> there is no central leader, planning, or accountability

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

> police with no identification

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/feds-unmarked-vans-portlan...

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.

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...

"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.

This hasn't been true for the CBP for a long time. They can legally ignore the 4th amendment, among other extra-constitutional authorities.

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

No reason? They are literally trying to set fire to the Federal Courthouse in Portland.

A burnt-down courthouse is less of a threat to civil liberties than actual paramilitaries literally grabbing people off of the streets. We're better off when vandals are the bad guys, rather than state security.

EDIT: I'm not sure why I took your false dichotomy at face value in the first place. A burnt-down courthouse and an informal military occupation aren't the only two options; but even if they were, the former is preferable.

I disagree. A mob burning down a courthouse isn't a minor thing: it's a clear symbolic statement that the justice system is illegitimate, the law has no power, and mob rule should be established. If I were confident that everyone would peacefully disperse and things would return to normal, I'd be all in favor of letting it burn, but I'd expect to just see more arson.

As the person above you has said, it's a false dichotomy. We can both respect people's civil liberties and prevent federal buildings from burning down.

He's saying that if those were the only choices he'd prefer those buildings burning down over the suspension of civil liberties. But they are not the only choices, we can protect both. It's not easy, but it's worth it.

I'm not sure we can. What ideas do you have in mind? The obvious strategy would be for local leaders to show up in person to express sympathy and solidarity with the cause, but that's been tried and doesn't seem to have changed anything.

I've seen some people float "do everything the mob demands so they won't have to follow through on their threats", but I hope we can agree that doing that would itself constitute mob rule.

The presence of federal agents and the police who are defending the court house is not illegal, it's their job. That helps defend the building from arson.

However federal agents violating 1st and 4th amendment rights by teargassing peaceful protests and unlawfully detaining people that's what needs to stop.

I fail to see why people are defending that behavior. You can support the deployment of those federal agents while still being critical of their overreach.

I'm critical of their overreach, but my criticism is muted, because I see the mob they're fighting against as a larger threat to the freedom of Portland residents. The police abuses we've seen are limited in scope and severity; as anyone who remembers 1992 can tell you, mob violence is very capable of engulfing an entire city.

And because of that overreach the criticism of the arsonists and rioters is muted as well, because the protesters see the police abuses as a larger threat to the freedom of Portland residents. It's what their entire protest movement is based on in the first place.

Both sides abandoning the middle ground is the reason we're in such a divisive political time. If you can't come to the defense of arguments you agree with because they're voiced by people you disagree with then you're contributing to the divisiveness.

Let's dispense with the residents per se because neither side cares about them, really. It's about power and institutions. The residents will vote soon enough anyway.

I don't believe I've abandoned any middle ground. I can come to the defense of those arguments. They just don't seem relevant to the urgent question of how to get rid of the mobs trying to burn down the courthouse. I'm sure we can agree that federal agents manning siege defenses every night isn't a workable long-term solution.

It certainly is not a workable solution, but given that the protests are about police abuses, perpetuating those abuses will only exacerbate the problem. The arguments might not seem relevant to you right now, but to the protesters they're fundamental to everything they stand for.

There is no easy fix for the problem, because any solution requires both the protesters and the police to come to the middle ground.

The police and federal agents need to show respect for the peaceful protests during the day and the protesters need to respect a reasonable curfew so police can do their work stopping rioters and arsonists at night.

Showing up in militarized uniforms and teargassing/shooting peaceful protestors doesn't bring us closer to that middle ground. Neither does destruction of property and defending rioters/arsonists.

Entirely true, but what's the hard fix? I'm skeptical of the federal plan to arrest a bunch of people until the problem stops, but it's at least a plan - if no one else can come up with one, I don't see much choice but to accept it.

> The police and federal agents need to show respect for the peaceful protests during the day and the protesters need to respect a reasonable curfew so police can do their work stopping rioters and arsonists at night.

That was the hard fix. I don't believe the feds will be able to solve it this time by doing what they did in LA in 1992.

And if we simply restore the status quo using a show of force then these riots will happen again and again.

Conservatives would LOVE the Portland Ninth Circuit Courthouses all burned down. They are the most Progressive Courts in the country.

...not sure who's side the anarchists are on.

You don't know what's happening to the taken people, but it seems pretty tame to you?

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

You're implying a binary, which is a common fallacy. It's not helpful, and is in fact provocative, to respond to critics of some behavior to the effect of, "So, what, they should do the extreme opposite thing?"

attempts to launch fireworks/mortars into the windows of the courthouse is not a binary or a fallacy.

> You don't know what's happening to the taken people, but it seems pretty tame to you?

I don't think they're being killed/maimed/"dissapeared" (south american style) as another commenter put it, but i agree that detainment without identification is a problem and it should stop.

The response should be proportionate to the act. Its inappropriate to punish many for the acts of a few.

Oof. If terrorizing protestors that are leaving the protest while having committed no crimes and only exercised their first amendment rights is “tame” to you, there remains some questions about your tolerance for tyranny.

You inserted a lot of qualifiers in your characterization of the protesters.

- terrorizing

- while having committed no crimes

- only exercised their first amendment rights

I haven't seen the evidence for or against those - I'm not sure how you know in each of those cases what actually happened either.

I do think the unmarked arrests should stop though

Reply on news.ycombinator.com