The Unmarked Van Of Remorseless Logic

I’ve had a couple people ask what I thought about Federal law enforcement, driving rental vans and wearing generic mil-cop camouflage, grabbing individual “protesters” off the streets of Portland.

To be honest, I’m not of two minds about it. Maybe three or four.

Bear with me, here.

I was a Libertarian with a capital L. I’m still a libertarian with small “l'”. I read my Soviet history (which is why I’m not a DFLer or a “progressive”). Cops descending out of nowhere and throwing people into vans and driving off is not a good look.

And if you can show me that those people have disappeared without a trace – as opposed to appearing in federal court being arraigned on charges involving destroying federal property and other federal crimes – then we’ve got something to talk about.

On the other hand:

I will wager a shiny new quarter that every single one of these “peaceful” protesters is going to appear in enough video, witness statements and other credible evidence to support at least an indictable allegation that they were involved in destroying federal (as in “you and me paid for it”) property, and/or travelled across state lines to organize other peoples’ felonies.

Now – given that Portland has in effect been turned over to “Anti”-Fa [1], and in effect told its own police to leave them alone and get out of the way, what’s going to be the best way to get these alleged violent conspirators – rolling up in a van labeled “FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT”, warning the wannabe tough guys to form a mob and get their bats and bike chains and guns out, and starting yet another riot?

Or maybe take the subtle approach, get the organizers they want, and leave without letting the mob destroy the neighborhood – again?

On the other, other hand:

All of you people demanding openness and transparency in law enforcement in tracking and arresting (for sake of argument) people who are credibly alleged to be organizers of violent riots that have caused tens of millions of dollars of damage to private, local and federal property: Where were you brave, iconoclastic souls in 2011-2013, when prosecutors in Wisconsin were serving no-knock “John Doe” warrants with SWAT teams armed not one degree behind the Specal Forces fashion curve, along with gag orders signed by courts that the Kangaroos released a statement saying they didn’t want to be associated with, against people accused of…

…supporting Scott Walker for Governor?

Where were you?

Is opaque government only a problem when it’s the people you agree with (?) getting arrested under unseemly circumstances?

And on the other, other, other hand:

Is Federal law enforcement and the whole federal justice system, with its 98% conviction rate and its indulgent rules that allow federal prosecutors to squeeze people to choose between guilty pleas or having their lived completely destroyed and being personally, legally and financially ruined forever, too powerful?

Well, I agree – and if you root for that same system when they pick out a white collar criminal to hound to death (read Howard Root’s “Cardiac Arrest” for a great local story by a guy who beat the rap – at the cost of $25 million), but get the vapors when it’s an entitled, upper-middle-class, over-schooled but under-educated “progressive” anarchist, then yes, I am going to point out your (let’s be polite here) inconsistency.

46 thoughts on “The Unmarked Van Of Remorseless Logic

  1. So, basically, federal agents are roaming local streets uninvited arresting people for vandalism on the pretext they are restoring “law and order” in a bid to whip up more votes. Pathetic.

  2. OK. Let’s roll up our sleeves and plow into the logical effluvia:

    basically, federal agents are roaming local streets uninvited

    Not sure they need an “invite” – especially from a city administration that has thrown in its lot with the lawless.

    arresting people for vandalism on the pretext they are restoring “law and order”

    Pretext? Pretty sure that’s law enforcement’s goal.

    in a bid to whip up more votes.

    Statement based on facts not in evidence. Rejected.

    Pathetic.

    Huh.

  3. ^^ In another country this would be described as “forces loyal to the regime”

    Let’s not call them “federal agents” as if their jurisdiction was anywhere close to what they were doing.

    CPD has no business in Portland beyond testing them to see if they’re willing to be Trump’s brown shirts .

  4. In another country this would be described as “forces loyal to the regime”

    Perhaps, but not according to any case you’re in danger of making.

    Let’s not call them “federal agents” as if their jurisdiction was anywhere close to what they were doing.

    Investigating an assault on federal property? Do tell.

    CPD has no business in Portland beyond testing them to see if they’re willing to be Trump’s brown shirts .

    Huh.

    I bet you a (another) shiny new quarter that what’s going on is statutorily completely legal. Since you’re a prog, that means “in the applicable law”.

    Whether it should be is open to debate – and by “debate”, I mean rational, factual discussion. You’ve pulled that off a time or two over the years. I’ll keep my fingers crossed.

  5. ^^ So let me get this straight. When it comes to a federal response to the coronavirus, it’s every state for themself. But Trump is happy to send in federal agents to unleash a militaristic response in Portland.

    Anonymous government agents in unmarked vehicles, pulling people off the street without explanation. This is how the secret police operate in Russia and China. It’s not Constitutional. It’s not Liberty or Freedom and it’s not American.

  6. If these individuals had been designated “terrorists” by secret Presidential finding, then under the Patriot Act, they’d be on their way to Gitmo to be held for a military tribunal, all in perfect accord with the law that Liberals insisted we must have.

    So what’s the problem?

  7. CPD has no business in Portland beyond testing them to see if they’re willing to be Trump’s brown shirts.

    I believe you mean CBP? As in Customs and Border Protection? Yeah, no reason for them to be there. Except for the port. And the international airport. Yes, other than that, no reason for them to be there.

  8. But Trump is happy to send in federal agents to unleash a militaristic response in Portland.

    To defend federal buildings and federal officers. And how do you know Trump’s happy? Try to deal in facts, Emery, not gaslighting.

    Anonymous government agents

    With patches and insignia clearly showing what law-enforcement organization they’re with.

    in unmarked vehicles

    Not new.

    , pulling people off the street without explanation.

    According to the self-serving testimony of protesters rioters, who admit they were Mirandized before being questioned (and exercising their right to remain silent, according to reports) and subsequently released.

    This is how the secret police operate in Russia and China. It’s not Constitutional. It’s not Liberty or Freedom and it’s not American.

    If there’s reliable evidence of federal law enforcement overstepping its bounds, I’d agree with you.

  9. I remember the days when conservatives would lose their shit over federalism and the 10th amendment if someone in Washington DC talked like this.

    “I don’t need invitations by the state, state mayors or state governors to do our job. We’re going to do that whether they like us there or not.” ~ Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf

  10. Personally, I’m pretty happy about what’s happening in Portland. Nice to see lefties get a taste of their own medicine.

    Barack Obama weaponized the IRS, the State Dept, the DOJ, and the FBI. He targeted citizens, journalists and political orgs that opposed him via law enforcement. And he oversaw a conspiracy to spy on a presidential candidate.

    But they impeached Trump.

  11. I remember the days when conservatives would lose their shit over federalism and the 10th amendment if someone in Washington DC talked like this.

    “I don’t need invitations by the state, state mayors or state governors to do our job. We’re going to do that whether they like us there or not.” ~ Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf

    Examples? Let’s talk.

  12. ^^ Conspiracy theorizing normalizes conspiracy theorizing, on everything from QAnon to 5G to vaccines. It’s not harmless.

  13. Mitch;
    You also forgot the 2:00 a.m. raid on Roger Stone’s house, with Communist News Network cameras conveniently in place to catch is all.

    And, there is a possibility that these “abductions” are false flags, being perpetrated by the funding of one of Georgie Soros’ slush funds to foment civil unrest.

    Emery, you are AGAIN showing your hypocrisy and stupidity. You are quite happy to support the DemocRAT mantra of it’s OK for me, but not for thee, yet display self righteous indignation when it’s actual law enforcement, not manufactured garbage and b.s. Nice work, Comrade!

  14. Mark Levin a couple days ago made a good point – denizens of Portland are citizens of the United States of America, NOT Portlandia. And if the duly elected officials of Portland are not willing to uphold the law and protect life, property and well-being of the citizens of the USA who have the misfortune of being railroaded by their progressive goobernment, the Federal Goobernment has the constitutional authority to protect not only the federal interests, but those of the citizens of the United States of America. Goobernement oppression can come in many ways besides taxation and regulation – one of them is failure to protect its citizenry from harm.

  15. My attitude toward federal agents rousting rioters is similar to my attitude toward any other law enforcement rousting rioters: good on you.

  16. The thing you’ve got to understand, Emery, is that we conservatives DID protest when the Patriot Act was proposed, and when airport security was federalized, and when Elian was deported, and when the Branch Dividians were burned alive. The Left shouted us down, insisting we were wrong, that unbridled federal power was not only moral, it was essential. We warned the Left they wouldn’t like living under the new rules, but they wouldn’t listen.

    It’s the same as when the Senate changed the rules for confirming judges. You’re not going to like it when the shoe’s on the other foot. Sure enough, they didn’t.

    Think of it this way: the word “hot” has no intrinsic referent. Telling a child the fire is “hot” means nothing to a child. The kid won’t learn until she touches it and gets burnt, hopefully not too badly, and then she learns her lesson.

    There’s a reason George Washington compared government to fire. Liberals are just now touching the fire they lit years ago. Nothing we can do but let the precious snowflakes burn themselves, and learn from it.

  17. JD, alas the progressives are also changing the definitions – ie lack of consequences to breaking the law.

  18. So the tinfoil hats are on the pointy little heads of the Left, now.
    Sux to be them.
    LMK when there is a violation of habeous corpus, will you?

  19. Cops descending out of nowhere and throwing people into vans and driving off is not a good look. – Mitch

    Granted…and fully agree.

    Rioting never used to be a good look either.

    My, my, how times have changed.

  20. Huh, I looked at a lot of the same images I’d guess Emery looked at, and what I saw was destruction of public and private property, including federal buildings. The Insurrection Act of 1807 provides for the deployment of the militia to suppress insurrections. It was also invoked during the riots after the acquittal of the police officers who beat Rodney King.

    So nice of “thinkers” on the left to decry this as “fascist” when the law specifically provides for this move.

  21. “Throwing people into vans and driving off is not a good look….’”. But burning and looting is? Emery, you really didn’t think that one out too well, did you? Would you rather have them thrown into a waiting line of Priuses of Subarus?

  22. I do have a problem with unidentified cops snatching people and tossing them into unmarked cars……because what if they are not cops?

    It opens into a dark world of possibilities.

  23. This is Trump’s strategy of provoking the
    opposition escalated from mere words to actions. It speaks to his desperation and points to where he wants to go: battles in the cities.

    Somehow those brave citizens open carrying their AR-15s to oppose government overreach are just never in the right place at the right time to bravely defend liberty and freedom.

  24. Funny how the Little Weasel isn’t mentioning shocking leftist violence in Denver. But anything to get nice people on the right to be concerned. To be concerned about something else.

    Sorry, not sorry. The left (in Portland) is getting exactly what is coming to them. And I hope the backlash broadens to the other places the left is rioting.

  25. Where were you brave, iconoclastic souls in 2011-2013…

    I know you meant to exclude me, Mitch. Because I’ve been instructing SiTD readers on the sins of coppers since you made your first post.

    Beyond that, E. Dimwit Esq. has a point. Why the hell would we want the feds out there stopping leftist terrorists from destroying leftist shit holes? If they came to my little burg, they’d get all the trouble they want, and more, but as long as they contain their destruction to big cities, I say: Have at it, lads!

    Today, it’s Drumpf’s troops. Tomorrow it could be some leftist sending troops to my little burg to enforce the Federal mandate du jour…or yours. I’d rather deal with noodle armed leftist faggots than highly trained, well equipped operators, any day.

  26. Emery:
    18 USC 231
    18 USC 241
    18 USC 245
    18 USC 247
    18 USC 521
    18 USC 2101
    Federal property under exclusive, proprietary or concurrent jurisdiction.

    You’re welcome.

  27. Somehow those brave citizens open carrying their AR-15s to oppose government overreach are just never in the right place at the right time to bravely defend liberty and freedom.

    Wrong, as usual dimwit.

    They used their AR-15’s to shoot an 8 year old girl in Atlanta. Or are you discriminating among “brave citizens open carrying their AR-15s to oppose government overreach” to exclude Negroes?

    Pffft. you fucking ejit.

  28. “This is Trump’s strategy of provoking the
    opposition escalated from mere words to actions. ”
    Everything bad is Trump’s fault.
    Textbook TDS.

  29. I remember when the US would send troops to foreign countries when a leader used his army to suppress political opposition.

  30. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 07.20.20 : The Other McCain

  31. I remember when the Chicago PD disappeared people in the Homan Building, without warrant or habeas corpus, under Rahm Emmanuel and while Obama was President.

  32. When justice and the rule of law are ignored or diluted, there are always increasing reaction and counter-reactions that both grow more violent. When an acceptable standard is not maintained and honored, then new standards are introduced. There might be some grim joy in seeing some of the protesters get introduced to the fruit of the dragon teeth they sowed, but I’ve seen what the “secret” forces have done in places like Prague and Hong Kong, and this doesn’t end well for anyone.

    It’s all “reasonable” at first, but if there isn’t a standard then each slip down the slope gets easier.

    The reason the shire reave (sheriff) was charged by the monarch with keeping “the King’s/Queen’s peace” was because the ruler knew if peace wasn’t enforced, justice would be meted out by those who moved into the vacuum, and the escalating chaos and reprisals could threaten the rule of the Crown.

  33. I remember when the US would send troops to 3rd world shit holes when a tribal clan boss used his army to suppress distribution of UN food donations, and then import the whole stinking clan to America after they slaughtered our troops.

    Now *that* was leadership.

  34. Emery: I presented you with legal citations justifying Federal action. Any response?

  35. NW makes a number of good points. When the local authorities create a power vacuum, and let the rioters fill it and run amuck, they opened the door for Trump to send in the Federales. The Portland authorities needed to step up their game and reclaim their city.

  36. 2016 Republican Platform: “Federalism is a cornerstone of our constitutional system. Every violation of state sovereignty by federal officials is not merely a transgression of one unit of government against another; it is an assault on the liberties of individual Americans.”

  37. Nachman, you’re not going to ever get a straight answer out of E. Dimwit Esq., that’s not what he is here for. No indeed. E. Dimwit is a man of leisurely pursuits; he’s here to amuse himself.

    Ever since he locked in his Pr0fitz from the stock market on Jan 1, and became a real estate mogul (3 premium lakefront properties fully paid for™) he just sits in his oak paneled study, smoking Cohiba Esplendidos while gently swirling a tumbler of Cuvée Jean Godet and laughing at the tribulations suffered by the little people.

    He’s a pretty big deal.

  38. Lakeshore suits my lifestyle. It’s a variation of the business model for your ‘alleged’ rental property — minus your occupancy turnover and damages to said property.

  39. Lakeshore suits my lifestyle

    So does pathological lying.

  40. Oh, you two dickheads are a lot more alike than different. Trump just never had to lie about owning shore front properties.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.