[throwaway_USD]

>1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

Before invoking the powers under the Act, 10 U.S.C. § 254 requires the President to first publish a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse. So if this is your precedent and there is no Presidential proclamation, then you would agree Trump has engaged in illegal acts?

>2. Attempting to burn down the federal courthouse would probably violate federal law, one would think.

There have been multiple "arrests" on video, and in the video the individuals were not attempting to burn anything down, much less a federal courthouse, in fact they weren't even near a federal courthouse and had no materials in their hands to suggest they could burn anything down.

>3. You’re just speculating. There’s no reason to think the arrestees aren’t being mirandized and given access to counsel.

There is video of some of these "arrests" including the prior to the interactions, the initial interactions, the detention, the "arrest" and placement into unmarked vans...in these videos there was no Miranda given. Since when is verifiable video evidence speculation?

But yes, my point is even if a court ruled the Federal Government has this power, there would still be many other Constitutional protections that apply, and based on what we have seen there seems to be those kinds of violations based on verifiable video evidence. I have also yet to see anyone who was arrested be bonded out nor make a public statement through any attorney...where are these arrestees held? Have they been afforded the right to an attorney? Have they appeared before a Judge for bail?

[beervirus]

1. I don’t know if this is exactly what’s being relied on here. You asked for any example, and this is one.

2. It’s easy to trim videos to remove the incriminating parts. You can make anyone look like the bad guy with selective editing.

3. Maybe they mirandized them as soon as they were in the van? We have no idea. Anyway, failure to mirandize doesn’t make an arrest illegal—it just means that if the suspect says something incriminating before the Miranda warnings, it can’t be used against him later.

The fact that you haven’t seen anyone bonded out is meaningless.

[throwaway_USD]

>The fact that you haven’t seen anyone bonded out is meaningless.

If you believe Constitutional rights are meaningless.

[beervirus]

You missed the part of that statement that was emphasized. I was saying that the fact that you personally haven't seen it happen doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[throwaway_USD]

> I was saying that the fact that you personally haven't seen it happen doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Yes, when bail hearings aren't seen, its good proof they aren't happening because its contrary to legal procedure. Are you claiming all people snatched off the streets have had bail hearings in secret and for some reason the court orders aren't being made public? You do realize news would show up to these bail hearings if they were happening and otherwise the Court orders would be public record right?

You have the President bragging about these actions:

"We’ve done a great job in Portland," Trump said. "I guess, we have many people right now in jail, and we very much quelled it. And if it starts again, we’ll quell it again very easily. It’s not hard to do if you know what you’re doing." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/17/report...

The fact people would be in still be in jail as opposed to being brought before a judge for a bail hearing shifts the burden, sure some could have been denied bail (on the merits), but either way the Judge/Court order would exist, the fact there are no court orders is prima facie evidence they are not happening, there are ongoing violations of constitutional rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also condemned the reported actions of the agents.

"Usually when we see people in unmarked cars forcibly grab someone off the street, we call it kidnapping," the organisation wrote on Twitter. "These actions are flat-out unconstitutional and will not go unanswered." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53453077

Anyway its clear this won't go anywhere, because unless I see that which does not exist, in your opinion the same can not be excluded from existence...which is obviously an impossible burden. Should unmarked militarized federal officers occupy your city and snatch you off the streets, I wish you the best.

[beervirus]

I mean, it's not like these people are just being disappeared. "Federal officers have charged at least 13 people with crimes related to the protests so far, while others have been arrested and released . . . ."

https://www.opb.org/news/article/federal-law-enforcement-unm...