Unidentified federal officers in Portland and soon, in Chicago and Albuquerquehave been arresting and detaining protesters in unmarked vehicles, sometimes far away from the federal buildings they're purportedly there to protect.

In one notable instance, two federal officers grabbed a man off the sidewalk and, without identifying themselves or giving a reason, put him in an unmarked van and drove off to question him.

The Department of Homeland Security claims the officers' tactics here are lawful. Harvard Law professor Andrew Manuel Crespo says they are decidedly not.

"The person in charge of this newly beefed-up, paramilitary federal police force doesn't know what an arrest is," he says of Federal Protective Services Deputy Director Chris Cline. "It means he doesn't know when they're violating the fourth amendment like they unquestionably did."

Listen to Professor Crespo explain why the officers' conduct is unconstitutional and why he finds it frightening that authorities seem to think otherwise.

See original here:

Radio Diary: A Harvard Law Professor Explains Why Federal Officers' Tactics In Portland Are Unlawful - WBUR

Acting Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Chad Wolf and one of his subordinates appear to have admitted their agents have been making unconstitutional arrests of Black Lives Matter protesters in Portland during a series of public appearances.

Heres the exact comment.

Anytime that you attack a federal facility such as a courthouse in Portland that is a federal crime, Wolf told Fox News host Martha MacCallum on Tuesday night. Attacking federal police officerslaw enforcement officerswhich they have done for 52 nights in a row is a federal crime. So, the Department, because we dont have that local support, that local law enforcement support, we are having to go out and proactively arrest individuals and we need to do that because we need to hold them accountable.

Anticipatory arrests, of course, are prohibited under the U.S. Constitution.

Those Fox News comments tracked with an explanation given by Deputy Director of the Federal Protective Service Richard Kris Clinewho was asked to field a question originally addressed to Wolf about infamous and widely-criticized footage of DHS agents silently abducting protesters and forcing them into unmarked vehicles.

What level of probable cause are you getting? a reporter asked on Tuesday during a press briefing. Because some people are saying that theyre being detained on the sidewalk by an agent they dont recognize and being put into an unmarked vehicle. So, what exactly, is the standard of probable cause you are getting and how is that not a violation of civil liberties?

Wolf noted that his agents were not going directly into crowds of protesters because Portland is currently a very difficult environment to work in. He also said that his agents were using probable cause, but declined to elaborate, before turning the microphone over.

So, in this instance, youre probably talking about the van, Cline said. So the CBP, the Border Patrol officersthat have been cross-designated with our authoritythe individual that they were questioning was in a crowd and in an area where an individual was aiming a laser at the eyes of officers.

That explanation immediately set off alarm bells from legal experts.

Harvard Law Professor Andrew Crespo summed up the constitutional issues with the Kline-Wolf approach.

I dont know if shining a laser at someone is a federal crime, he wrote. It doesnt matter. The police do not have probable cause to arrest you just because you are standing near someone else who may have committed a crime.

The U.S. Supreme Court, Crespo noted, weighed in on this issue in a landmark Fourth Amendment case from 1979.

In Ybarra v. Illinois, a 6-3 majority of justices concluded that a state statute allowing police to search people on the premises of a location where a valid search warrant is executed violates both the Fourth Amendments prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures as well as the 14th Amendments guarantee of Due Process.

Per that still-undisturbed decision:

[A] persons mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person. Where the standard is probable cause, a search or seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to that person.

The Harvard Law professor explained that this standard is actually well-known in the common parlance as well: the lawand an ethical worldviewdoes not and cannot support the notion of guilty by association.

We have people in the area that observekeep track of himwhere hes going, Cline noted. We dont want to go into the crowd because then its a fight between our guys and the demonstrators, so we wait until the individual gets into a somewhat quiet area where we dont expect violence to talk to him.

According to Cline, however, other protesters appeared and the DHS troops decided to take the person of interest . Cline said they asked the protester to leave. The video appears to show that the protester was detained by two troops using force.

They did take them to an area that was safe for both the officers and the individual to do the questioning, he said. Its not a custodial arrest. We need to question this individual to find out what their role was in this laser-pointing.

Eventually, Cline said, the protester was released because [DHS] did not have what they needed.

Translation: They did not have probable cause, Crespo stated.

Crespo took issue with Klines suggestion that his agents are acting constitutionally because they are not performing custodial arrests.

The nations high court also settled the arrest issueagain in 1979.

In Dunaway v. New York the Supreme Court considered whether police violated the Fourth and 14th Amendments whenlacking probable causethey took a person into custody, transported him to a police station and detained him for interrogation. Once again, six justices found that police violated the U.S. Constitution with such actions.

Per that landmark case:

[T]he detention of petitioner was in important respects indistinguishable from a traditional arrest. Petitioner was not questioned briefly where he was found. Instead, he was taken from a neighbors home to a police car, transported to a police station, and placed in an interrogation room.

The Dunaway holdingprohibiting alleged non-custodial arrestswas unanimously reaffirmed by the court in 1984.

Crespo noted: The person in charge of this newly beefed up, paramilitary federal police force DOES NOT KNOW WHAT AN ARREST IS.

[images via screengrab/Fox News/Department of Homeland Security]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

See the original post:

Two DHS Officials Apparently Just Admitted Their Troops Have Been Violating the Constitution - Law & Crime

None dare call them hypocrites.

The conservative politicians who oppose Gov. Eric Holcombs statewide mandate that Hoosiers wear masks while in public have the purest histories and the cleanest hands one could imagine. They wouldnt dream of endangering their fellow citizens lives and creating dissension in a time of crisis out of personal pique.

No, no, no.

These guys have unblemished reputations of selfless, unimpeachable devotion to serving both the state and its citizens, uncorrupted by baser considerations or loyalties. They are above such crass motivations.

Take Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill, for example.

Hill issued an opinion at the request of several conservative state lawmakers that Holcombs order exceeded his authority. The attorney general devoted at least 15 or 20 seconds of research and analysis to this carefully reasoned argument.

One would expect such diligence and creativity from a man who argued with vehemence that he should remain as attorney general even though his license to practice law had been suspended and Indiana law requires that one be an attorney in good standing to hold the office.

The demands that Hill resign his office came from every corner. The chorus calling for him to leave included most Hoosier Republican officeholders.

But Hill recognized that to honor his duty to the law he must ignore, even break, the law. To do otherwise would be to violate his oaths both as an officer of the court and as the states highest-ranking defender of the law.

So, Curtis Hill stayed fought tooth and nail, in fact, to hold onto his office in the face of unending criticism and censure from the Indiana Supreme Court because his devotion to the law knows no bounds. He knew it would be wrong to deprive Indiana of such a paragon of principled commitment to the rule of law.

No, none dare call them hypocrites.

Then theres Indiana Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour.

Lucas recently found himself on the receiving end of a spanking from his own partys leadership. He lost several key committee assignments because he had posted a racist meme on Facebook a picture of a laughing Black child in what appeared to be a diaper chortling, We gon get free money.

After his trip to the woodshed, Lucas said he was going to leave social media and try to strike a more respectful tone.

That lasted about 90 seconds.

The day after the governor announced the mask mandate, Lucas offered the following calm and reasoned post on Facebook:

Starting Monday, the governor wants to lock me in a cage for 180 days and fine me $1,000 if I dont wear a mask that has no published standards for effectiveness.

What if I dont comply, Governor Eric Holcomb?

The words sat atop a photo of a gun and a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution.

Many people who saw the post called it a threat to the governor and thus a violation of the law. Lucas denied that.

He always does.

Thats because Lucas is like the kid in the band who just knows that everyone but him is marching out of step.

His devotion to the Constitution is depthless. Thats why he likes to berate and shout down citizens who want to exercise their First Amendment right to petition government for redress of grievances. Thats also why he tried to waive gun owners Fourth Amendment rights a few years back so he could make it possible for them to bring their guns to school.

Hes just following the wisdom of the Vietnam War general who said, In order to save the village, it was necessary to destroy the village.

Lucas knows that, to save the Constitution, sometimes one must destroy the Constitution.

No, none dare call them hypocrites.

Eric Holcombs motivations arent nearly so high-minded and complicated. Hes requiring Hoosiers to wear masks because, selfishly, he wants to see fewer of us getting sick and dying.

What a cad.

What a tyrant.

Hill, Lucas and the others who oppose the governors mandate have one other thing in common.

They all say theyre pro-life.

No, none dare call them hypocrites.

John Krull is director of Franklin Colleges Pulliam School of Journalism and publisher of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

The rest is here:

John Krull: The innocents at home, anti-mask tales of purity - Terre Haute Tribune Star

Jeff Paul was allegedly beaten by federal law enforcement while peacefully protesting in Portland.

A Seattle resident is suing president Donald Trump and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf for "conspiracy to violate the U.S. Constitution" after allegedly being beaten by federal law enforcement officers at a Portland protest on July 18.

The lawsuit, first reported by The Oregonian, was filed in U.S. District Court on July 21.

It alleges that Jeff Paul, who works in special education, attended a protest outside the Justice Center when federal officers charged without warning and "viciously beat and mutilated" Paul with a baton. According to court documents, Paul spent the night in a hospital emergency department.

The lawsuit alleges that Wolf and the federal agents who work for him violated Paul's First and Fourth Amendment rights to peacefully protest and from unlawful uses of force. It further alleges that world and federal law enforcement conspired to deprive Paul of his civil rights and failed to prevent that conspiracy.

Trump, Wolf and federal agents also allegedly threatened to violate Paul's First and Fourth Amendment rights with their "their repeated threats to deploy violence against protestors demonstrating against racial injustice generally and in Portland specifically."

The lawsuit cites statements made by Trump on Twitter, such as, "a city or a state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them."

Paul is represented pro bono by Michael Fuller, Kelly D. Jones and Jane Moisan. The lawsuit is one of many filed by the team of Portland lawyers on behalf of protesters and homeowners who have been impacted by the law enforcement tactics used at protests.

"As a lawyer, it's disgusting to see the Constitution violated for political purposes," Fuller told the Portland Tribune.

This is the first complaint they've filed against Trump. "This is a rare case where we know that the administration did in fact conspire with other agencies to break the Constitution, and we know that because he's tweeted as much," Fuller said.

Fuller said it will be an uphill battle to sue a sitting president, but Trump has made their job a little easier. "He's just made it very clear that he is employing these federal agents, he's encouraging them to use excessive force, and he's doing it for political reasons," Fuller said.

Fuller said the primary goal of the lawsuit is to get an "order prohibiting Trump from continuing to beat and abuse peaceful protesters for political purposes," as well as an unspecified amount in monetary damages for Paul.

Gina ScalponeReporteremail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

You count on us to stay informed and we depend on you to fund our efforts.Quality local journalism takes time and money. Please support us to protect the future of community journalism.

See the article here:

Protester in Portland sues Trump for 'conspiracy to violate the U.S. Constitution' after alleged attack by feds - Pamplin Media Group

E DITOR Want to stop COVID-19? Start wearing a face mask

To the editor: Many people are confused about face masks because back in April the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) issued statements suggesting they were not needed. Both institutions have changed and now strongly recommend face masks.

There are several reasons for the change, but mostly it is because the coronavirus is constantly evolving and we are learning more about it. We now know the virus is commonly spread simply by people speaking. The virus organisms are expelled from a persons lungs when they speak and can float in the air for as much as eight hours. A face mask prevents some from being expelled and slows those that are so they do not travel as far from the speaker.

That is why social distancing is so important. You have a much greater chance of being infected by standing close to someone that is infected. If the virus cannot infect another individual, it goes through its infectious cycle and appears to die. The vast majority of scientists say if everyone would wear a face mask and use social distancing for two weeks, we could be on the way to beating COVID-19, and cautiously re-opening our businesses and our schools.

In addition to killing some of its victims, we now know COVID-19 affects other organs that can have long, life altering results. We know COVID-19 infects young children and they can pass it on to others. We know that going to parties or attending other social, religious, or governmental gatherings helps to spread COVID-19 and perpetuates the pandemic.

Its simple; you can help re-open our schools and our economy, and you might save your own or someone elses life by wearing a face mask, washing your hands and social distancing. If you do not do these things you are part of the problem.

Mary Luchterhand

Unity

Colby Fire/EMS decides to cancel Aug. 5 banquet

To the editor: You may have heard by now that the Colby Fire Ems Associations banquet has been cancelled. The banquet was going to be Aug. 5.

Due to the uncertain decisions of the Clark and Marathon health departments, we felt this was the best decision at this time. With the number of people who attend and the size of the VFW hall, we could not properly social distance.

Our members will be contacting ticket holders and the businesses that made donations already. Hold on to your tickets so we can refund your money.

If the member that sold you a ticket does not contact you within the next few weeks, please feel free to reach out to them.

We appreciate your understanding and support. We look forward to seeing you in April 2021.

Lin Mueller

Colby Fire/ EMS Association

Poor leadership produces bad results for the U.S.

To the editor: Leaders of the European Common Market and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have several things in common that leave them, and the current condition of their countries, in stark contrast to President Trump.

They have had national requirements for wearing face masks and have enforced social distancing. They instituted economic recovery plans that kept people employed and they enjoyed universal health care that paid medical bills. They have the trust and respect of a majority of their citizens while they work together to defeat a common enemy.

Finally, they invest in, believe in, and work with science.

President Trump said he believes face masks are not important and encouraged people in several states to protest social distancing. The $2 trillion U.S. Economic Recovery plan encouraged extended unemployment and Trump has consistently attempted to gut the Affordable Care Act which provides health care for millions of Americans.

Trump is a nationalist and has refused to work with other countries to defeat COVID-19, first defunding the World Health Organization and then withdrawing from it. He abolished the National Security Councils Pandemic Response Team in 2018, cut funding to the Centers for Disease Control by $690 million, and has never relied on science to help fight COVID-19.

The result of these differences and more is that Canadian and European economies are opening back up while ours is closing down. Coronavirus transmission rates in Canada and Europe are less than 20 per 100,000 while in the U.S. they are greater than 120 per 100,000!

We are still fighting over face masks, enduring an increase in daily deaths and are a nation divided with our economy in chaos with no recovery plan while much of the industrialized world is slowly moving forward. COVID-19 is out of control, our economy is a disaster, and both are due in large part to a terrible lack of leadership by President Trump.

Darlene and Dennis Bucheger Greenwood

President Trump clearly violated U.S. Constitution

To the editor: President Trumps recent actions to deploy federal agents in American cities, against American citizens, violate Article 1, Section 8 and Article 3, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

When those agents appeared in uniforms with no agency or personal identifi cation and apprehended a protester, shoving him into an unmarked vehicle without saying where they were taking him or why, they were in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment states, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . .

We know Trump admires the most tyrannical dictators in the world and has expressed a desire to have those same dictatorial powers. It should be frightening to anyone concerned with civil liberties, including the right to assemble, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to petition the government as is granted in the First Amendment.

Trump has declared himself to be your law and order president and thinks of himself as a war time president. He has called for the military to be deployed to dominate protesters. His acting secretary for Homeland Security said he is protecting federal property and indicated these agents will be deployed to other American cities.

Despite Congress being in session and no requests from the states, Trump feels free to violate several articles of the most sacred document this country has. Can you imagine what he will do if he is reelected? Conspiracy planners are suggesting the placement of federal troops in cities around the nation as part of Plan B in case he is not re-elected and attempts to stay in office. He is violating fundamental American laws and should be stopped. Where are our representatives in Congress? Their silence is deafening.

Richard A. Slone Neillsville

More:

LETTERS TO THE - Central Wisconsin News - Tribune Phonograph

I dont need invitations by the state, state mayors, or state governors, to do our job. Were going to do that, whether they like us there or not. Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolfs defense of the Trump Administrations deployment of militarized federal police to address civil unrest in the states

This is a wake-up call.

What is unfolding before our very eyes with police agencies defying local governments in order to tap into the power of federal militarized troops in order to put down domestic unrest could very quickly snowball into an act of aggression against the states, a coup by armed, militarized agents of the federal government.

At a minimum, this is an attack on theTenth Amendment, which affirms the sovereignty of the states and the citizenry, and the right of the states to stand as a bulwark againstoverreach and power grabs by the federal government.

If youre still deluding yourself into believing that this thinly-veiled exercise in martial law is anything other than an attempt to bulldoze what remains of the Constitution and reinforce the iron-fisted rule of the police state, you need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

This is no longer about partisan politics or civil unrest or even authoritarian impulses.

This is a turning point.

Unless we take back the reins and soon looking back on this time years from now, historians may well point to the events of 2020 as the death-blow to Americas short-lived experiment in self-government.

The governments recent actions in Portland, Oregon when unidentified federal agents (believed to be border police, ICE, and DHS agents), wearing military fatigues with patches that just say Police and sporting all kinds of weapons,descended uninvited on the city in unmarked vehicles, snatching protesters off the streets,and detaining them without formally arresting them or offering any explanation of why theyre being held is just a foretaste of whats to come.

One of those detainees was a 53-year-old disabled Navy veteran who was in downtown Portland during the protests but not a participant. Concerned about the tactics being used by government agents who had taken an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, Christopher David tried to speak to the secret police. Almost immediately, he wasassaulted by federal agents, beaten with batons, and pepper-sprayed.

Another peaceful protester wasreportedly shot in the head with an impact weaponby this federal goon squad.

The Trump Administration has already announced its plans todeploy these border patrol agents to other cities across the country(Chicago is supposedly next) in an apparent bid to put down civil unrest. Yet theoverriding concerns by state and local government officialsto Trumps plans suggest that weaponizing the DHS as an occupying army will only provoke more violence and unrest.

Weve been set up.

Under the guise of protecting federal properties against civil unrest, the Trump Administration has formed atask force of secret agents who look, dress, and act like military stormtroopers on a raid and have been empowered to roam cities in unmarked vehicles, snatching citizens off the streets, whether or not theyve been engaged in illegal activities.

As theGuardianreports, The incidents being described sound eerily reminiscent of the CIAs post-9/11 rendition program under George W Bush, where intelligence agents would roll up in unmarked vans in foreign countries, blindfold terrorism suspects (many of whom turned to be innocent), and kidnap them without explanation. Only instead of occurring on the streets of Italy or the Middle East, its happening in downtown Portland.

The so-called racial-justice activists who have made looting, violence, vandalism, and intimidation tactics the hallmarks of their protests have played right into the governments hands.

They have delivered all of us into the police states hands.

Theres a reason Trump has tapped the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection for this dirty business: These agencies are notorious for their lawlessness, routinely sidestepping the Constitution and trampling on the rights of anyone who gets in their way, including legal citizens.

Indeed, it was only a matter of time before theseroving bands of border patrol agents began flexing their muscles far beyond the nations borders and exercising their right to disregard the Constitution at every turn.

Except these border patrol cops arent just disregarding the Constitution.

Theyretrampling all over the Constitution, especially the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits the government from carrying out egregious warrantless searches-and-seizures without probable cause.

As part of the governments so-called crackdown on illegal immigration, drugs, and trafficking, its border-patrol cops have been expanding their reach,roaming further afield,and subjecting greater numbers of Americans to warrantless searches, I.D. checkpoints, transportation checks, and even surveillance on private property far beyond the boundaries of the borderlands.

That so-called border, once a thin borderline, has become an ever-thickening band spreading deeper and deeper inside the country.

Now, with this latest salvo by the Trump administration in its so-called crackdown on rioting and civil unrest, America itself is about to become a Constitution-free zone where freedom is off-limits and government agents have all the power and we the people have none.

The Customs and Border Protection (CBP), with its more than60,000 employees, supplemented by the National Guard and the U.S. military, is an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, a national police-force imbued with all the brutality, ineptitude, and corruption such a role implies.

As journalist Todd Miller explains:

"In these vast domains, Homeland Security authorities can instituteroving patrols with broad, extra-constitutional powers backed by national-security, immigration-enforcement, and drug-interdiction mandates. There, the Border Patrol can set up traffic checkpoints and fly surveillance-drones overhead with high-powered cameras and radar that can track your movements. Within twenty-five miles of the international boundary, CBP agents can enter a persons private property without a warrant."

Just about every nefarious deed, tactic, or thuggish policy advanced by the government today can be traced back to the DHS, its police-state mindset, and thebillions of dollars it distributesto local police agencies in the form of grants to transform them into extensions of the military.

As Miller points out, the government has turned the nations expanding border regions into a ripe place to experiment with tearing apart the Constitution, a place where not just undocumented border-crossers, but millions of borderland residents have become the targets of continual surveillance.

In much the same way that police across the country have been schooled in the art of sidestepping the Constitution, border cops have also been drilled in the art of anything goes in the name of national security.

In fact, according to FOIA documents shared withThe Intercept,border cops even have a checklist of possible behaviors that warrant overriding the Constitutionand subjecting individuals including American citizens to stops, searches, seizures, interrogations, and even arrests.

For instance, if youredriving a vehicle that to a border cop looks unusualin some way, you can be stopped. If yourpassengers look dirtyor unusual, you can be stopped. If you or yourpassengers avoid looking at a cop, you can be stopped. If you or yourpassengers look too long at a cop, you can be stopped.

If youreanywhere near a border(near being within 100 miles of a border, or in a city, or on a bus, or at an airport), you can be stopped and asked to prove youre legally allowed to be in the country. If youretraveling on a public roadthat smugglers and other criminals may have traveled, you can be stopped.

If yourenot driving in the same direction as other cars, you can be stopped. If youappear to be avoiding a police checkpoint, you can be stopped. If yourcar appears to be weighed down, you can be stopped. If yourvehicle is from out of town, wherever that might be, you can be stopped. If youredriving a make of car that criminal-types have also driven, you can be stopped.

If yourcar appears to have been altered or modified, you can be stopped. If thecargo area in your vehicle is covered, you can be stopped.

If youredriving during a time of day or night that border cops find suspicious, you can be stopped. If youredriving when border cops are changing shifts, you can be stopped. If youredriving in a motorcadeor with another vehicle, you can be stopped. If yourcar appears dusty, you can be stopped.

Ifpeople with you are trying to avoid being seen, or exhibiting unusual behavior, you can be stopped. If youslow down after seeing a cop, you can be stopped.

In Portland, which is 400 miles from the border, protesters didnt even have to be near federal buildings to be targeted. Some claimed to be targetedfor simply wearing black clothingin the area of the demonstration.

Are you starting to get the picture yet?

This was never about illegal aliens and border crossings at all. Its been a test to see how far we the people will allow the government to push the limits of the Constitution.

Weve been failing this particular testfor a long timenow.

It was 1798 when Americans, their fears stoked by rumblings of a Quasi-War with France, failed to protest theAlien and Sedition Acts, which criminalized anti-government speech, empowered the government to deport dangerous non-citizens and made it harder for immigrants to vote.

During the Civil War, Americans went along when Abraham Lincolnsuspended the writ of habeas corpus(the right to a speedy trial) and authorized government officials to spy on Americans mail.

During World War I, Americans took it in stride when President Woodrow Wilson and Congress adopted the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to interfere with the war effort andcriminalized any speech critical of war.

By World War II, Americans were marching in lockstep with the governments expanding war powers to imprison Japanese-American citizens in detainment camps, censor mail, andlay the groundwork for the future surveillance state.

Fast-forward to theCold Wars Red Scares, the McCarthy eras hearings on un-American activities, and the governments surveillance of Civil Rights activistssuch as Martin Luther King Jr all done in the name of national security.

By the time 9/11 rolled around, all George WBush had to do was claim the country was being invaded by terrorists, and the government was givengreater powers to spy, search, detain, and arrestAmerican citizensin order to keep America safe.

The terrorist invasion never really happened, but the government kept its newly-acquired police powers made possible by the nefarious USA Patriot Act.

Barack Obama continued Bushs trend of undermining the Constitution, going so far as to givethe military the power to strip Americans of their constitutional rights, label them extremists, and detain them indefinitely without trial,all in the name ofkeeping America safe.

Despite the fact that the breadth of the militarys power to detain American citizens violates not only U.S. law and the Constitution but also international laws, the government has refused to relinquish its detention powers made possible by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Then Donald Trump took office, claiming the country was being invaded by dangerous immigrants and insisting that the only way to keep America safe was to build an expensive border wall, expand the reach of border patrol, andempower the military to assist with border control.

That so-called immigration crisis has now morphed into multiple crises (domestic extremism, the COVID-19 pandemic, race wars, civil unrest, etc.) that the government is eager to use in order to expand its powers.

Yet as weve learned the hard way, once the government acquires and uses additional powers (to spy on its citizens, to carry out surveillance, to transform its police forces into extensions of the police, to seize tax-payer funds, to wage endless wars, to censor and silence dissidents, to identify potential troublemakers, to detain citizens without due process), it does not voluntarily relinquish them.

This is the slippery slope on which weve been traveling for far too long.

As Yale historian Timothy Snyder explains, This is a classic way that violence happens in authoritarian regimes, whether its Francos Spain or whether its the Russian Empire.The people who are getting used to committing violence on the border are then brought in to commit violence against people in the interior.

Sure, its the Trump Administration calling the shotsright now, but itsgovernment agentsarmed with totalitarian powers and beholden to the bureaucratic Deep State who are carrying out these orders in defiance of the U.S. Constitution and all it represents.

Whether its Trump or Biden or someone else altogether, this year or a dozen years from now, the damage has been done: As I make clear in my bookBattlefield America: The War on the American People, we have allowed the president to acquire dictatorial powers that can be unleashed at any moment.

Theres a reason the Trump Administration isconsulting with John Yoo, the Bush-era attorney notorious for justifying waterboarding torture-tactics against detainees. Theyre not looking to understand how to follow the law and abide by the Constitution. Rather, theyre desperately seeking ways to thwart the Constitution.

As Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe recognizes, The dictatorial hunger for power is insatiable.

This is how it begins.

This is how it always begins.

Dont be fooled into thinking any of this will change when the next election rolls around.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president ofThe Rutherford Institute.

Read more:

The Federal Coup to Overthrow the States and Nix the 10th Amendment Is Underway - River Cities Reader

A majority of Americans now support police reform measures like chokehold bans, demilitarization of domestic law enforcement, and the prioritization of investigating violent crimes instead of misdemeanor offenses.*

But, perhaps more significantly, a Pew poll recently found two-thirds of Americans oppose qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that makes it difficult to sue police officers when they violate your rights. Until recently, discussion of qualified immunity was confined largely to legal circles and to magazines like Reason.Now, it appears the doctrineand opposition to ithave simultaneously gone mainstream.

Qualified immunity shields public officials from being held liable in federal civil suits if their misconduct did not exist near-identically in a court precedent prior to the alleged incident. Created by Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), the doctrine has stripped Americans of their right to sue civil servants even in the most egregious of instances.

In theory, the doctrine provides public officials with fair warning of what is and is not acceptable conduct and thereby allows them to do their jobs without fear of being sued. How does the doctrine actually work? Let's consider the case of two cops from Fresno, California, who allegedly stole $225,000 while executing a search warrant.

When deciding if the victims would be allowed to sue the officers, the judiciary condemned the stealing as indefensible but still protected the officers from any lawsuits. Although "the City Officers ought to have recognized that the alleged theft was morally wrong," wrote the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, it decided that the officers "did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment."

Put more plainly: You and I know stealing is wrong, and the cops definitely should've known stealing is wrong. But even if they did know that, they couldn't be held liable for violating the Fourth Amendment protections against government theft because there was no specific legal precedent declaring that it is unconstitutional for cops in a situation exactly like theirs to steal from the people they are sworn to protect and serve.

There are plenty of examples of qualified immunity protecting awful government behavior: The sheriff's deputy who shot a 10-year-old;the cop who shot a 15-year-old; the officers who assaulted and arrested a man for standing outside of his own house; the prison guards who locked a naked inmate in cells filled with raw sewage and "massive amounts" of human feces; the cops who sicced a police dog on a surrendering suspect;the officer who body-slammed a 130-pound woman after she disobeyed his command to "get back there."

But while Americans appear to see the very obvious and well-documented issues with qualified immunity, Congressthe branch of government best positioned to abolish the practicewon't touch the topic with a 10-foot pole.

The legislative stagnation isn't for lack of trying. Rep. Justin Amash (LMich.) introduced legislation to eliminate qualified immunity. With Rep. Ayanna Pressley (DMass.) as his co-sponsor, the bill eventually picked up Republican support. Sen. Mike Braun (RInd.) followed suit and crafted his own legislation, which would grant qualified immunity only to officers whose conduct is expressly permitted by federal regulation, federal statutes, state statutes, or case lawessentially the opposite of the current approach.

President Donald Trump has dismissed these efforts to reform qualified immunity as unworthy of his consideration. He is the law-and-order president, and even though qualified immunity is an insult to both law and order, it is also an insult to police unions.

Should presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden win in November, it's not completely clear what he would do on the issue. "Vice President Biden thinks qualified immunity has gone too far and needs to be severely reined in," says Jamal Brown, National Press Secretary for the Biden campaign. "It should not protect officers who abuse their power." That statement echoes Biden's "Unity Task Force" recommendations, which were drawn up in coordination with Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVt.).

The former vice president has not offered concrete details on how his reforms will distinguish between officials who deserve protection from federal civil lawsuits, but his track record suggests he will go (almost) wherever center-leftists tell him to. In this case, everyone to the left of Trump overwhelmingly supports sunsetting the doctrine.

For now, though, it appears qualified immunity is poised to meet a rather typical fate, in that it will likely stay exactly as it is.

CORRECTION: The original version of this piece misstated the third poll's findings. A majority of Americans support prioritizing violent crimes over misdemeanor crimes, not victimless crimes.

View original post here:

The Majority of Americans Oppose Qualified Immunity. Where Is Congress? - Reason