I think a lot of ppl want to know the answer to this, @docbrianS , which is why I’ll QT instead of responding directly to you. Short thread.
Feds can always enforce fed law/protect fed property. Officially, this is the mission of at least some of the fed law enforcement officers there. But those missions can be interpreted narrowly (just physically guard the building) or broadly ...
1/
1/
In 1894, Cleveland wanted to put down the Pullman strikes in Chicago, but the pro-labor gov wouldn’t ask for fed help. So C’s AG noted that interfering w the mail was a fed offense, and the strikers were impeding rail traffic: voila! Fed troops went in to break the strike
2/
2/
Fed law enf officers (as well as troops) can also be used to “suppress insurrection”, at the discretion of the prez. This doesn’t require gov request or even consent. Which makes sense if you think abt things like secession, but can also be abused.
3/
3/
I’m sure this is why we hear the prez/other admin officials using the language of “siege” and “violent mob” and “attacking America” (all quotes from A/SecHS Wolf): to establish a case that there’s an insurrection that the local/state officials can’t/won’t put down.
4/
4/
In my view, what we see in these vids/read in the news is a clear abuse of these powers, but legal remedy will be difficult to impossible. By having the specific LEOs be unidentifiable, individuals w standing to sue don’t know whom to sue ...
5/
5/
The state and local officials would have an uphill battle challenging the president’s discretion - although I definitely would like to see Martin v Mott revisited in favor of some role for Congress, I don’t see this SCOTUS as a good venue for that ...
6/
6/
Oh, and also by simply disappearing ppl off the street, bouncing them around in a van, holding them for hrs, then releasing them w/o paperwork, there’s no record of the abuse, so, again, hard for individuals to seek remedy ...
7/
7/
So to sum up: the admin is creating a narrative that justifies the presence/action of fed LEOs, but clearly abusing that power, and legal remedy would be difficult. That means political remedy, i.e. thru impeachment or election, is the only option available.
8/
8/
P.S. I didn’t even get into the issue of these LEOs wearing full military gear, because WTF?
But if y’all want me to, I will.
End/
But if y’all want me to, I will.
End/
Here is the statement by A/SecHS Chad Wolf from which my earlier quotes were drawn. dhs.gov/news/2020/07/1…
Here is the news story from Oregon Public Broadcasting, detailing the experiences of two men who were walking home from a demonstration opb.org/news/article/f…
Ok, by popular demand:
What is going on w/ the full military tactical gear/uniforms? No Longer a Short Thread.
1’
What is going on w/ the full military tactical gear/uniforms? No Longer a Short Thread.
1’
First, important to note that we have no information as yet that there are any actual military personnel, regular or National Guard, involved in this. Everything indicates that these ppl are law enforcement pers from various federal agencies.
Everything except those uniforms.
2’/
Everything except those uniforms.
2’/
Nearly every fed agency has some law enforcement unit, all w/ different jurisdictions and authorities, as @Carter_PE can explain way better than I can. We got a taste of this in DC, with all those Men in Black Polo Shirts who turned out to be from Bureau of Prisons, CBP, etc.
3’/
3’/
I don’t know why the officers in P-land are in camo. Maybe their regular uniforms don’t provide sufficient protection; maybe this is an attempt to make them anonymous; maybe an attempt to shift blame to the military; maybe all their other uniforms are in the laundry. No idea.
4’/
4’/
What I *can* say is that this is a clear instance of militarization of law enforcement, and particularly in this context that has a couple of concerning implications. Here is my @PVGlance piece on militarization of the police: politicalviolenceataglance.org/2020/03/25/mil…
Several studies indicate that military-style uniforms (as opposed to clearly civilian law enf uniforms) have a negative impact on police-community relations, and may make the public view the LEOs as an occupying force (for an overview see emerald.com/insight/conten…)
6’/
6’/
As I mentioned, the admin’s rhetoric is clearly militarized and designed to evoke fear of rampaging mobs attacking America and its laws and threatening the fabric of rule-abiding society. This seems clearly designed to provide a justification for suppression of insurrection.
7’/
7’/
Now, the prez has issued no proclamation to disperse, as would be required if he were specifically using the authority of 10 USC 13 s.253. *I’m not a lawyer*, but I don’t think the prez actually needs that provision unless he’s calling out the military. @steve_vladeck help?
8’/
8’/
But there’s another function of this rhetoric and these uniforms aside from the legal(ish) ones: this is a motivating narrative for the prez’s political base.
9’/
9’/
A) the prez runs his campaigns largely on a narrative of fear and us v. them. Fear of immigrants taking our jobs and bringing disease and criminals. Fear of other countries laughing at us, developing weapons, stealing our industry, and cheating us in trade.
10’/
10’/
Fear of liberals brainwashing the children. Fear of liberal judges rolling back 2nd amendment rights. Fear of black people and other POC not quietly accepting the status quo.
This is the narrative that motivates his base, and he is ramping up the perception of threat.
11’/
This is the narrative that motivates his base, and he is ramping up the perception of threat.
11’/
B) the prez and many of his supporters have a militaristic mindset, believing that force, threat, etc. are the most effective ways to deal with a wide range of problems. So this is a signal of how seriously he takes the threat, and how effective he is at dealing with it.
12’/
12’/
In sum, I think there are three major reasons for the use of mil uniforms:
1) partly to support the legal narrative of suppressing insurrection (despite how obvs minor most of the “crime” is);
13’/
1) partly to support the legal narrative of suppressing insurrection (despite how obvs minor most of the “crime” is);
13’/
2) partly bc it accords well with the prez’s general mindset about how to deal w/ problems; and
3) partly to motivate the president’s base in the run-up to what looks like a tough election.
End/
3) partly to motivate the president’s base in the run-up to what looks like a tough election.
End/
This is also relevant right now:
Here are local officials criminalizing insurrection-by-chalk.
If you’re interested in natsec law and/or police research, here are some good follows/ppl whose research you can read:
@steve_vladeck @Carter_PE @BradMossEsq @JohnCDehn @jonmummolo @travisbcurtice @JasonFritz1
@steve_vladeck @Carter_PE @BradMossEsq @JohnCDehn @jonmummolo @travisbcurtice @JasonFritz1
P.s. it occurs to me that ppl could maybe try to sue DHS for violating their constitutional rights ... but I don’t know how that would work out, given the lack of transparency in who these people are and under whose specific authority they’re acting ...
I should have made this explicit: “militarizing” the problem isn’t just about believing force/threat are effective. It’s changing the problem from one that has a civil, procedural solution (where all parties accept the rules) into one that requires force to suppress an *enemy*.
Thanks to @Carter_PE we have an expert thread on authorities:
This is ... something. 
also, this may not *seem* directly connected to what we're seeing in Portland, but I think it is part of a larger picture. I did this interview before the Portland news came out.
Holy crap, right on cue. When I said this campaign is built on a narrative of fear:
