Read the thread below.
In a country such as the US, there is an absolute need for highly trained, well-armed federal tactical teams. With an abundance of external and internal threats, and easily available firearms, this is simply a question of public safety.
In a country such as the US, there is an absolute need for highly trained, well-armed federal tactical teams. With an abundance of external and internal threats, and easily available firearms, this is simply a question of public safety.
I have a high regard for such officers; I know many personally as good people, highly professional, who perform extremely dangerous jobs.
We shouldn't blame the officers in Portland for making the practical choices needed to do their job: we should question their leadership.
We shouldn't blame the officers in Portland for making the practical choices needed to do their job: we should question their leadership.
But these events in Portland ought to be analyzed in context. There needs to be a public conversation about this issue.
I’ve covered terrorism and counter-terrorism for years. You're a fool if you think US federal buildings aren't targets for domestic and international terror groups. Events from Oklahoma City to 9/11 have proven that.
If the FPS is unable to provide security to federal buildings without support from additional units and agencies, it is reasonable that such additional assets would be deployed to support the protection of these buildings.
We cannot permit bad actors to attack public institutions. If local police are unable to deal with civil unrest, there is a role for federal agencies to play in supporting them.
That said, public trust in law enforcement is at a nadir. The tactics that have drawn attention to this matter in Portland further undermine this trust.
The average citizen should never be in a position where they are uncertain if the people they are dealing with are federal agents. This is an urgent issue, and the DOJ must address it.
Federal agents must be easily identifiable through their appearance and their actions. Officers should wear easily identifiable markings declaring their Agency affiliation & a unique badge or number that protects their identity, while maintaining individual accountability.
There are instances in which federal officers must use extraordinary tactics to counter immediate threats to officers, facilities and the public.
But there has to be clear and public guidelines governing such tactics, and the citizenry must be assured that such actions will withstand the legal requirements for Constitutionally authorized search-and-seizure.
It is the taxpayer who will foot the bill for any lawsuits arising from situations in which officers are in good faith trying to perform their duties, but have been given nebulous or unclear directives by their superiors.
Further, the US should reassess federal regulations banning civilians from portraying themselves as government law enforcement officers.
Anyone can purchase tactical gear, multicam uniforms, and various law enforcement patches online. The proliferation of commercially available tactical gear and uniform patterns used by government agencies will have serious consequences if left unaddressed.
This ought not to be a partisan issue. Every citizen in the US has a stake in ensuring that trust in federal agencies is maintained, and that the rule of law prevails not only by those engaged in public protest, but also by those charged with upholding the law.
I’m sure this is just the beginning of such legal challenges.
