Philadelphia's district attorney is threatening to arrest federal agents who unlawfully assault or detain protesters. nytimes.com/2020/07/20/us/…
"Anyone, including federal law enforcement, who unlawfully assaults and kidnaps people will face criminal charges from my office." —@DA_LarryKrasner
Eliza Orlins, running for Manhattan DA, made a similar pledge last night.
I just donated to @elizaorlins, because I think this kind of promise should be encouraged. If you'd like to do the same, here's the link: secure.actblue.com/donate/elizafo…
Oh, and because people are yammering in my mentions about the supremacy clause, let me save folks some trouble: The supremacy clause says federal law trumps state law. It doesn't say federal officials are immune from prosecution for violations of state law.
Lots of lefties are skeptical about these pledges, and rightly so: "I'll believe it when I see it" is a reasonable response. But I think the pledges themselves are a good starting point.
For one thing, I think "don't come here and do this" is a good threat—good in that it both puts the feds on notice and commits the DA/candidate to a course of action.
For another, it shifts the debate from "should the feds be doing this" to "how can they be stopped, and how can they be held accountable," and that's good too.
And yes, it'll likely take pressure to make these kinds of arrests happen, and yes, I'll believe it when I see it. But this is a step in the direction we need to be moving in.
And yes, "Cool. Now do your own local cops." is an entirely appropriate response to such pledges as well.
Because the vast majority of rights-violations and violence committed by cops in the US—against protesters and non-protesters alike—aren't committed by the feds. They're committed by local law enforcement in their own communities.
One more thing, while I'm up: My very strong suspicion, for a long list of reasons, is that were this to happen, it wouldn't take the form of local police intervening to stop the feds from snatching people up while the incidents were unfolding.
What I'm envisioning here is a post-hoc review, and warrants being issued on the basis of evidence accumulated after the incident. So it's not "cops fighting feds in the street," as someone imagined.
(Also, if Orlins wins, she won't take office for another year and a half. Hence her reference to the statute of limitations for kidnapping.)
