> everyone is being processed in the regular court system. So it's not exactly the case of being "disappeared" that some reports claimed.

One article had an account of someone abducted, searched, and released, and then the authorities said they did not have records of arresting him. If there's no records, it's not the regular court system, even if it happened in the court building.

From what I've read, the Oregon AG alleged that they were released by the prison they were taken to without charges, so apparently they refused to book them for whatever they were accused of in the first place.

It's not clear to me what other records they would have in that case and again, this isn't exactly being "disappeared" given that they were turned over to the police for processing and then released without charges. Sounds more to me like some cops were lazy with the paperwork when they were going to release them anyhow.

The feds have wide-ranging authority to arrest people and always have, though:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-heck-are-federal-law-enforc...

Re: records it depends on the state DOJ. California will have a separate line item for each arrest, booking, arraignment, and release. I believe they also keep “administrative records” for each stop, but you dont get to see those when you request your own records. And yes, its possible to be arrested but then released when the duty sergeant/lieutenant refuses to book based on nonsense charges.

Courts can move pretty slowly - I've never been arrested, but having gotten a handful of minor tickets over the years, it frequently takes months before there is any record of it entered into the system. I would certainly hope people getting arrested would have records fully entered within hours of their arrest, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it takes longer, especially if the person is released without any charges filed.

Please stop substituting “detained” or “arrested” with “abducted” for dramatic effect. This is like saying that ICE puts kids in “concentration camps”.

What do you call it when people in an unmarked van stop you on the street and force you to go with them without telling you who they are or why?

If that happened to someone you were walking with and they left you there, wouldn't you call police and report that your friend was abducted?

Also, the government officials have claimed the people weren't arrested, and my understanding (which could easily be wrong) is being detained by law enforcement means you're not permitted to leave, not that you must go with them, so I'm out of words.

Just saw the ruling from the judge in this case. Oregon lost and, in particular, was forced to concede that the police were identifiable as such by virtue of the evidence they themselves submitted to the court. See footnote #3 in the ruling:

http://opb-imgserve-production.s3-website-us-west-2.amazonaw...

---

It appears that the State has largely backed away from any argument that the federal agents were not at all identifiable as law enforcement. Mr. Pettibone acknowledges that their uniforms said “Police,” Pettibone Decl. [1-1] ¶ 3, and the video shows agents wearing clothing clearly marked as “Police.”

You call it an arrest if they're US Federal Agents and they take you to the police station, but you're arguing against something that was never claimed in most of this.

They do, though.

>it's that it doesn't really matter what the law says if Congress chooses not to enforce it

Congress...chooses not to enforce it? You're talking about Congress, commonly known as the executive branch of the triune government, which enforces the laws?

It's at times like these I'm reminded of the saying...that fog is a sign of merging timelines.

There are laws that apply to members of the executive branch, even though that branch is also responsible for enforcing the law. So how to handle the fact that that means they can break them with impunity?

The answer is that the Constitution give Congress abilities like impeachment specifically to give them the ability to apply pressure and "enforce" that the executive branch does what it is entrusted to do.

The exact same situation applies to police. Surely you understand that it is possible for police officers to break the law even though they are technically also the people responsible for enforcing it?

Congress is the legislative branch

That's what you think.

See this: https://www.wdrb.com/us-capitol-in-fog/image_571cd9fc-ca8b-1...

What you're looking at is the probability of the US Capitol being in a particular place. It's a common misconception that fog makes things look blurry, but you're seeing the effect of the average probability of it being there at all, given the many possibilities in alternate time tracks. It is blurry. Never mind what might be going on inside.

People who wander into fog often come out into a different world, but generally their memories adjust...not always though.

That was grandparent's point, poking fun at the post before that for discussing Congress enforcing the law when they're the legislative branch, rather than the executive.