[0] “They did take them to an area that was safe for both the officers and the individual to do the questioning,” he said. “It’s 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.”
[1] In Dunaway v. New York the Supreme Court considered whether police violated the Fourth and 14th Amendments when–lacking probable cause–they 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 neighbor’s home to a police car, transported to a police station, and placed in an interrogation room.
[2] https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/two-dhs-officials-app...
I’m not saying it’s a good tactic. I’m saying it’s not new.
If the agents were arresting people, giving them access to lawyers, and taking them to court, the issues would be very different.
If ultimately there is no charge and the person is released, they can obviously contact a lawyer and have access to the courts.
We can debate all this as a matter of public policy and law. What we should not do is sacrifice our credibility by pretending that people are being kidnapped and "disappeared" or comparing this to what is going on in HK.
Uh, you sure about that? The only part that's not provably false is the last five words, and how would you expect to know for sure on those?
But I refuse to embrace hyperbolic rhetoric, it isn't helpful, call a spade a spade.
Or should people wait to judge you until there is some actual evidence?
So, the second one then.
Do you hear yourself? At all?
There is evidence of government officials arresting people-- that is not in dispute. All that is in dispute is if it should be characterized as kidnapping or something akin to what is going on in HK with mass detention centers and reeducation camps.
I've lost track of what you're even objecting to at this point, but I for one never denied that there are arrests going on in Portland. If you want to claim they're illegal by all means talk to a lawyer, just see if you can manage to avoid pretending they're kidnappings in the meantime.
Being shrill and exaggerating what is going on is not helping, it is part of the problem.
The US government isn't kidnapping anyone off the street for damaging wall paint -- they're arresting people. If you can't see the difference and keep that simple fact straight, you hurt your own case and seem unreasonable and untrustworthy as a source.
If there have been unjust arrests, then say so and make it known. But don't pretend they are kidnappings -- it sounds ridiculous on the face of it and makes you sound childish.
For all the faults of the US, let's not cast these current policing actions as equivalent to what is going on in HK.