Unmarked vehicles filled with agents refusing to identify themselves whisking away protestors to unofficial sites to be interrogated (but released hours later without charges) is not "justice as usual". It's crazy that we're trying to justify this.
If they've truly done something wrong, issue a warrant or do a normal arrest like every other criminal. It's hard to see this as anything less than extra judicial intimidation.
This isn't about whether or not they get arrested. This is about certain ground rules and principles that the government must always uphold, even against unprincipled opponents.
Federal law enforcement officers, dressed in camo gear and without any identifying insignia, arresting and covering the faces of alleged rioters and stuffing them into unmarked vehicles and taking them God-knows-where is absolutely unacceptable.
These principles are what separates the government from the rioters. How are you going to hold the government accountable when you don't even know which government agency a certain police officer belongs to?
The uniforms in the videos clearly say "POLICE" on them. According to the people released, they were read their Miranda rights - and who cares that they are dressed in camo and using unmarked cars?
As long as the suspect is put before a judge, I don't see the issue.
A tiny amount of "police" text isn't worth much of anything. There is absolutely no defensible reason to hide the agency patch and badge number of every individual officer on the ground. There is absolutely no defensible reason to tie beanbags around the faces of arrestees. There is absolutely no defensible reason for the police to put arrestees into unmarked vehicles.
There is no way of ascertaining exactly who these federal agents are. This precludes court redress and is unacceptable.
I mean, they do seem to be sworn law enforcement, I just wonder if they are operating under any sort of valid remit that would make it reasonable to call them police.
This isn't idle banter, nor am I trolling for a ban or an FBI watchlist. The federal courthouse building [0] is one of several stone buildings downtown, built out of massive blocks of stone on the outside, with a core of steel and concrete. This building is basically a block-sized stone. I've been inside it a few times. I would not characterize it as flammable in the slightest.
Additionally, even during peaceful times, the courthouse blocks are designed to be guarded. Each courthouse is inset from the street and there are stone steps giving guards the high ground. I have personally had an experience where I was walking past this building, and I looked up the stairs at the door, and I slowed down. Within about five seconds, the door was open and a federal agent was asking me what I needed, while I was still standing on the sidewalk. The sidewalks are covered with spaces for police and federal agents to park, and again even during peaceful times, ever since 9/11 there have been multiple federal cars parked around these blocks.
So yeah, on both "how oxidize building" and "how not get shot by feds", I'd rate this courthouse 0/10, could not burn it and I'd get shot if I tried.
Carpeting is treated with fire retardant. Interior structures are built to fire code. Solid wood is flammable, yes, but difficult to ignite. Treated oak has even been used as a spacecraft re-entry heat shield - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanhui_Shi_Weixing .
If it's so easy to ignite that a few firework mortars can set it ablaze, then the US federal building security system is a joke just waiting for the next McVeigh and Nichols.
I’m not sure why you are arguing this. Arson is a horrible crime and the fact that it is being attempted towards fire resistant buildings (according to you at least, I’m not convinced) doesn’t matter. This makes me wonder if you also have a theory about why 9/11 towers couldn’t have fallen on their own...
Why am I arguing this? Your initial claim, that protestors are trying to burn down the federal courthouse, is totally unsubstantiated and smells like bullshit. It's worth arguing against because it paints protestors as violent agitators.
The horror of arson does not excuse extrajudicial precrime tactics. In fact, it is reasonably well-argued that no crime can excuse extrajudicial tactics, simply because committing crimes in the case of seeking justice for crimes will lead to never-ending criminal acts.
By what evidence are you not convinced that these buildings are fire-resistant? The positive circumstantial evidence is that, from both an encyclopedic source and firsthand hearsay, the building is composed of quarried stone, steel, concrete, marble, and bronze. The negative circumstantial evidence that you've brought up, that the office-interior decor may ignite and that the building may burn out from the inside, is not just speculative, but doesn't meet the original criterion: The building would not burn down just because it has fire damage inside. Even worse, once again your unfamiliarity with the building hurts, because you don't know about the marbled entryways and stonework walls, which don't have enough wood in them to sustain fire damage.
And then you bring up 9/11. What a red herring. What a non sequitur.
Finally, you failed to address a sibling point: That after the Oklahoma City bombing in the 90s, the Feds stepped up their stance on defending federal public buildings like courthouses. We are not really exaggerating the level to which these buildings have been secured. Again, this is something that you may have to visit and see for yourself to grok.
Please watch less Fox News, or whatever it is that is rotting your arguments in this way.
Arson is so horrible that it's worth sending in the DHS to override the local police?
No.
Emphasizing "flammability" is an unbalanced view which omits the ignition requirement which is part of Kednicma's "how oxidize building".
My theory on 9/11 is that the fire code kept the buildings standing until the heat from the unplanned-for fuel load caused the structural support metal to soften and weaken, leading to the collapse. Checking now, it's close to what Wikipedia describes.
Can you tell me why your question is at all relevant? Is your theory that firing firework mortars at this federal courthouse is so far out of code expectations that a special response is needed? If so, isn't that a huge flaw in the current system put in place after the OKC bombing?
