It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Two DHS Officials Apparently Just Admitted Their Troops Have Been Violating the Constitution

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Blaine91555

I don't know, it's a bizarre situation that's for sure.

Is it constitutional for the feds to do this ?


To protect Federal property? To prosecute people who assault officers and attempt arson on a Federal building? Of course it is.




posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
Address the article, the news outlet, the writer or the facts, but keep your personal insults to yourselves.

The facts are there, read it and weep!


Which facts.


He also said that his agents were using probable cause


That fact?

The DHS person said they had probable cause. You said..



So no probable cause,


Seems to be a disconnect here? Pointing out a discrepancy between what you say and what the facts are is not personal, it's debate.



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I'm out of here too much heat coming down from the heavies.

The truth is there, cherry pick all you want, but the truth is out there!



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
Address the article, the news outlet, the writer or the facts, but keep your personal insults to yourselves.

The facts are there, read it and weep!

Everyone is addressing the author of the thread.
Who really didn't read the article , just the "glorified" title.

Denying ignorance.
Why ?
Why do I have to keep telling folks to ignore the title and read the entire article ?



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Poor OP your TDS is showing should probably just tuck that back in your pocket. That’s if those pockets aren’t too full of pink eared hats for round two of REE REE REEEEE! At the sky 😂🤣



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
I'm out of here too much heat coming down from the heavies.

The truth is there, cherry pick all you want, but the truth is out there!

The truth is , the facts behind the thread are false pretenses .
And it is said "folks shall run from the truth"
"Nuff said"

edit on 7/23/20 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Really? Why are you trying to agitate these issues. An Attack against A federal institution is A terrorist action against the American people, not left vs right. If I came up to Alaska and defaced and destroyed you’re local post office would you be fine with that?
You come out with accusations, but no remedy. In my opinion the problems we have in this country can be fixed easily. What it requires is the involvement of good people.
To solve the problem of police brutality, the good officers need to turn in the bad cops when they get out of hand. As far as protesters, they need to turn in the terrorists in their midst.
How hard is it for a cop to point his bodycam at the offending cop then turn it in, or the protester to angle his phone to catch the terrorist kicking the elderly lady on the ground, and turn it in.
The “snitches get stitches” mentality is designed to let the criminals do what they want without fear of getting caught. Until this stops it remains as it is. You are not doing anything to change people’s minds, just trying to fan the flames.

And to the good cops and good people out there, I know this is not what you want, why are you not getting involved? It is in you’re hands to reverse this mess. To the agitators, what pleasure do you get when you try to cause further bloodshed, how do you sleep?



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Blaine91555

I don't know, it's a bizarre situation that's for sure.

Is it constitutional for the feds to do this ?


To protect Federal property? To prosecute people who assault officers and attempt arson on a Federal building? Of course it is.



Ok seems like a slippery slope to me, but what would I know.



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:28 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:32 PM
link   
English isn't your strong point, is it?

I don't see anything in there where they admit to violating any part of the Constitution.
edit on 23-7-2020 by LanceCorvette because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Blaine91555

I don't know, it's a bizarre situation that's for sure.

Is it constitutional for the feds to do this ?


They're protecting federal property. It's 100% Constitutional. The government - any level - has an obligation to prevent property it owns from destructions.

And FYI federal "agents" protecting federal property has been ongoing since 1787.



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
I am amazed at how many internet users are constitutional lawyers, that feel the Trump, Barr and DHS have done in Portland is legal.


Also I am a constitutional lawyer - have been for 30 years or so.

And I heard a 25 minute interview with the Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security this morning, Ken Cuccinelli, and he explained everything they were doing and nothing about any of it struck me as improper.

You should read beyond the headlines and propaganda and try to dig into some facts.

Edit:

Here's the interview: www.facebook.com...


edit on 23-7-2020 by LanceCorvette because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

I am amazed at how many internet users only read the headline of what they may post and that feel what Trump, Barr and DHS have done in Portland is illegal. I am also extremely confused by the lack of intelligence about whats going on at these protests.

I read this article which describes exactly why the Federal police actions in Portland have been constitutional, needed and not Trump StormTroopers.

You have people saying they do not know who these people are...who cares? You are dressed up in Amazon Swat Gear with an Umbrella Shield in one hand and a baton in other. You are not there to talk. Over 7 weeks of this garbage???

In my opinion they are not ripping enough off the streets. The head of DHS does not have to disclose anything to be very honest. All he has to say is we are there to protect Federal Property. End of story.

It is all a play so one of these hammer wielding doot-stains of society gets shot by a Fed.



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
Address the article, the news outlet, the writer or the facts, but keep your personal insults to yourselves.

The facts are there, read it and weep!


Which facts.


He also said that his agents were using probable cause


That fact?

The DHS person said they had probable cause. You said..



So no probable cause,


Seems to be a disconnect here? Pointing out a discrepancy between what you say and what the facts are is not personal, it's debate.


Technically "probable cause" is a conclusion of law based on a given set of facts. We don't have the facts in OPs post.

But earlier today I heard an interview with Ken Cucinelli of DHS where he set out facts of exactly what they were doing, the Constitutional basis for the Federal authority. And he seemed perfectly reasonable to me.
edit on 23-7-2020 by LanceCorvette because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
I'm out of here too much heat coming down from the heavies.



This is why it's impossible to take your attempts at serious discussion seriously. I'm sure glad the federal agents you're apparently so against (purely because of the administration that deployed them) have actual spines and testicles... I shudder to think of a country where they cut tail and ran as fast as some of the people attacking them online have.



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Blaine91555

I don't know, it's a bizarre situation that's for sure.

Is it constitutional for the feds to do this ?


To protect Federal property? To prosecute people who assault officers and attempt arson on a Federal building? Of course it is.



Ok seems like a slippery slope to me, but what would I know.


Would you rather what they are doing be legal, and that taxpayer funded building be sacrificed to a mob riot? Even the locals labeled it riots.



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

How is this a slippery slope? If you do not protect American interests, and the American people what do you think will happen in the long run. We as a society need laws, and people to enforce them. That’s what civilization is.



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: AlaskanDad



It could easily be argued that those in the group that are not themselves being violent are accomplices to a crime because their presence is making it more difficult to identify those who are actually causing the violence.




at explicitly WAS argued and laughed out of court in Westland v, Texas. One must do an act that affirmatively aids or abets the criminal actor. And for the benefit of the OP, I was a Constitutional lawyer and judge for 30 years before retiring.



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Pure trollery. Less contribution to societies debate than the fart my dog let a bit ago.

Either you didn't comprehend the article or you lied hoping no one would notice.



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Sorry, you blew this one.

He also said that his agents were using probable cause


Your entire premise is false. You should have read it first.


That ties into the articles and discussions we had with him last night on the very same thing. He's arguing that the federal cops don't have the right to detain and question but the sources for his "facts" keep referring to searches and arrests. Those are two completely different things.




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join