it hardly seems accidental that the federal officers in portland who seem unfamiliar with law enforcement in a constitutionally protected civil context

are from agencies - CBP & US Marshals - least likely to conduct law enforcement in a constitutionally protected civil context

last time i checked these were border police and fugitive hunters

why should anyone think they are appropriate for policing american streets?

it will be interesting when we learn the details of which federal law enforcement agencies declined such assignments

i'd imagine the FBI's internal lawyers, for example, immediately understood what a perilous thing it would be to accede to such a request

this is a systemic failure at a very high level

if you send door-kickers in to civil unrest, they will be behave like door-kickers

it's literally what they've been trained to do their entire career

people seem to be misunderstanding what i mean when i say "systemic failure"

obviously these federal officers were sent on purpose

my point is that agencies accustomed to enforcing laws in a civil context would immediately understand the problematic nature of such a deployment

for such a deployment to occur bespeaks of agencies unfamiliar with such a role accepting this task

obviously there is an element of politicization, but there is also an element of sheer ignorance and lack of good legal guidelines

it is in the nature of those with power to disregard restrictions upon their power

this is precisely why the US has civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution

good law enforcement is conducted in compliance with such restrictions

[FBI counsel at DOJ interagency task force meeting, when asked if HRT can be deployed to respond to civil unrest]