With the Cato Institutes walter olson , here to talk about the recent surge of federal agents to chicago and other American Cities to combat crime. Walter, good morning. Guest good morning. Host for our viewers, tell us about the Cato Institute and where it gets its funding. A libertariant is t think tank located in washington, d. C. And is supported by thousands of individuals around the country who believe in limited government and constitutional government. Any oneot dependent on source of donations, and we do not take any government money at all. Episode,cent pandemic we have not taken any ppp money. Host talk about what is going on with federal Law Enforcement. The federal government has sent federal agents to do different places, one, in portland, oregon to work against protesters. Now there is a new initiative to fight crime in chicago and other cities, called operation legend. What do we need to know about this . Guest thank you for drawing the distinction between those two different programs. In thats need to start way. In portland, the federal government explains what it is doing by saying it needs to protect its own buildings. The federal courthouse has been under siege for weeks and weeks, there have been attempts to set it on fire, with attacks on those protecting it. The rest of the recent announcement, with chicago, albuquerque, and more cities to come, is different. Violence,cted against like the terrible driveby shooting at the chicago funeral the other day. Most of these cities have seen a spike in homicides, street shootings, gang warfare and other crime problems that we have had to some extent all along. So it is two different federal responses. Hasortland, the controversy come because people are policing themselves. According to a lot of us, they have been making mistakes, arresting people without probable cause, not identifying themselves as officers. On the other hand, with the general anticrime program, according to the officials at that explained it this week, based on the Pilot Program in kansas city, they are concentrating on helping the local police with detective work, that paperwork, those things. They say you will not see federal troops doing crowd control. If you see them arresting somebody, that they will be dressed appropriately, so you know they are federal agents. As we go forward, and portland, not to confuse them [indiscernible] about olson when we think federal Law Enforcement, is this the fbi or other agencies . Guest in the crime surge for chicago, for instance, the fbi will be there. There is a difference between the branches. With the general anticrime surge, these are mostly people already in Law Enforcement, like the fbi, like the Drug Enforcement administration. With the Street Police and portland, because the federal government does not have police in that bureau, it has made sense by pulling together employees of other agencies, such as the Border Protection, border patrol, or even the customs service, which you pay duty to if you are bringing an perfume or something. One difference is with the other agencies, you do not have necessarily as much training or expertise in a lot of the questions at that come up in policing. What is thee like constitutional requirement if you take somebody into custody. This is something that fbi people will tend to know. But you may not know if you are without another agency with another agency. Host one complaint we have seen the most coming out of portland federalact that the agents on the street are not identifying themselves as federal agents or the department for which they work. Is that something that we will see more of, or do you see that being a change that will happen . Guest it is one of the big issues, something we have trying toget have been trying get answers on because you cannot always tell five videos on social media. The department of Homeland Security claims that all of their agents, who are typically wearing camouflage, they have said that they are wearing three things a police identifier, w here you can usually see the word police. I am not sure whether it is official. And that they say they are wearing agency patches. I spent day while looking at the photographs. If you blow up the photograph and look closely, usually you can see the agency patches. But imagine if you see people coming down the street at you, looking like they will arrest you. Unlike other officers, you probably will not spot the patches. Names, cany wearing you identify them individual . This is another controversial point. Dhs says they intend not aware wear any names, which you are used to if you are dealing ing alocal police, see badge that says officer gonzales and so on. They say it is to protect them from having their families exposed or their names are circulated by radicals. Theyt is controversial and say that they are wearing identifiers, unique identifiers, which may be a combination of numbers and letters like zt1. Again, for those that are skeptical, this is not the same thing as wearing a name. They may know who misbehaved. But we may not find out who misbehaved. These are questions that congress will be asking about. It is responsible for a lot of the unease people feel about what is going on in portland. Host we will open up our regional lines for this conversation about the administrations anticrime crackdown. If you are in the eastern or central time zones, the number will be 202 7488000. If you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, the number will be 202 7488001. We are really interested in knowing what local Law Enforcement thinks about the federal government sending out federal agents to help with the crime crackdown, so we will open up a special line for Law Enforcement. Law enforcement, your line will be 202 7488002. And we will open up one more line for the people who have been protesting on the streets, what do you think about federal agents being sent out on an anticrime crackdown. If you are a protester, we want to hear from you at 202 7488003. And we areso text us a always on social media on facebook and twitter. Actual,what is the Legal Authority that the federal government is using to send these federal agents out to cities for their anticrime crackdown and the different operation going on in portland . Guest we will start with portland, because the authority to send federal Law Enforcement to protect federal buildings, like the courthouse, goes back as there has been a United States. Onever, it is also drawing other authorities, which are more recent. The creationsince of the department of Homeland Security after 9 11, one of the interesting powers that has come about is cross authorization in which the employees of one agency, like customs, might be authorized to enforce laws that have nothing to do with their specialty. If you likenable, the flexibility of this, or are worried about the possibility that will create a federal the federal, but government has lots of authority we do not usually hear about. There are dozens of agencies whose employees have the right to carry weapons. This has been going on for years with little resistance from congress. And when there is an emergency and if they want to call on these things, not only can they call on those, but also should the president invoke the insurrection act this goes back a long way at this point you have Legal Authority, and it is well established by the supreme court, to bring in the military. That has happened a few times in our history, but it would be a major crossing the threshold in order to do that. He has not really talked about that. Host you mentioned the insurrection act. Is there historical president precedent for sending agents to protect federal buildings, like in portland . Examples, there are but the insurrection act, the one that will be remembered by most in the audience would be the rodney king riots in los angeles. Widespread riots and the federal government did send in troops after invoking the insurrection act. Not all that controversial at the time. Law order had broken down. Longgain, it has been a time since we have had experience in those events. Go back to the civil rights era, you will find eisenhower and others faced with resistance to federal orders in a number of southern states, calling in troops as a result. This has been a threat to American History from the rebellion to after the revolution, to the civil war and reconstruction afterwards, but it usually takes a big crisis. One thing we argue about is what is happening in portland and seattle, is it a big enough crisis. Host the attorney general william barr, described the role that federal agents will play in operation legend. We will hear how he describes it. Here is the attorney general. [video clip] the operations we are talking about are the standard, anticrimefighting activities that we have been carrying out around the country for decades. We will be adding federal agents to the taskforces. They are street agents, are investigators and that will be working to solve murders and take down the violent gangs. And they will be working shoulder to shoulder with our state and local colleagues. This is a different kind of operation, obviously, than the tactical teams we use to defend against the mob violence and riots. We will continue to confront mob violence. But the operations we are discussing today are very different. They are classic crimefighting. Host do you agree with him that the operations, operation legend, that these are classic crimefighting . Guest i agree in part, in that it is classic crimefighting and it is not going to raise as many questions about Civil Liberties, if it does exactly what he describes. But even as i would agree that it is not that new, and in fact previous administrations have responded to the crime outbursts by doing similar things, with federal assistance to local police you can trace that back decades under other president s it raises questions that we ought to think about from a different standpoint. In the constitution is clear that the main responsibility for Law Enforcement on the streets is local and state, not the federal government. The federal government has never created a National Police force, nor should we want them to. So to the extent that they get into these areas, they have mostly restricted themselves into a helping role, helping the local police force and bringing them resources, to let them do a better job at solving crimes. The attorney generals talk sticks to that, but the proof will be and how it actually operates. Host i will let the viewers get involved, but first i will go to a question from one of our social media followers. I want to see if you can address this. Ins comes from jim bakersfield who says, if someone is not clearly identified as Law Enforcement, attempts to detain make, why cant i use legal force to defend myself . I q. Dof not recognize this person as Law Enforcement, ca it n it be confused as assault or kidnapping . Guest thank you for the question. A bunch of things can go wrong if police are not identified as police. People have selfdefense rights. You will get people thinking that they are being picked up by general tough guys, who may be taking some side in the political fighting, but do not recognize them as having Legal Authority. At which point you were getting into deeper trouble with violence. Another thing is, even if the person is not trying to defend themselves, they need to know whether it is ok to run, they need to know whether it is ok to disobey an order to stop. If they are unclear about whether or not it is really an officer, they will guess wrong and perhaps that will lead to more bad things. There are so many Different Reasons why going in and planning this operation, we hope of takingchoose a way out the officers. Host what agencies will be participating in operation legend . Is it Homeland Security or treasury agents . What departments are contributing agents to operation legend, and working in portland right now . Guest in operation legend, the general crimefighting one, although there are several agencies involved the description was of it being led by the traditional Law Enforcement arm of the federal government, mainly the fbi. These are agencies within the department of justice that have long been assigned this kind of responsibility. I think therell will be some from other agencies, and that bears watching. In portland, a very different answer. They appear to not have gotten the traditional agencies, but instead have brought in people from the department of Homeland Security, agencies that are farther away in their mission from traditional crimefighting. And a wildcard in the mix is that one of the powers of the Border Control is to exercise various powers, including stopping people within 100 miles of the border. You might have seen stories about how legal definitions include the ocean. Portland, which is far away from the canadian border, nonetheless has a border. So do other california cities. And it is a strange situation, should they decide on invoking those powers. Host lets go to the phone lines to see what some of our callers think. We will start with marie, who is klein from raleigh, north ling from cal raleigh, north carolina. Caller i am retired military. The first thing is the Cato Institute. What does it have to do with Donald Trumps administration and how they carry out operations in cities . How do you connect what happened to mr. Floyd to what driveby shootings that occur in chicago . How do we know that driveby shootings are being carried out by people who live in chicago . How do we know that the people out there in uniform are not militia that used to be in some other state, that have been placed in uniform by the government and are now on the street to attack americans . Unless most of us remember that the president said he was going to go into cities before he became president , so this is something that has been planned or thought about long before you became president how are we as citizens, fellow military officers, people who understand how the government works, supposed to trust what is going on . Thank you. First, the interest of the Cato Institute is it has always been insistent that the u. S. Government follow the constitution. As soon as you get into the Law Enforcement questions, you raise a risk of the government behaving unconstitutionally. That is what interests me about it. I always want to keep in mind that we are a government of laws and which of the government is not above the law and must follow the constitution. Where a lot of questions in there, but we will start with whether we know that there are not militia and others in disguise there. This is america and things wind up in court almost immediately. The department of Homeland Security has already answered questions about that. There has been speculation on social media, i think it is poorly grounded, that maybe there are mercenaries there. The court room filings suggest that is not the case. I have not seen credible evidence whatsoever to the idea that mercenaries are involved. Is, i think that marie getting at something important about the fact that people have political agendas on both sides in turning this into a bigger out of a desire to support or oppose the current administration, or generally in raising rebellion. I think that we need to focus on the legal aspects, because we need to make sure that the law is applied both to the government, which cannot arrest people without probable cause, havenot detain people who a right to be released, but also to know when the policing is right. At some point, they have a right to draw the line against attempts to burn down a federal courthouse. They did not make that up. That is not just something the government says. The truth will be in the middle where they have legitimacy to defend their installations, but they have to hold back from the Civil Liberties violations that have been associated with other countries that have used domestic security force. Host speaking of that, there was a news room that came out on friday here in the hill. I want to read about the court case. A federal judge denied a request from oregons attorney general to stop federal agents from arresting people in portland as daily protests over systematic racism and Police Brutality are in the city. Man found thatas they lacked the standing to prove oregon had on behalf. He failed to prove that there was an interest separate from private citizens and that the state relied on arguments about the risk of oregonians. He shot down the argument about the risks, saying it was not a state specific issue. Oregonians have individual rights of freedom and assembly, conferred by the First Amendment. They can often bring individual lawsuits to vindicate those rights. Oregon has not explained why this case is different, why the speech alleges injures the state in a way that is distinct from enjoyable harms. The ruling came a day after another judge issued a restraining order barring federal officers from using force against legal observers at the demonstration. It seems like, like you said, it is already heading into the courts. Guest there is a lot going on in those opinions, but lets start with the issue in the first one. You notice the judges language about individuals can come here and a super violations of their rights. That is important because i expect that to the extent the courts come up with answers on this, it will be in individual cases where somebody says they arrested me without probable cause, or somebody says the used Excessive Force on me. The courts are well set up to take those two conclusion. What morgan was trying to do gets us into a topic that we are bound to take up, which is federalism and the way that the constitution allocates power between state and federal government. It keeps them separate. Even though the federal government is on top, it keeps them from being able to give orders to each other. So even as the federal government cant order the city of portland to do a lot of things, so it works the other way, too. Portland cannot tell federal troops to stay out. Sometimes, you get people who say, if the mayor wants to stay out, they should stay out, but that is not how it has worked throughout history. At the same time, if they are doing it through litigation, states have a limited chance of succeeding when they are suing the federal government. An win on athey c particular point, but if it is just a matter of you should leave this to ask, courts will say, no, bring us in individual case. We are not going to represent this balance of power tugofwar. Host lets go to ralph from washington, d. C. Good morning. Caller i have been watching this and the major media, and they tend to have a bias. Lockso not show bicycle smashed on peoples heads, they do not talk about the mother that was shot because she said the wrong thing. Riots have been going on for 57 days in portland. The mayor thought they were posturing. I have tears in my eyes because i was exposed to comcast, what a hero am i. It is ridiculous. The media is pumping this. D. C. Ror in washington, black lives matter on the street. That is a political statement. You are supposed to bring domestic peace. It does not matter whether or not you believe the protesters are right or wrong, you are supposed to protect the citizens of the state and city. You are supposed to protect the businesses. And they are not doing that. They are taking sides and they are promoting this stuff. It has to stop. One last point. If they think they are going against trump, and i do not like donald trump, but when you promote anarchy in your own cities and you promote it across the country, and you think that will win you voters, i think they are going down the wrong path. Host go ahead and respond. Guest a lot of different points. I always think it is fair to beingize the media for singleminded or presenting one side and not the other, it is a reminder to go out and follow multiple different news sources. That will behing emphasized by one, not another. But in portland, the National Press is just beginning to get to the story. They are captivated by certain angles, and they are missing other angles. I thought it was amazing when the demonstrators got into the headquarters of the police union and tried to burn down the building. The fire was put out. It seems to explain to me why situation. Ous nobody knows where it is heading. Caution, also for a reason to understand why the federal government is probably united in taking this seriously. Of interest, around thehose courthouse, that will not go forward, pandemic or no pandemic, until they can restore basic order. Host earl blumenauer, who represents portland, was on this show earlier this week. He described what federal agents are doing in that city. [video clip] constituent, who was attacked by the police, an annapolis graduate, a naval veteran, who was with inuvo gear so he could it wasy people actually his very first protest. And he had difficulty squaring with these federal officers were doing with her oath of office. And he was beaten. He was pepper sprayed, they broke his wrist. Thats outrageous. It is unacceptable. And one of the reasons i am working to take action to try to stop this. Host what can be done . Guest we are working to defund these activities and clarify the authority. Canainly, federal officials protect a federal property, but when they moved out into the streets. When they move out to engage in local Law Enforcement. And when they are objecting private citizens in unmarked cars and taking them away, that is crossing the line. And they are there expressly over the objection of our governor, our mayor. This is not helpful at all. And i think is provocative. I think that this is part of Donald Trumps strategy and he will do it in other communities around the country. That is what you did in lafayette park, interfering with the rights of Peaceful Protesters for a photo op. Host walter, what is your response . Lot ofi believe a what you said. Thevideo was shocking of police going after that military guy. And it was appalling when the video surfaced of the two people being taken into custody in what turned out that same night debbie with no probable cause to be with no probable cause. A top federal prosecutors said he wanted to open an investigation, and that is the way things ought to go. And they should be investigating. Doesu these things in it s mission. It does not mean they can arrest people who may be throwing bricks at the courthouse or being mean lasers into the eyes of the defending officers, both of which have been happening, but it does mean that they need to be legally responsible. We need to identify which officers did what. If they made a mistake, why . If they keep making mistakes, what is their training . And why isnt it better . Please are answers that dhs should be made to answer, i think. Host we have a statement that was put out by the fbis portland office, that came out yesterday. I want to read it. Once again, this comes out of the fbi in portland. Our rule is to investigate Violent Crime and hold those accountable for engaging in violent acts or significant destruction of property. Our investigation involves violations of federal law, including arson, the use of improvised explosive devices and the transportation of stolen goods. The portland fbi six to work closely with our local Law Enforcement partners to ensure the community is a safe and people are free to exercise their First Amendment rights in a peaceful manner. The fbi can never initiate an investigation based solely on race, ethnicity, origin or religion. Our focus is not on membership in particular groups, but on individuals that commit activity that poses a threat to national security. The fbi does not and will not police ideology. That is coming from the fbi. Should we hear something similar to that from the department of Homeland Security and other departments out on the streets now . Guest as you read that, i has been doing this for our whole lives. And they know, generally, what to emphasize, where to set the Legal Authority, what to promise not to do. And it is a better statement than we have heard from the department of Homeland Security. And a suggestion that may be if they let the fbi organize it in the first place, they would not have some of the problems that they have now. I would like to hear the same language out of the department of Homeland Security, but remember, we need them to behave professionally if they are going to be there. Those are the questions that remain open. Of thetouches on one things that i think they department of Homeland Security did not do well, which is when the press began asking why are you there, why did you send put out a timeline of everything. And 80 of the different items were, people spraypainted this, a broken window, there was graffiti. Those who were unsympathetic said, they are going in for vandalism . If you kept reading the latest you would get to another attempted arson or officer being injured, but the fbi would not have made these rookie mistakes. They would have gotten their ducks in a row. I am just giving my opinion, but i think that the fbi understands enforcement how an operation should be organized and explained to the public. It isis being brought in, probably not going to hurt. Host we have a question about federalism and states rights. Dont state officials have to ask for federal troops to help them otherwise it wouldnt the president have to declare martial law . Statesthe answer is no, do not have to ask. Thats wellestablished. If you go back over the different times the federal government has done this, remember that there is federal Law Enforcement in ordinary peaceful times around courthouses, fort knox in kentucky, around different installations. We already have federal Law Enforcement in National Parks and forests. This is a special deployment. The courts have been clear over o, they do not, n have to ask permission of the governors. Martial law is different. Martial law refers to a particular type of emergency that nobody has declared in this case, and the federal government does not need to invoke martial law. It leaves open questions of this boundary between the Street Police and what we expect local police to be doing, and what the federal government has been getting into. That is a good thing to argue about because it is outside the federal governments traditional range of authority, but specifically sending in agents to protect buildings is within its authority, whether or not the governor asks. Emmanwe have a manual ualle from washington, d. C. Caller what is happening in oregon is a test of what will happen in the United States in terms of a dictatorship. I do not think it is fair for ,he government to send troops or telling the mayors or governors of states what will happen. It is a test of dictatorship, and if it is not checked it will be worse during the election. Believe that bill inr is not doing his job this is not and the United States. Host go ahead and respond. Guest i think if you are not worried about what could happen in the months ahead, you are not paying enough attention because there are serious dangers that the types of public confrontations seen in portland and seattle might resume. The irony is in recent weeks, they were dying down. Lasts been weeks since the destructive demonstrations in many cities. Most of the cities and they are talking about have not had disruption or destruction to federal property for weeks, if they ever did happen. Part of the question will be does public reaction include people going out, trying to confront the federal agents . Will they be able to find them . Will they besiege federal buildings in order to see whether or not portland comes to their city . Things could be heading in bad directions. I wish we could trust the restraint and good sense of the federal government, but has not always shown that restraint. Everybody tourge inform yourself, do not do anything hasty, and make sure that the government is held ,ccountable to processes of law as this will begin happening soon with portland. Host lets go to henry from michigan. Good morning. Caller good morning. I have three questions. And one of them piggybacks off of the last caller from washington, d. C. Eric prince, the brother of the secretary of education betsy devos, attended a conference or meeting of his peers or colleagues from other countries. Of blackwater. Er were contractors during the iraq war under george w. Bush. So, people are suspicious that president trump, the then president elect, was grooming impersonal army, which is a personal army, which is happening in portland, that some of those are under the guise of the federal agents in portland. My first question is what have you heard about eric prince these days . My second question is, if federal agents are there to protect federal buildings, then why are they roaming the streets and grabbing people off the streets . Why are they straying away from the property they are supposed to be protecting . And my last question is, is it possible for the governor of the state of oregon to actually call in his state National Guard to protect the Peaceful Protesters from those of federal agents . Thanks for taking my questions. Guest three quick answers. First on the use of contractors, or sometimes called mercenaries, there would be a huge outcry if the federal government actually brought in contractors, or sometimes called mercenaries, in these confrontation situations, like in portland. I have seen no evidence suggester of it, so i we save our outrage for if they actually try to do it. Why are they operating in places not directly in front of the courthouse . There explanation for that is in the case of the two arrests that have been examined in detail, they identified people who in one case they thought committed an act of violence, and in another case was a witness. So they had walked a block or so, and the detained of them. They let them go without charges, meaning they did not have probable cause, but they detained them because it they said they thought they were the criminals. In another case, they questioned them without the attainment because they had seen a crime. Then it turned into a detainment. And the third question, the National Guard. There are ways in which the states and federal government could come into a much more direct showdown, potentially involving violence. It does not have to take us back to fort sumter, but the attorney general or District Attorney in philadelphia has talked about arresting federal troops. You have to go to the National Guard question, and part of the answer is that long ago Congress President canthe have control over the National Guard. And he can put it under president ial control. The undercuts of the effectiveness of that. There are also intermediate things they can do. By and large, the National Guard will not be used against federal agents very effectively. You do have to ask about the department of Homeland Security. Not to get too deeply into the politics, but the fbi has been at odds with the administration, whereas Border Protection has been the agency most enthusiastic about the president. So this may be playing a role. It is not a legal question, but a question that we need to bear in mind about how they behave. Host we want to thank this week on q and day, we look back to our conversation with john lewis from 2012. Washington, 1961, d. C. , like people and why people could not be seated together on a bus. Couldnt use the same waiting room, couldnt be seated together at a lunch counter and restaurant. To use the same restroom facilities. Ofwere testing a decision the United States supreme court, trying to make it real. Join us sunday at 8 00 p. M. Eastern as we look back to our conversation with representative john lewis. Next, marco rubio talks about u. S. China relations and the coronavirus pandemic. This was hosted by the hoover institution
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.