Gov. Kate Brown of Oregon said the teams would begin a withdrawal on Thursday. Federal officials cautioned that they would withdraw only when they were confident the federal courthouse could be secured.
www.nytimes.com
Federal Tactical Teams to Withdraw From Portland, Governor Says
Gov. Kate Brown of Oregon said the teams will begin a withdrawal on Thursday. Federal officials cautioned that they will withdraw only when they are confident the federal courthouse can be secured.
The arrival of federal officers triggered a dramatic escalation in protests in downtown Portland, Ore.Credit...Mason Trinca for The New York Times
By Mike Baker
July 29, 2020
Updated 12:38 p.m. ET
Federal tactical teams that have clashed with protesters in Portland in recent weeks will soon begin leaving the city, Gov. Kate Brown of Oregon said Wednesday.
Under an agreement between Ms. Brown and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the governor’s office said the Oregon State Police will provide security for the exterior of the city’s federal courthouse, while the usual team of federal officers that protects the courthouse year-round will continue to provide security for the interior of the building.
Ms. Brown said the federal tactical teams that had deployed to the city would begin a phased withdrawal on Thursday. But Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement that though the department has agreed with the Oregon governor on a plan, the department will proceed with the withdrawal of security personnel in Portland only if federal officials are confident that federal properties will no longer be under attack.
“State and local law enforcement will begin securing properties and streets, especially those surrounding federal properties, that have been under nightly attack for the past two months,” Mr. Wolf said. “We anticipate the ability to change our force posture,” he added, once circumstances on the ground “significantly improve” with the deployment of additional state and local law enforcement.
Hours before the announcement of the agreement, President Trump doubled down on the need for the increased federal presence in Portland.
“You hear all sorts of reports about us leaving,” Mr. Trump said. “We’re not leaving until they’ve secured their city. We told the governor. We told the mayor. Secure your city. If they don’t secure their city soon, we have no choice. We’re going to have to go in and clean it out.”
The arrival of federal forces to protect the courthouse after weeks of raucous demonstrations outside protesting the death of George Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis infuriated local officials who did not ask for the federal deployment. It also triggered a dramatic escalation in the protests in downtown Portland, with demonstrators mounting nightly rallies outside the courthouse that often included tear gas and fireworks.
“These federal officers have acted as an occupying force, refused accountability, and brought violence and strife to our community,” Ms. Brown said.
Ms. Brown said that Vice President Mike Pence was among the people involved in the discussions to withdraw the federal officers.
The announcement came a day after officials in Washington State announced that a federal tactical team that had arrived last week in Seattle had since departed the city. Leaders in Seattle have dealt with their own protests, including one over the weekend in solidarity with Portland that included burned buildings, broken windows and local police repeatedly firing crowd-dispersal weapons.
Portland has seen more than 60 days of consecutive protests since Mr. Floyd’s death. Much of the strife in the city had been between Portland police officers and the protesters.
But after President Trump issued an executive order to protect statues and federal property, federal officials sent militarized tactical teams to Portland. They employed aggressive tactics to keep demonstrators away from federal property. One protester was shot in the head with a crowd-control munition, and a Navy veteran was hit repeatedly with a baton as he stood still. In a tactic that was challenged in court by the Oregon attorney general, the federal officers used unmarked vans to target protesters for arrest.
Protest crowds have grown into the thousands, drawing out groups of mothers, military veterans and nurses, though Mr. Trump has portrayed the protest crowd as “violent anarchists.” Some protesters have lobbed water bottles and fireworks while also pointing lasers at federal officers.
In addition to the Federal Protective Service, which normally employs mostly security contractors to guard the courthouse, the Trump administration has also deployed tactical agents from the Homeland Security Department and the U.S. Marshals to the courthouse and a federal office building nearby.
Earlier this week, the U.S. Marshals said they had identified 100 additional marshals to back up the officers protecting the courthouse.
Something has to be done, yes, but it has to be within the confines of our laws. I still am baffled when anyone, at this point, believes Trump knows what he is doing or anything good will come of his actions. Again, two wrongs don't make a right.
Federal buildings actually are on Federal land, and it is legal to have as many officers on that land deemed necessary to prevent destruction or damage. Mayors and Governors do not need to give their permission. Neither do the Federal Authorities need any Presidents permission to have Federal Officers or agents moved to any Federal Location.
This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact [email protected] if you have any questions about the archive site.
www.justice.gov
1630. Protection Of Government Property -- Real Property -- 18 U.S.C. 7
The Federal government is the single largest holder of real estate in the United States. Federal custody and control over this property brings with it a host of responsibilities, including in some cases federal criminal jurisdiction. Yet it is clear that federal criminal jurisdiction does not exist over real property simply because the United States owns it. SeeAdams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (1943).
For purposes of federal criminal jurisdiction, government property can be categorized in three ways. First, certain lands fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. As this term implies, on these lands federal criminal law applies to the exclusion of state law. Other properties acquired by the United States fall within the concurrent criminal jurisdiction of the state and Federal governments. Finally, the United States may acquire property without accepting any special criminal jurisdiction over it. In this situation the United States simply retains proprietary jurisdiction over the property.
The jurisdictional status of property acquired by the United States, is important because it triggers the application of a series of federal laws, known as federal enclave statutes. These statutes apply to lands within the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States," a term which includes "(a)ny lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof . . . . See 18 U.S.C. § 7(3). Therefore any property under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the United States is subject to these federal enclave laws.
The federal enclave laws provide two forms of protection to property found on federal land. At the outset these laws specifically forbid certain property crimes. For example, arson, theft, receiving stolen goods, destruction of property and robbery are all prohibited within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 81 (arson), 661 (theft), 662 (receiving stolen goods), 1363 (destruction of property), 2111 (robbery). In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 13 incorporates state law into the law of the federal enclave. Thus, property offenses which violate state law but are not otherwise punishable under federal law become federal crimes when committed on a federal enclave within the state.
Through these two means the federal enclave statutes add significantly to the body of law protecting government property. While these laws are not expressly limited to crimes involving government property, much of the property crime occurring in a federal enclave will involve property belonging to the United States. Therefore, United States Attorneys should be aware of the jurisdictional status of all federal property within their respective districts.
There are three methods by which the United States obtains exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction over federal lands in a state: (1) a state statute consenting to the purchase of land by the United States for the purposes enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 7, of the Constitution of the United States; (2) a state cession statute; and (3) a reservation of federal jurisdiction upon the admission of a state into the Union. See Collins v. Yosemite Park Co., 304 U.S. 518 (1938). Since February 1, 1940, the United States acquires no jurisdiction over federal lands in a state until the head or other authorized officer of the department or agency which has custody of the lands formally accepts the jurisdiction offered by state law. See 40 U.S.C. § 255; Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312 (1943). Prior to February 1, 1940, acceptance of jurisdiction had been presumed in the absence of evidence of a contrary intent on the part of the acquiring agency or Congress. SeeSilas Mason Co., Inc. v. Tax Commission, 302 U.S. 186 (1937). See also JM 9-20.000 et seq., for a discussion of federal enclave jurisdiction.
Yes, he can sit and do whatever he wants with the federal buildings, although to keep doing that and enraging everyone even more seems counter productive.
I digress, yes, as long as he keeps them confined to the federal buildings he can keep doing it - but this is definitely an admission it's not productive, thus the reason why they agreed to start to withdrawal them.
We both know though, the reason he sent the agents in was never to just protect the federal buildings.
That kind of reinforces some of my earlier points, is he dedicates his government lawyers and AG Barr to find laws he can utilize and hide under to continue doing whatever he wants.
I'm just fact checking... I'm not an actual Trump supporter. Nor am I a blind follower of the Media or any other form of miscommunication that is all too common on both sides of this situation.
Then why did you post "Something has to be done, yes, but it has to be within the confines of our laws." if it did not imply that he was acting outside of the law ?
Then why did you post "Something has to be done, yes, but it has to be within the confines of our laws." if it did not imply that he was acting outside of the law ?
You're not taking my previous posts on this matter into context here. The actions of the federal agents, while they were there, became the problem. He found a law to utilize to get them there, as I mentioned in a previous post that he typically does, and then utilized that to continue his agenda, whether it's good or bad for the country, it's what he wants to do.
Specifically, something does need to be done about the violent riots in the city, but not by federal agents, and defintely not if the mayor and governor do not want them there.
My whole over riding point here, that seems to be lost, is that there is a solution to the problem, I truly believe that. But I don't believe the solution requires violating citizen's rights through the use of federal agents in states and cities.
I'm just fact checking... I'm not an actual Trump supporter. Nor am I a blind follower of the Media or any other form of miscommunication that is all too common on both sides of this situation.
I agree with you, nor am I. I think I made a post that implied context of my previous posts and that got left out in your analysis of my views on this matter
You may not, however many of the city Mayors and Governors have abdicated their duties in protecting both citizens and public property.
And the Constitution only protects the right to peaceably assemble, if it escalates to violence and destruction they are laible to arrest and prosecution.
You may not, however many of the city Mayors and Governors have abdicated their duties in protecting both citizens and public property.
And the Constitution only protects the right to peaceably assemble, if it escalates to violence and destruction they are laible to arrest and prosecution.
What do you think the way out of this current mess is then? I genuinely want to know. Because I've seen a lot of people blaming Trump for stuff, but so far I haven't seen anyone come up with any better plans to restore the peace.
I have no idea, it's overwhelming. Certainly finger-pointing isn't helping anyone. Honestly I think we all need to make a real, concerted effort to put ourselves in others' places and understand why everyone feels the way they do.
The main thing we need to do is rework our laws and regulations to stop encouraging big money interests to corrupt the government. We need the government to be for the people again. The root of all of our woes is that the people at the top have been slowly eroding our quality of life in order to funnel resources to themselves for decades now, and they've pitted us against each other in order to distract us from that.
How do we do this? It's hard for me to imagine at this point.
DONALD Trump will be the last US President according to a more than 100-year-old prophecy claimed to predict his downfall on the day of the solar eclipse.
www.nytimes.com
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
