Democratic leaders demanding standards that all police and sheriffs in the country follow isn't 'caving'

[bigtree]

...and we need to stop this stupid shit demagoguery of Democratic leaders and pay attention to the republicans opposing these exceedingly reasonable, basic, and important demands of ICE and DHS.

Leader Schumer today:

Senate Democrats. We're united from one end of our party to the other and we put together some simple common sense proposals that are done every day that are used by police forces and local sheriffs everywhere.

They have three basic objectives. One is to end these roving patrols. You can't just pick someone up on the street, not uh and put them in a dark prison without any kind of warrant. You can't bust someone's door down without any kind of warrant. That's the Constitution. Yet, that's what's going on despicably on the streets of Minnesota and other places.

We're also saying in terms of the roving patrols, some places are off limits, schools, houses of worship, election places. We're saying there shouldn't be racial profiling when they pick people up. And we're saying they can't take an American citizen and lock them up without a warrant, without due process.

The second area we're talking about is accountability and enforcement. These we need a code of force, a force code that's used by states, by police officers all over the states. When you use force and when you don't. We need real training for these people. When you watch the videos, you see they're totally untrained. They're brutal. They're nasty.

We also need to have enforcement that you can go to court and stop this ICE force from doing things. And we need the local and uh uh state governments to be able to force them to do certain things they can't do.

And finally, and maybe most important, no secret police. These guys go around, these people go around with masks. It makes them more brutal. They're never accountable. No one even knows who they are.

There should be cameras. Everyone should have cameras and there should be rules on how they use them. And they have to have regular uniforms, not all the stuff they're wearing. But we cannot have secret police...

There should be no masks except in the most of unusual circumstances. You know, if some guy's picture was put up by a terrorist group or something... but there should be no masks.

...Johnson, the speaker has said he wants to keep the mask. Well, I guarantee you when you go down to his district in Louisiana, the sheriffs and police are identified, fully identified with their name and uh, their number.

That has to happen across America to prevent these rogue forces from terrorizing cities. No secret police. No, no, no, no secret police. I can't even believe we're saying that in America. It's so unamerican. I understand the the administration has expressed concerns about doxing and things like that. I I I want you to like me uh no masks, no secret police - and also an understanding that that that we'll do whatever everyone will do whatever we can to protect them from doxing and from from other things if there are activists that try to to bring harm to them.

But but police officers don't wear masks. Sheriffs don't wear masks. They shouldn't wear masks. And they face the the local police, the local sheriffs face the same problems that these guys have in terms of the potential of doxing and they're able to deal with it but not mask up.

This is just incredible. The American people are asking the Republicans and asking Johnson, why are you against ident police having identities? Why are you against Why are you still saying they should wear masks? They don't have a good answer. They've had no good answers to any of these questions.

And as you said, even President Trump is realizing that they're on the wrong side of this issue. They're on the wrong side morally. They're on the wrong side in in terms of just being an American because we in America have always had these values, have always had this and these rogue this rogue uh ICE group is just terrorizing our cities and violating the constitution every minute they're on the streets and it's showing up in the polling as you say...

watch:

Earlier in the week, both leaders had expressed broader objections to mask use. In an interview with “PBS News Hour,” Jeffries said, “Police officers don’t wear masks. Sheriffs don’t wear masks. State troopers don’t wear masks.” Schumer, speaking on the Senate floor, criticized the practice and said it should not receive special consideration.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D‑Conn.) said the party’s position had not changed in substance. “Common sense dictates that there are sometimes safety reasons why you may need a mask,” Murphy told HuffPost. “But if you’re using a mask to obscure your identity in everyday law enforcement, that should be prohibited by law.”

https://slingshot.news/schumer-jeffries-outline-limits-on-ice-mask-use-as-dhs-funding-deadline-nears/

(yes, another post by me on this)

[Progressive dog]

1. I agree

[msongs]

2. language is weak. needs a list of demands and consequences IMO. prettyplease nt

[bigtree]

13. we don't actually have a bill

...and the consequences are as with any violation of the law.

What do local police and sheriffs do when their officers violate regulations proscribed by congressional legislation? That's the regime that's being proposed for ICE and DHS, no more no less.

You should recognize that this isn't Democratic legislation, it's a list of demands we expect republicans to adopt.

And recognizing that doing nothing is a failure on behalf of the Americans we're trying to defend with this negotiation effort with the republican majority.

Why represent this as a Democratic initative to a bill that Democrats control? No one should believe that effort would have any resemblance to this political effort to get the votes of a handful of republicans and the signature of trump.

Do any of the critics of this know how to achieve that political success; not just promote their own expectations which likely no republican we expect to vote on these demands shares?

Or would the critics rather just fight and not achieve any protections?

[Ilikepurple]

15. Bigtree, much of what you say rings true, but legislation is not the only political end

Winning the minds and firing up the hearts of fellow Americans is also effective political strategy, especially when in the minority. Some of us have expectations not just that legislation is passed but that changing public sentiment on ICE is capitalized on to as great an extent as possible. Our leaders might have hit the sweet spot as you and others have argued. But, I for one am happy to hear the multitude of voices and suggestions by others. I feel a kinship to fellow Democrats both to the right and left of my current positions as I try not to succumb to my own hubris and ignore that my perspective is limited. In spirit of this thought, I applaud your contributions even when I disagree.

[bigtree]

19. I have to wonder, looking at the polls

...where are critics seeing lack of support for what Democratic leaders are proposing?

The polling for republicans is the most negative of any party that I've ever seen, and that can't be regarded as just incidental to their efforts.

I mean, who do people think raised the health care concerns to a national debate and focus, or this issue, for that matter?

It's not as if republicans are operating with political support, and there's only one party talking about these protections. No prominent republican legislator has proposed any, and most are openly loath to support them.

Why don't our leaders get credit for that reality, rather than suffer these hits from pure projection. I could understand concern with getting the public on oue side, if they weren't already on our side. Look at the polling. I don't really know where this concern is evidenced in public opinion, except anecdotally here or elsewhere on the internet.

[msongs]

16. act as if....set an assertive tone, hat in hand is not gonna cut it when stronger

options are available. bill or not.

[bigtree]

18. I don't agree that they are 'hat in hand'

...it's just not supported by anything other than:

The fact that, due to factors outside of their control, they are in the minority and don't have the actual ability to do more than get enough republicans to adopt their proposals.

And it's a bit simplistic to represent this as something they can just shape according to what they want.

It's almost a certainty these proposals are in line with the republican votes the leadership understands they can garner.

Again, what reponsibility does proposing 'stronger' provisions that have no apparent support from any republican; or proposing something that falls short of the support it needs to get them actually enacted assume for getting us the protections we need out here? It doesn't look to be counting any votes, as the Democrtatic leaders are certainly doing in this effort.

What's the actual value of that kind of 'stronger' politics that's more concerned with making a political point, than negotiating reforms that have a change of passage and might save someone's life?

I mean, what evidence do you have that your 'stronger' stuff has enough votes. This macho stuff doesn't usually come with anything more than a puffed up argument that goes nowhere, because, it recognizes it's futility and substitutes bravado for actual progress.

In this case, a lot of lives are depending on politicians agreeing to something. Doing nothing but puffing up and appearing 'strong' without the means to act is what so many detractors who push stuff like the HuffPo article want.

They don't care if we spend our time demanding things that can't be achieved; bashing our leaders claiming they didn't do enough to get republicans to act.

Dem leaders' messaging is the sum of what the membership has already told them they would collectively support, which is the actual game here: getting unified support in the form of committments to vote on something - not just performing acrobatics and weight lifting for show, but reconciling diverse and often disparate interests and concerns into action or law.

[Bayard]

3. I can't think of a single safety reason that would require a mask for ICE

Unless there's another Covid epidemic.

[bigtree]

12. and Democrats haven't allowed for any

..as they're proposing, their reforms are in line with what local police and sheriffs practice.

None of the ridiculous exceptions that people are coming up with are being considered in these proposals. They've clearly said that those participating in law enforcement operations should be clearly identified.

It seems that some are making an argument that's at odds with those demands and projecting that falsity onto what's been said.

Illness may well be a consideration, but the demand is for them to be readily identifiable to the public. I don't know how that can be any more clear, despite all of the scenarios that some have raised which have almost all been rejected by the leaders.

Leader Schumer today:

Senate Democrats. We're united from one end of our party to the other and we put together some simple common sense proposals that are done every day that are used by police forces and local sheriffs everywhere.

They have three basic objectives. One is to end these roving patrols. You can't just pick someone up on the street, not uh and put them in a dark prison without any kind of warrant. You can't bust someone's door down without any kind of warrant. That's the Constitution. Yet, that's what's going on despicably on the streets of Minnesota and other places.

We're also saying in terms of the roving patrols, some places are off limits, schools, houses of worship, election places. We're saying there shouldn't be racial profiling when they pick people up. And we're saying they can't take an American citizen and lock them up without a warrant, without due process.

The second area we're talking about is accountability and enforcement. These we need a code of force, a force code that's used by states, by police officers all over the states. When you use force and when you don't. We need real training for these people. When you watch the videos, you see they're totally untrained. They're brutal. They're nasty.

We also need to have enforcement that you can go to court and stop this ICE force from doing things. And we need the local and uh uh state governments to be able to force them to do certain things they can't do.

And finally, and maybe most important, no secret police. These guys go around, these people go around with masks. It makes them more brutal. They're never accountable. No one even knows who they are.

There should be cameras. Everyone should have cameras and there should be rules on how they use them. And they have to have regular uniforms, not all the stuff they're wearing. But we cannot have secret police...

There should be no masks except in the most of unusual circumstances. You know, if some guy's picture was put up by a terrorist group or something... but there should be no masks.

...Johnson, the speaker has said he wants to keep the mask. Well, I guarantee you when you go down to his district in Louisiana, the sheriffs and police are identified, fully identified with their name and uh, their number.

That has to happen across America to prevent these rogue forces from terrorizing cities. No secret police. No, no, no, no secret police. I can't even believe we're saying that in America. It's so unamerican. I understand the the administration has expressed concerns about doxing and things like that. I I I want you to like me uh no masks, no secret police - and also an understanding that that that we'll do whatever everyone will do whatever we can to protect them from doxing and from from other things if there are activists that try to to bring harm to them.

But but police officers don't wear masks. Sheriffs don't wear masks. They shouldn't wear masks. And they face the the local police, the local sheriffs face the same problems that these guys have in terms of the potential of doxing and they're able to deal with it but not mask up.

This is just incredible. The American people are asking the Republicans and asking Johnson, why are you against ident police having identities? Why are you against Why are you still saying they should wear masks? They don't have a good answer. They've had no good answers to any of these questions.

And as you said, even President Trump is realizing that they're on the wrong side of this issue. They're on the wrong side morally. They're on the wrong side in in terms of just being an American because we in America have always had these values, have always had this and these rogue this rogue uh ICE group is just terrorizing our cities and violating the constitution every minute they're on the streets and it's showing up in the polling as you say...

watch:

[littlemissmartypants]

4. Thank you for the discussion, bigtree. ❤️

[ShazamIam]

5. The demands aren't caving but I wish Shumer had been shouting and shamming the DHS and Republicans. nt

[Orrex]

6. Anything short of abolishing ICE is caving

as long as it exists, it’s simply waiting for the next Repug to deploy it as their own personal gestapo.

[Gaugamela]

7. In the first place, these panty-faced goons are half-literate sadistic LEO rejects who can't

be trained. In the second place, the list leaves way too much out. How about not arresting immigrants who are here legally. How about not detaining US citizens AT ALL. How about not stealing detainee’s cash, phones, groceries, guns, watches, etc. How about not abandoning their cars in the middle of the street with the engine running. How about not leaving their children alone in their apartment or in the street (remember the 5-yr-old girl the neighbors found walking down the street crying for her papa?). How about not separating children from parents and throwing them in concentration camps in another state. How about not deporting people to countries they’ve never been to. How about not deporting them to their home country where they’re certain to be killed. How about not attacking legal observers or stealing their phones. How about not gassing entire blocks of peaceful demonstrators.

This list of demands is absurdly inadequate, and anyone who thinks this regime would adhere to it is lying to themselves. It’s obvious that Schumer isn’t trying to remedy anything with this nonsense, he’s just trying to come up with a lame excuse to do nothing and call it a victory.

[bigtree]

9. of course they're NOT inadequate, but we're not in control of what's in the bill, republicans are

...this is a list of demands that Democrats believe is achievable in getting a handful of republicans' support needed to pass the damn thing.

All of those ideals of yours are for a Democratic majority, not the republican majority that's enabled all of this violence. No Democratic majority would allow this, so it's absurd to act as if Democrats can just implement what they want.

It's specious reasoning, and based on either a profound misunderstanding or disregard of basic political realities of a minority party, or a disregard of the importance of passing meaningful reforms RIGHT NOW that can be signed into law to SAVE LIVES.

Pretending like Democrats have the power to do more to influence REPUBLICANS to act by saying something or the other isn't a serious argument. Likewise, pretending that Democrats can just write in what they want to the bill and make it law is just false.

So, you're left with this demand that Democrats insist on what they know won't be accepted by republicans, or the president who has to sign it into law; hell, you should know that.

Just stand there and make demands. Or, better yet, do nothing and leave us without any defense while you shout at them until the midterms.

No fucking thanks. I want what's achievable now.

I NEED WHAT'S ACHIEVABLE NOW, and we can argue when we get the majority about the finer points of our individual projections for the party.

[BaronChocula]

8. Bless you Bigtree!

I just posted what I thought was a rational response regarding claims of Jeffries and Schumer "softening."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20998974

This isn't an endorsement on either leader, but few if any people here know the full range of issues Jeffries and Schumer have to consider. I've said here before that some are expecting Schumer to pull off things that even Harry Reid couldn't do. But I must say I miss that velvet voice delivering iron punches.

[James48]

10. Here is what I don't get:

Why does this not apply to ICE?

Four years ago we signed into law making riot police (federal) have individual numbers on them, so they can be held accountable. Why isn’t this applying now to ICE? Change it!

From 10 USC 723:

‘‘§ 723. Support of Federal authorities in response to civil disturbances: requirement for use of members of the Armed Forces and Federal law enforcement personnel ‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT.—Whenever a member of the armed forces (including the National Guard) or Federal law enforcement personnel provide support to Federal authorities to respond to a civil disturbance, each individual employed in the capacity of providing such support shall visibly display— ‘‘(1) the individual’s name or other individual identifier that is unique to that individual; and ‘‘(2) the name of the armed force, Federal entity, or other organization by which such individual is employed. ‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.—The requirement under subsection (a) shall not apply to individuals referred to in such subsection who— ‘‘(1) do not wear a uniform or other distinguishing clothing or equipment in the regular performance of their official duties; or ‘‘(2) are engaged in undercover operations in the regular performance of their official duties.’’.

[mcar]

11. K&R

[FascismIsDeath]

17. Most of the people making those claims didn't even bother to read the details.

And I don't think they care to.