7 ms·

U.S. Military Is Monitoring Groups Protesting at the Border

88 points by OrgNet 7y ago

tim58 7y ago
People please be safe. This is a friendly reminder that the fourth amendment is significantly weaker within 100 miles of an international border than it is for the rest of United States [0]. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
- UI_at_80x24 7y ago
  Not enough people know this. An additional addendum to this is International airports. Specifically: The International border includes a 25-mile radius around international airports. The majority of US Citizens live within 100 miles of the border. A good chunk that don't live within 25 of an 'international' airport. Further note: "International airport" is based on designation and not traffic. You can have a 1 runway po-dunk airport in the middle of nowhere that received 'international' status as a checkbox formality in the event that ANY plane MIGHT need to use the airport for emergency purposes.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    "International airport" isn't a checkbox formality. It's a specific length (and weight-bearing capacity?) of runway.
    - UI_at_80x24 7y ago
      That is very true. I didn't mean to imply that any dirt-track could receive that designation. It is however a 'checkbox' for those airports that do infact meet those requirements. {thus my "checkbox" statement} Before I ever heard of such designation, I had a very glamorous opinion of what was required to be an 'international airport'. Things like regular flights from all over the world landing and taking off. Huge passenger gateways & terminals, and thousands/millions of people being served every day. The airport in my town has 3 runways. is serviced by 2 carriers. has under 20 (closer to 10) arrivals on average per day. Is only open part-time. (weekends + holidays) It has 'international airport' status. A tremendously HUGE Russian Cargo plane landed here to deliver a factory for a major automaker. My point in the OP was that even 'minor' airports could be affected by that international border.
      - cameronh90 7y ago
        Three runways is still one runway more than Heathrow, which is one of the busiest international airports in the world. Not undermining your point, just thought it was interesting.
        rtkwe 7y ago
        Londons' airports have been kind of a mess for ages now because they've gotten hemmed in by developments on all sides. Heathrow really really wishes it could have more runways but it'd require bulldozing loads of housing developments and even more noise for the existing houses.
    - briandear 7y ago
      Runway length and weight bearing capacity has nothing to do with it. It’s simply the presence or potential presence of CBP personnel available to clear inbound flight. Source: I am a pilot who flies to Mexico frequently.
  - briandear 7y ago
    > The International border includes a 25-mile radius around international airports. Not true. The 100 mile limit is from and “external boundary.” Within 25 miles of an external boundary, CBP has additional powers. That 25 mile radius from an international airport is just made up. Border Patrol doesn’t have any power in Kansas City for instance, despite them having an international airport. CBP’s authority within these border zones only covers immigration law and certain federal crimes. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone/ https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone/
    - Karunamon 7y ago
      Sadly, those "certain federal crimes" includes drug offenses, which is a wonderful pretext ("I smelled marijuana") for all manner of invasiveness and harassment.
- mindslight 7y ago
  The fourth amendment itself isn't weaker, as it is an abstract ideal. Stating things the way you have hides the party responsible for the current policy. A better description is that the Supreme Court issued a justification to perform searches, this one based on being within 100 miles of the border. A similar justification could be written to perform searches in Kansas if they felt the need.
algaeontoast 7y ago
It’s not surprising, given a number of groups with similar intent were openly planning to intimidate or kill border patrol agents (govt employees) and have attacked govt buildings (shots fired at a building in San Antonio, woman with a firebomb in an ICE facility, man who shot at agents and tried to firebomb an ICE facility...)
- pc86 7y ago
  If there's evidence of an individual threatening to kill a law enforcement officer I have a hard time believe they won't be arrested, unless the investigating officer(s) or prosecutor(s) don't feel it's credible for one reason or another. Are the events you listed connected to these groups specifically? I don't have a problem with the government monitoring groups that are protesting to make sure no violence occurs, but I do have a problem with the US military performing law enforcement actions on American soil. Posse Comitatus exists for a reason.
- exabyte 7y ago
  well... that paints an entirely different picture than the one in the article which is a bunch of smiling old ladies, men and adolescents. None of them look like they're about to go Rambo, unless it's a gross misrepresentation of the majority of those there.
  - Nuzzerino 7y ago
    I would hope that national security decisions by a world Superpower are not being made even in part based on the demeanor of the individuals in the photographs taken and published by the news media.
    - exabyte 7y ago
      of course not, but news like this tends to shape how we think about the protests in general when clearly there are those who have pure intentions. If they are having data collected on them as well, regardless of whether that's constitutional, they should, at the very least, not be grouped into the same category of those for which the justification is based on threats of attack.
Aaronstotle 7y ago
While this is concerning, it's hardly surprising. After all, if I were a gov't in power I'd want to keep track on groups that could be a potential threat.
- ajross 7y ago
  The outrage is precisely that the government in power considers non violent protest movements "potential threats", yeah. I mean, obviously if you don't agree with them you'd tend to view them in a less generous light (e.g. "Some of those hippies are loons, and all it takes is one with a weapon...") and view this decision as reasonable. The problem with that thinking is that mere political disagreement is never a justification for "threat" in a democracy, by defintion. People disagree, that's the whole point. You need a history of violence, some rhetoric, something. But protesting ICE by itself isn't enough.
  - treis 7y ago
    >The outrage is precisely that the government in power considers non violent protest movements "potential threats", yeah. And how is the military supposed to know if these non violent protest movements are non violent without looking at them?
    - bildung 7y ago
      I don't know about the U.S. specifically, but usually the military in a democratic country is not allowed to care. That's the job of the police.
      - treis 7y ago
        Every military, democratic or otherwise, is going to care about potential threats to their bases or ongoing operations. The army isn't out there knocking on doors to investigate. They are getting information from other agencies and publicly available sources to present to the chain of command.
  - caseysoftware 7y ago
briandear 7y ago
As a counterpoint, almost every major European power “monitors” certain protest groups. The French Army, for instance was authorized to shoot Yellow Vest protesters. After the 2015 terror attacks in France, civil liberties were greatly curtailed due to the “state of emergency” — a state of emergency that kept getting extended at the whims of the Élysée Palace.
- sdinsn 7y ago
  > The French Army, for instance was authorized to shoot Yellow Vest protesters How is that monitoring?
brenden2 7y ago
But who is monitoring the military?
- MrZongle2 7y ago
  Top. Men.
ourmandave 7y ago
Are they watching both sides of the protest, like the self styled militias roaming around posing as law enforcement? The U.S.-Mexico border isn't protected by militias, it's patrolled by domestic terrorists. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/u-s-mexico-border-isn-t-protected-militias-it-s-ncna997056 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/u-s-mexico-border-isn-...
- icegreentea2 7y ago
  They explicitly call out "unregulated militias" in the same threat assessment. The linked briefing is basically a daily update update - it includes a 3 day weather report and assessment on weather impact on operations. We can't know why the three specific events were called out as "Events of Interest". Probably through social media posts - in fact all the details of the events seem to be the type of stuff on a facebook event page. Question is do militias do that on their patrols? We're missing all sorts of contexts. Like yes, the slide header is "Threat Fusion Running Estimate", but the subheader is "Events of Interest". Does inclusion under this slide mean they actually think they are a threat? What are their working definition of threat? Or are events of interest (as in any type of large gathering near and related to the area of operations) automatically included in the threat estimate? For example, the inter-faith group "being tracked" is assembly a protest outside (or near? unclear) a military base. Knowing that a protest will appear a certainly a way to deconflict.
  - remarkEon 7y ago
    This is just a basic CUB (Commander’s Update Brief). People are reading way too much into this.
justin66 7y ago
We seem to have defined down "extremist:" “The extremists belong to a known anti-border wall group alleged to have direct action camps in the McAllen, TX area,” the document states. The group in reference appears to have been the Rio Bravo Action Camp, a training camp hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America’s Rio Grande Valley Chapter, the Carrizo Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, along with several activist groups, according to its website. The action camp’s training appears to focus on nonviolent forms of resistance, including civil disobedience and street protests.
- masonic 7y ago
  And defined "terrorist" upward. San Francisco government has officially declared the NRA to be a "terrorist" organization. Not the NRA-ILA (the lobbying arm), mind you, but the NRA 501(c)(4) non-profit organization, whose mission is safety and training. It would be like saying Sinn Fein was a terrorist organization but the IRA wasn't.
  - justin66 7y ago
    Honestly, I don't know why you'd bring up a nonbinding resolution by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in a serious discussion about federal law enforcement, the US military, and civil liberties. Their resolution is something you don't need to care about even if you live in San Francisco. (I had to google it)
sebow 7y ago
Why wouldn't they monitor it? You don't have a country without borders. And stop filling HN with this filth, this is not reddit,yet.

88 points by OrgNet 7y ago

People please be safe. This is a friendly reminder that the fourth amendment is significantly weaker within 100 miles of an international border than it is for the rest of United States [0]. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

UI_at_80x24 7y ago
Not enough people know this. An additional addendum to this is International airports. Specifically: The International border includes a 25-mile radius around international airports. The majority of US Citizens live within 100 miles of the border. A good chunk that don't live within 25 of an 'international' airport. Further note: "International airport" is based on designation and not traffic. You can have a 1 runway po-dunk airport in the middle of nowhere that received 'international' status as a checkbox formality in the event that ANY plane MIGHT need to use the airport for emergency purposes.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  "International airport" isn't a checkbox formality. It's a specific length (and weight-bearing capacity?) of runway.
  - UI_at_80x24 7y ago
    That is very true. I didn't mean to imply that any dirt-track could receive that designation. It is however a 'checkbox' for those airports that do infact meet those requirements. {thus my "checkbox" statement} Before I ever heard of such designation, I had a very glamorous opinion of what was required to be an 'international airport'. Things like regular flights from all over the world landing and taking off. Huge passenger gateways & terminals, and thousands/millions of people being served every day. The airport in my town has 3 runways. is serviced by 2 carriers. has under 20 (closer to 10) arrivals on average per day. Is only open part-time. (weekends + holidays) It has 'international airport' status. A tremendously HUGE Russian Cargo plane landed here to deliver a factory for a major automaker. My point in the OP was that even 'minor' airports could be affected by that international border.
    - cameronh90 7y ago
      Three runways is still one runway more than Heathrow, which is one of the busiest international airports in the world. Not undermining your point, just thought it was interesting.
      - rtkwe 7y ago
        Londons' airports have been kind of a mess for ages now because they've gotten hemmed in by developments on all sides. Heathrow really really wishes it could have more runways but it'd require bulldozing loads of housing developments and even more noise for the existing houses.
  - briandear 7y ago
    Runway length and weight bearing capacity has nothing to do with it. It’s simply the presence or potential presence of CBP personnel available to clear inbound flight. Source: I am a pilot who flies to Mexico frequently.
- briandear 7y ago
  > The International border includes a 25-mile radius around international airports. Not true. The 100 mile limit is from and “external boundary.” Within 25 miles of an external boundary, CBP has additional powers. That 25 mile radius from an international airport is just made up. Border Patrol doesn’t have any power in Kansas City for instance, despite them having an international airport. CBP’s authority within these border zones only covers immigration law and certain federal crimes. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone/ https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone/
  - Karunamon 7y ago
    Sadly, those "certain federal crimes" includes drug offenses, which is a wonderful pretext ("I smelled marijuana") for all manner of invasiveness and harassment.
mindslight 7y ago
The fourth amendment itself isn't weaker, as it is an abstract ideal. Stating things the way you have hides the party responsible for the current policy. A better description is that the Supreme Court issued a justification to perform searches, this one based on being within 100 miles of the border. A similar justification could be written to perform searches in Kansas if they felt the need.

algaeontoast 7y ago

It’s not surprising, given a number of groups with similar intent were openly planning to intimidate or kill border patrol agents (govt employees) and have attacked govt buildings (shots fired at a building in San Antonio, woman with a firebomb in an ICE facility, man who shot at agents and tried to firebomb an ICE facility...)

pc86 7y ago
If there's evidence of an individual threatening to kill a law enforcement officer I have a hard time believe they won't be arrested, unless the investigating officer(s) or prosecutor(s) don't feel it's credible for one reason or another. Are the events you listed connected to these groups specifically? I don't have a problem with the government monitoring groups that are protesting to make sure no violence occurs, but I do have a problem with the US military performing law enforcement actions on American soil. Posse Comitatus exists for a reason.
exabyte 7y ago
well... that paints an entirely different picture than the one in the article which is a bunch of smiling old ladies, men and adolescents. None of them look like they're about to go Rambo, unless it's a gross misrepresentation of the majority of those there.
- Nuzzerino 7y ago
  I would hope that national security decisions by a world Superpower are not being made even in part based on the demeanor of the individuals in the photographs taken and published by the news media.
  - exabyte 7y ago
    of course not, but news like this tends to shape how we think about the protests in general when clearly there are those who have pure intentions. If they are having data collected on them as well, regardless of whether that's constitutional, they should, at the very least, not be grouped into the same category of those for which the justification is based on threats of attack.

Aaronstotle 7y ago

While this is concerning, it's hardly surprising. After all, if I were a gov't in power I'd want to keep track on groups that could be a potential threat.

ajross 7y ago
The outrage is precisely that the government in power considers non violent protest movements "potential threats", yeah. I mean, obviously if you don't agree with them you'd tend to view them in a less generous light (e.g. "Some of those hippies are loons, and all it takes is one with a weapon...") and view this decision as reasonable. The problem with that thinking is that mere political disagreement is never a justification for "threat" in a democracy, by defintion. People disagree, that's the whole point. You need a history of violence, some rhetoric, something. But protesting ICE by itself isn't enough.
- treis 7y ago
  >The outrage is precisely that the government in power considers non violent protest movements "potential threats", yeah. And how is the military supposed to know if these non violent protest movements are non violent without looking at them?
  - bildung 7y ago
    I don't know about the U.S. specifically, but usually the military in a democratic country is not allowed to care. That's the job of the police.
    - treis 7y ago
      Every military, democratic or otherwise, is going to care about potential threats to their bases or ongoing operations. The army isn't out there knocking on doors to investigate. They are getting information from other agencies and publicly available sources to present to the chain of command.
- caseysoftware 7y ago

briandear 7y ago

As a counterpoint, almost every major European power “monitors” certain protest groups. The French Army, for instance was authorized to shoot Yellow Vest protesters. After the 2015 terror attacks in France, civil liberties were greatly curtailed due to the “state of emergency” — a state of emergency that kept getting extended at the whims of the Élysée Palace.

sdinsn 7y ago
> The French Army, for instance was authorized to shoot Yellow Vest protesters How is that monitoring?

brenden2 7y ago

But who is monitoring the military?

MrZongle2 7y ago
Top. Men.

ourmandave 7y ago

Are they watching both sides of the protest, like the self styled militias roaming around posing as law enforcement? The U.S.-Mexico border isn't protected by militias, it's patrolled by domestic terrorists. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/u-s-mexico-border-isn-t-protected-militias-it-s-ncna997056 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/u-s-mexico-border-isn-...

icegreentea2 7y ago
They explicitly call out "unregulated militias" in the same threat assessment. The linked briefing is basically a daily update update - it includes a 3 day weather report and assessment on weather impact on operations. We can't know why the three specific events were called out as "Events of Interest". Probably through social media posts - in fact all the details of the events seem to be the type of stuff on a facebook event page. Question is do militias do that on their patrols? We're missing all sorts of contexts. Like yes, the slide header is "Threat Fusion Running Estimate", but the subheader is "Events of Interest". Does inclusion under this slide mean they actually think they are a threat? What are their working definition of threat? Or are events of interest (as in any type of large gathering near and related to the area of operations) automatically included in the threat estimate? For example, the inter-faith group "being tracked" is assembly a protest outside (or near? unclear) a military base. Knowing that a protest will appear a certainly a way to deconflict.
- remarkEon 7y ago
  This is just a basic CUB (Commander’s Update Brief). People are reading way too much into this.

justin66 7y ago

We seem to have defined down "extremist:" “The extremists belong to a known anti-border wall group alleged to have direct action camps in the McAllen, TX area,” the document states. The group in reference appears to have been the Rio Bravo Action Camp, a training camp hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America’s Rio Grande Valley Chapter, the Carrizo Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, along with several activist groups, according to its website. The action camp’s training appears to focus on nonviolent forms of resistance, including civil disobedience and street protests.

masonic 7y ago
And defined "terrorist" upward. San Francisco government has officially declared the NRA to be a "terrorist" organization. Not the NRA-ILA (the lobbying arm), mind you, but the NRA 501(c)(4) non-profit organization, whose mission is safety and training. It would be like saying Sinn Fein was a terrorist organization but the IRA wasn't.
- justin66 7y ago
  Honestly, I don't know why you'd bring up a nonbinding resolution by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in a serious discussion about federal law enforcement, the US military, and civil liberties. Their resolution is something you don't need to care about even if you live in San Francisco. (I had to google it)

sebow 7y ago

Why wouldn't they monitor it? You don't have a country without borders. And stop filling HN with this filth, this is not reddit,yet.