Legality
In July, this year, there were reports of unmarked police officers marching through Portland’s streets and arresting protesters. The crisis occurred after President Trump decided to deploy paramilitary troops to Oregon. Consequently, the troops have been arresting protestors in Oregon and detaining them. Media coverage aired reports of multiple federal officers who wore unmarked camouflage stepping out of vans. The officers were arresting and detaining the anti-police brutality or anti-racism protestors in Portland. However, the move has raised significant criticism from different platforms since it is termed as an unconstitutional move. Although some politicians may support President Trump’s decision, it is vital to understand why it generates criticism.
Similarly, the US constitution has specific laws in place concerning the use of militia. Posse Comitatus Act may have made it a bit rationale for Trump to deploy federal agents to Portland. However, a proper analysis of the Act also proves that the president’s decision is unconstitutional. The Act supports militia’s use to repel invasion or suppress any form of insurrections (Doyle, 2018). In this case, no form of invasion was taking place on US soil. In the same fashion, the Act specifically prohibits the involvement of military police in civilian affairs. The militia is only allowed to interfere with civilian issues after gaining approval from the President or Congress. Correspondingly, the president may have decided since the law allows him to use the military forces to enforce some level of federal authority. Therefore, the decision may have seemed rational to President Trump on some levels.
On the other hand, there are some instances considered to violate the Posse Comitatus Act. First, when the civilian police make directly use the militia to enforce law and order. In this case, the federal police directly interfered with the civilian police duties. Secondly, the task was assigned by President Trump to the federal police solely for the benefit of the local or civilian government in Portland. Hence, the militia was acting upon the orders of Donald Trump rather than upholding their military duties. Thirdly, the paramilitary troops should only be used to ensure that citizens do not violate military regulations, which are often obligatory (Doyle, 2018). In this case, it was unconstitutional for the president to deploy paramilitary troops to Portland. Thus, the decision made by Trump was unconstitutional on various levels.
Notably, the move is also against the Bill of Rights, which is carefully documented within the constitution. The constitution dictates that every individual has personal rights and liberties. Moreover, the liberties dictate that every individual has the right to speech, right to expression, and the right to have religious beliefs or practices (Ginsberg et al., 2018). Over the years, the law has been amended to ensure fewer restrictions on moral behavior, speech, and political beliefs. The case in Oregon is an example of individuals practicing their freedom by protesting. They were protesting against anti-racism and police killings that were earlier experienced in the US. Furthermore, their protest was within their rights and freedom. Hence, the decision to unlawfully arrest them was unconstitutional.
In conclusion, the decision made by Trump was unconstitutional and against individual rights and freedoms. Consequently, the arrests done by unmarked federal police are a problem for the citizens. In case an individual decides to file a report against the unmarked police, they will lack a point of reference. The Miranda law dictates that every individual should be informed of their rights. Equally important is the fact that one can gain legal counsel or help in case police abuse happens. However, the use of unmarked police officers makes it hard for any Portland citizen to file a report against them. Every decision made by President Trump was calculated to ensure that the paramilitary officers are not sued. Perhaps, the president aimed at covering his tracks in case the move backfired on his face. In my view, the decision is unconstitutional on multiple grounds.
References
Doyle, C. (2018). The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: the use of the military to execute civilian law. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE.
Ginsberg B., Lowi T., Weir M., Tolbert C., Campbell A., and Spitzer R., (2018). We the People. An Introduction to American Politics. W. W. NORTON & COMPANY NEW YORK LONDON