We know what's next after this: they start using intel to blackmail activists into silence. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO) Worked for the SS, worked for the KGB, worked for the FBI, it'll work for ICE.
Blackmail them with what? It's the ICE agents who are wearing masks, because they know their life will be ruined once people discover who they are and what they've been up to.
Sure, but then why do they have to wait? ICE agents who want to threaten legal observers can just do it to their faces - as we've seen, even if they murder legal observers the Trump regime will have their back. I think most don't want to do that, whether out of cowardice or an understanding of what's coming once their leaders are brought to justice.
They are continuously moving the goalpost. They don't know themselves what they are gonna get away with for the time being. But they will iterate themselves to whatever is the line - or don't stop if there isn't any.
And those people have no qualms about doing so. We all know this. It's not like it was built in a skunk works type of back room of some unnamed branch of the gov't agencies. The conversations about the use of these tools have been ongoing for a long time.
Your comment reads as if you're trying to imply some sort of shame on those that built it. I'm guessing that instead of shame, pride is being felt on their part in the play.
We’ve seen it documented before that they do indeed have a facial recognition database. Good news is it doesn’t seem all that reliable so who knows who is being labelled.
The right complains that "fascist" gets thrown around on by the left so much the terms loses meaning, but soon you'll be able to say the same about "domestic terrorist".
(I'm accustomed to seeing Reason accused of leaning right, so it's a little disorienting to see all of this.)
> And since the Trump administration's deportation campaign began last year, DHS officials have repeatedly insisted that following and recording federal immigration agents in public is a violation of a federal statute that makes it a crime to assault or impede law enforcement officers.
Following the link:
> In response to a question from Reason asking if the department considered following or recording a federal law enforcement officer to be obstruction of justice, the DHS Office of Public Affairs said in an emailed statement attributed to an unnamed spokesperson: "That sure sounds like obstruction of justice. Our brave ICE law enforcement face a more than 1150% increase in assaults against them. If you obstruct or assault our law enforcement, we will hunt you down and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
> It's one of the most direct public statements yet from DHS articulating a policy that treats following, recording, and revealing the identities of federal immigration officers as illegal activity. There have been months of news reports and viral showing federal immigration officers threatening, brandishing weapons, and violently detaining people for following and recording them in public.
Reading the rest of the link, they don't even attempt to evidence "DHS officials" making the same claim any other time than that, or that they actually have such policy; so they simply have not established that DHS "repeatedly insists" any such thing. The claim seems to be simply based on Reason's own interpretation that the threats and detentions (and arrests) are "for" the mere act of recording.
But I have now been shown very many videos where people claim that a protestor was subjected to force and/or arrest "for" a mere exercise of free speech, and in every single case it has been abundantly clear to me that the subject was obviously also doing something clearly obstructive that was obviously the actual cause of action. Sometimes this even clearly includes people who aren't being obstructive, being completely left alone as they say hateful things (as is, indeed, their 1A right).
Klippenstein's video, of course, doesn't show a clear obstruction. But it also doesn't show anywhere near enough context to establish the assertion that the person being written up was a "legal observer". Notably, it shows the officer being asked whether the write-up is "for recording you?", but doesn't show a clear response. It's cut to imply that the woman is being "now considered a domestic terrorist" for the simple act of having a cell phone out recording, but it gives no reason to actually believe that this is the case.
Meanwhile, we don't get to see any evidence of the email chain, can't verify the "unnamed spokesperson" and, crucially, can't verify the actual text of the question asked. I hope I don't have to explain how following someone around could result in a physical obstruction.
Who is a "terrorist" in the eyes of the US gov't has always been their political enemies, never themselves or their allies.
At this point, it's simply an empty accusation that has been so ingrained into the American psychy over generations, that it can cheaply be used to justify incredible violence against enemies of the state. Even justify invading entire countries even on faked evidence, remember the "war on terror", "weapons of mass destruction", calling Maduro a "narcoterrorist"? It's a term of propaganda, same as it ever was. Only difference now is it's more obvious as this administration doesn't seem to care if the mask is slipping.
We know what's next after this: they start using intel to blackmail activists into silence. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO) Worked for the SS, worked for the KGB, worked for the FBI, it'll work for ICE.
Blackmail them with what? It's the ICE agents who are wearing masks, because they know their life will be ruined once people discover who they are and what they've been up to.
Dig into their past, find indiscretions they can lean on. When you can't win the argument, discredit the messenger.
Even if a person has no indiscretions, everyone has a weak point. A significant other, child, friend, job, boss, bank, etc.
It's even easier today, as it doesn't even need to be true. Most people don't care about the aftermath, just about the headline.
Everyone is guilty, we just haven't proven it yet.
> Blackmail them with what?
With murder or deportation or harassment.
Sure, but then why do they have to wait? ICE agents who want to threaten legal observers can just do it to their faces - as we've seen, even if they murder legal observers the Trump regime will have their back. I think most don't want to do that, whether out of cowardice or an understanding of what's coming once their leaders are brought to justice.
They are continuously moving the goalpost. They don't know themselves what they are gonna get away with for the time being. But they will iterate themselves to whatever is the line - or don't stop if there isn't any.
so extortion, not blackmail
Just wait until they switch us to the deutchemark.
Bitcoin doesn't work properly without power or network access extending over days though.
Folks in tech built that for them knowing the purpose.
And those people have no qualms about doing so. We all know this. It's not like it was built in a skunk works type of back room of some unnamed branch of the gov't agencies. The conversations about the use of these tools have been ongoing for a long time.
Your comment reads as if you're trying to imply some sort of shame on those that built it. I'm guessing that instead of shame, pride is being felt on their part in the play.
We’ve seen it documented before that they do indeed have a facial recognition database. Good news is it doesn’t seem all that reliable so who knows who is being labelled.
https://huggingface.co/papers/2508.18265
The right complains that "fascist" gets thrown around on by the left so much the terms loses meaning, but soon you'll be able to say the same about "domestic terrorist".
(I'm accustomed to seeing Reason accused of leaning right, so it's a little disorienting to see all of this.)
> And since the Trump administration's deportation campaign began last year, DHS officials have repeatedly insisted that following and recording federal immigration agents in public is a violation of a federal statute that makes it a crime to assault or impede law enforcement officers.
Following the link:
> In response to a question from Reason asking if the department considered following or recording a federal law enforcement officer to be obstruction of justice, the DHS Office of Public Affairs said in an emailed statement attributed to an unnamed spokesperson: "That sure sounds like obstruction of justice. Our brave ICE law enforcement face a more than 1150% increase in assaults against them. If you obstruct or assault our law enforcement, we will hunt you down and you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
> It's one of the most direct public statements yet from DHS articulating a policy that treats following, recording, and revealing the identities of federal immigration officers as illegal activity. There have been months of news reports and viral showing federal immigration officers threatening, brandishing weapons, and violently detaining people for following and recording them in public.
Reading the rest of the link, they don't even attempt to evidence "DHS officials" making the same claim any other time than that, or that they actually have such policy; so they simply have not established that DHS "repeatedly insists" any such thing. The claim seems to be simply based on Reason's own interpretation that the threats and detentions (and arrests) are "for" the mere act of recording.
But I have now been shown very many videos where people claim that a protestor was subjected to force and/or arrest "for" a mere exercise of free speech, and in every single case it has been abundantly clear to me that the subject was obviously also doing something clearly obstructive that was obviously the actual cause of action. Sometimes this even clearly includes people who aren't being obstructive, being completely left alone as they say hateful things (as is, indeed, their 1A right).
Klippenstein's video, of course, doesn't show a clear obstruction. But it also doesn't show anywhere near enough context to establish the assertion that the person being written up was a "legal observer". Notably, it shows the officer being asked whether the write-up is "for recording you?", but doesn't show a clear response. It's cut to imply that the woman is being "now considered a domestic terrorist" for the simple act of having a cell phone out recording, but it gives no reason to actually believe that this is the case.
Meanwhile, we don't get to see any evidence of the email chain, can't verify the "unnamed spokesperson" and, crucially, can't verify the actual text of the question asked. I hope I don't have to explain how following someone around could result in a physical obstruction.
Link saved for posterity:
https://reason.com/2026/01/23/ice-tells-legal-observer-we-ha...
Colonialism is finally coming back home?
Who is a "terrorist" in the eyes of the US gov't has always been their political enemies, never themselves or their allies.
At this point, it's simply an empty accusation that has been so ingrained into the American psychy over generations, that it can cheaply be used to justify incredible violence against enemies of the state. Even justify invading entire countries even on faked evidence, remember the "war on terror", "weapons of mass destruction", calling Maduro a "narcoterrorist"? It's a term of propaganda, same as it ever was. Only difference now is it's more obvious as this administration doesn't seem to care if the mask is slipping.
Calling foreign governments or own citizen 'terrorist' has always been two very different stories.