I'm not excited about the super-ICE police state they're clearly setting up. That's going to be hard to unravel. I understand that it's the fault of the people who did their best to ensure the law was violated as hard and as long as possible, but standing this back down is going to be hard if it's even a thing that can be done.
Mission creep being what it is, I'd say that some of those concerns about this thing aren't entirely misplaced. But I guess we'll see.
Pity they folded on the NFA reforms, but of course they did.
I've had a pretty detailed idea what was in it all along; it was reported enough and been the subject of enough committees and negotiation. My inbox stayed full of summaries, not to mention my X feed.
Understandable concern but ICEs remit is pretty well defined compared to the FBI and IC TLAs, and it always seemed to me that the chief mischief was the way the political appointees in DHS reinterpreted 'refugee' status. Better that the changes be done openly by legislation than via an e-mail.
"...but ICEs remit is pretty well defined compared to the FBI and IC TLAs, and..."
I'd check that assumption. "ICE agents aren't required to wear body cameras, can cover their faces, don't have to provide badge numbers or identify themselves, can arrive in unmarked cars and don't need a warrant from a judge to detain someone."
11 comments:
I guess now we'll find out what was in it.
I thought they actually read this one in the Senate -- for a change.
Oh, it was read. By Congressional aides, and overnight while no one else was there. But they did insist that it be read.
It's kinda like a piñata. Blindfolded people take turns hitting it until eventually we all get to see what candy drops out. Then we all get fatter.
I'm not excited about the super-ICE police state they're clearly setting up. That's going to be hard to unravel. I understand that it's the fault of the people who did their best to ensure the law was violated as hard and as long as possible, but standing this back down is going to be hard if it's even a thing that can be done.
Mission creep being what it is, I'd say that some of those concerns about this thing aren't entirely misplaced. But I guess we'll see.
Pity they folded on the NFA reforms, but of course they did.
Everybody is a little uncomfortable means it is a good piece of Legislation......
https://x.com/timburchett/status/1940852573520494600
if you have 48 min, listen to Scot Bessent on BBB.
https://warroom.org/episode-4604-treasury-secretary-gives-the-inside-baseball-on-the-bbb-live-from-brics/
I've had a pretty detailed idea what was in it all along; it was reported enough and been the subject of enough committees and negotiation. My inbox stayed full of summaries, not to mention my X feed.
But I was mistaken about yesterday's signing--I lost track of the date and thought it was the 4th already.
Understandable concern but ICEs remit is pretty well defined compared to the FBI and IC TLAs, and it always seemed to me that the chief mischief was the way the political appointees in DHS reinterpreted 'refugee' status. Better that the changes be done openly by legislation than via an e-mail.
"...but ICEs remit is pretty well defined compared to the FBI and IC TLAs, and..."
I'd check that assumption. "ICE agents aren't required to wear body cameras, can cover their faces, don't have to provide badge numbers or identify themselves, can arrive in unmarked cars and don't need a warrant from a judge to detain someone."
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/29/axios-explains-inside-ice-superpowers
Post a Comment