M: Quick online check. Has ICE at least started being, you know, have they started having a uniform, or are they still basically dressing like frat bros out for some sort of hazing?

M: Another seemingly basic question that I haven't had answered in a way I accept yet as being an actual answer. Is any of their equipment actually standardized? It's hard for me to take the tone of it out of my voice, but I'd like to see the question answered as someone asking who has no opinion on the actual actions of ICE, but is interested in the answer as a person whose only concern is the efficiency either through directness or as an indirect indication of how organized things actually are. Then getting back to the subjective stuff, are they actually trying to show themselves as being police? And is that legal? And again, even with the tactical stuff, is that uniform? And I'm asking in both forms, the neutral one and the personal one who hates what the fuck they're doing, and how they're doing it from every angle. Are they actually uniforms, or is it just basically the frat bro approach with a request for the dark formal tuxedo polo, or whatever. The understanding that it should be, at least, not a fluorescent point.

M: Go online and find me a version of... hell, find me a few versions of various real or... okay, let's go with a few real and a few fictional versions of situations with a large national police force that doesn't wear uniforms. A better version would be a survey to see what percentage of them actually are forces that come across in any kind of favorable light or if they all seem to be basically the secret police snitch bitches of the various situations. And I dispute, what is this fucking training that they're supposed to be having, because it certainly isn't coming across in how they treat the people that they interact with. Unless the standardization is, everyone is less than you, they're all assholes, you're right. Go team us. In Part B, one of the worst things about this group seems to be that they aren't even acting as actual human beings who are in a government organization. I mean, you can't optionally standardize things. Any argument that it is an effort for individuality needs to be laughed out of the room by a military guy where the idea is standardization builds camaraderie. I'm not sure which version I agree with, but the jackasses arguing for ICE often want to portray themselves as being affiliated with the military, and that is not the military approach. Seriously, there is no weak standardization. There is no optional standardization. If it's standard, it's not optional. If it's optional, it's not standard. And if it's not standard, it's not uniform. And if it's not a uniform, then it's not a fucking uniform. And it's not an organization or a police force so much as a bunch of people acting like jackasses that have been sanctioned by a guy who also pardons drug dealers as innocent and doesn't care about the innocence of the people that he kills as drug dealers. Oh, man, that just jets out at the least expected times, that venting of frustration with the illogical of the current times. And the lack of a common symbol implies that these people who seem to really value symbolism are ashamed of their symbols. If they were proud of what they were doing, it would be displayed, even if it wasn't in a way that made them also conform to any kind of legal standard. And the idea that they're trying to hide behind the idea of a mission-appropriate attire by the very nature of their actions and outfits implies that they don't believe their mission involves not going after people who might be involved. The idea that they have a mission they are adhering to and the method by which they're going about it implies that their mission does not have anything to do with what they actually present as being the excuse for their existence and actions. I mean, motherfuck, what the hell? It's legally required that people identify themselves, but it's just suggested that they indicate their affiliation? Motherfucker! Gangs have more stringent requirements for indicating visually and publicly that they are affiliated. Is it any wonder that people are thinking that these guys are less than gangs and instead are a thug? Is it any wonder that they are treated with less respect than gangs, even the people victimized by gangs? The argument of occupational flexibility is horseshit when people can't identify who is also accompanying them. I am a six-foot-tall male. If I did it the right way, I could put on a baklava and camouflaging outfit. Not camouflage, but literally blending in outfit from stuff that I've worn in the past. And as long as I didn't raise any eyebrows, I could accompany an entire operation without necessarily raising any kind of eyebrows. The ability to identify people on your own team is a founding doctrine of functional forces. Any force that doesn't follow that doctrine is some kind of agent or what the other side would call a spy. Not being able to identify who's involved is not operational advantage. You want to be able to identify who you should shoot at and who you shouldn't. Whether you're using a full gun, which these guys are carrying, or pepper spray. And that's the problem with the entire thing, is that the people on your team should involve law-abiding citizens. So you should be able to identify who it is that is on your team. Right now, the only people who can be identified are either, like I said, gangs, or people who know they're going to be targeted, just not by who and how legal their authority is. An authority, I argue, because if you're acting illegally, any actions done are illegal. Don't give me any of that shit about how it's legal, because what they're doing isn't legal either. They're arresting citizens in an illegal fashion, and with an illegal result. The entirety of it is illegal. And in terms of overhead, what the fuck are they talking about? These guys are wearing their shit from home. Even fucking Staples gave you a shirt. It might not even be a new shirt, but it was a shirt to make sure that everyone knew who you were. The overhead would be, You're hired. Here is your shirt. Or even, here is your badge. Here is your badge on a string so you can put it around your neck so you can keep wearing your fucking Avengers t-shirt or whatever. Because evidently, even though we're paid as, even though we have as much money as any department outside of the Department of Defense, we can't afford to buy you fucking matching shirts! That is stupid, piled on stupid, piled on what the fuck. And ambiguity is not what you get if you're a police force. Ambiguity is for agents and spies and people who are doing things which might not be legal, which is not what they're fucking doing! And by their own argument, they aren't even trying to look like police. They are just trying to sow enough ambiguity as to whether or not they are official, that people don't act the way that they are allowed to do. I'm not talking about violence. I mean just saying no. The fact that they're carrying a gun, at this point, everyone knowing what ICE is doing, everyone should be fucking saying no. Now, someone carrying a gun usually will persuade you, but at this point, I'd be willing to get shot just to show what fuckers these guys are. Because I say no, you shoot me, that's the fucking rallying cry. That's a demonstration that this is trying to be might makes right, not right enforced by might, that they're trying to hide behind, at the very fucking least, at which point you can resist knowing that you have morality and even legality on your side, because they are certainly being illegal and doing it to the people that they shouldn't even be doing it legally to. They aren't pretending to be police. They all want to be the captain of police who doesn't have to identify himself, at the very best. And incidentally, on top of everything else, isn't it explicitly illegal to impersonate police, both on a federal and a state level? You're saying it's legal. I don't think it should be. Factually, you might be right. Morally, that needs to be fixed. But it's small compared to the other stuff that needs to be fixed. And honestly, I don't know if I agree with the entire analysis, because you can say no law requires it, but at the same time they have to be able to identify themselves. If they aren't required to carry something with their name on it, then they can't identify themselves, can they? So even though it's technically true, you can't hide behind that while disregarding the law that says you have to be able to identify yourself to people who ask in situations. So courts may have upheld it, that it doesn't have to be law, but they've also upheld that you have to identify yourself. If you can't identify yourself in a way that isn't just your word against theirs, then it must be required in some form, even if it can't be legislated directly what that form is.

M: With number two, like MI5 and stuff, at least one of them doesn't have the power to detain or arrest. At that point, it's more CIA than the police force we're talking about. At that point, however you feel about them, they're at least allowed to stay plainclothes. Because they aren't suppo- If they are interactive, like if you go the James Bond route, If they interact, it's acknowledged that it's supposed to be an edge case. In theory one where they believe everyone would agree their actions were justified, but that in doing so, the legality of it was questionable. If you can see the difference I'm trying to make there. Again, we're using the James Bond version, but even scaled down, I think the point is supposed to be what is done is not public arrests. It might be private, it might be nasty, it might even be illegal. But it's acknowledged by everyone involved that it's not supposed to be. It's clandestine. That's what it is, it's clandestine. And the judgment rules change at that point. Like if this James Bond version of MI5 were, instead of the media version of killing, it was a minor version where they restrain someone in a way outside of the law. It would be assumed that it was done under a certain set of rules for a particular reason. Even if the reason is nasty. For a reason that they would believe was justified according to what was said. It would be for king and country, basically. Whether you agree that that was the right thing to do is beside the point. It wouldn't be an arrest because it wasn't being done publicly. If it ever became public, it would be a problem, and so it creates a tension of are we doing what needs to be done versus if this ever came out, how would it look? I think it's the thought. Not whether it would be legal or not, but whether knowledge of it would be considered rational if not legal. And even number three, I was thinking about bringing up, you know, the plainclothes or undercover policemen. Even with number three, though, there's the acknowledgement that the reason for it is not because there isn't another section that has a uniform, and they just have gone the other route in order to allow better operation. The ICE version is saying, we don't want you to be able to see who is doing things. Now, they try and wrap that up in a fallacious way by saying that it's to prevent violence to them. But first of all, there's the he-hit-me-first version. Anything that was done would, while not ethically justifiable, would trace back to the idea that they are not operating within any kind of legal code. So it would be a reason, even if it wasn't an excuse. And in fact, their way of doing it expands the risk for the guys who haven't done anything wrong. Because since they can't be identified, anyone who took it into their head that that justified violence would not necessarily be able to accurately target them. So the guy who was a douche might be the reason, but there would be arbitrary targeting because no one knows who anyone is. There are even people who would argue that that's the point. What they really want is for an attack to come because, you know, whatever reasoning there was, that actually hits a guy who hadn't done anything, and they want to be able to hold it up and say, see, this is why we're doing it. It's fallacious. Anyway, where was I going with this? Oh, yeah. The point is, it's done to hide from the people they have to work with, not from the people they're supposed to be serving. And claiming that it's to prevent violence doesn't explain why police aren't regularly dragged out of their cars and beaten. It's because they know that this is not good, what they're doing. They are hiding not from the villains, but from the public that's supposed to be protected. And I think it's indicative that, at least in popular media, there is no positive representation of an anonymous police force. That you have to go into, you know, the almost cult-level political stuff in order to get to a point where someone might present as a heroic creature. The person who hides their face and goes out and arrests without accountability. As I move on to your restatement of the this-is-not-standardization point, just reading your description, it makes it sound more like a group of fucking Boy Scouts out doing, you know, reprehensibly life-shattering things without accountability than an actual organized group. I mean, at least a fucking military knows who ordered them to kill the village. These guys are so disorganized and anonymous that they've created a situation where they all get blamed because they can't even scapegoat properly. And the lack of structure means that no one can be held accountable and so the public, seeing them be violent and incidentally lie about what was done repeatedly, I ask you to go online and take a look at that both in terms of the officers and up to the office of Kristi Noem, who recently told Congress that they had never deported a citizen only to immediately be confronted with a video call from someone that had been deported to Korea after serving in the military. That's an important part. I forgot about the intro. She said that they had never deported a military veteran and was immediately confronted with that lie. They've created a situation in which the only person identifiable, even if you want to find a scapegoat to allow further operation otherwise, the only person that's known is Kristi Noem and she's been demonstrated to be a liar. And every time that there has been a confrontation about a statement versus fact or a statement versus video, there has never been, as far as I know, a situation in which someone made a claim there was video of the claim and the ICE officer was backed up. Now it's entirely possible that that doesn't get broadcast as much although I doubt it because that would be what they were using as an argument even if it only happened once. But there are plenty of documented cases where, for instance, ICE would say that a person was driving at them and they were forced to shoot only for video to show that the ICE officer instead did something along the lines of break a window, drag them out, and then shoot them. That example is a pastiche of various stuff that I've seen documented but if you go online you'll see what I'm talking about. So when they constantly are being shown to lie and the only person that can be identified by name lies directly to Congress and has that lie not just refuted later but immediately refuted because the senator came prepared and knowing that they would lie this idea that anonymity is their friend is on a practical level just stupid. The part about impersonating the police, okay, so it's a federal crime. It kind of strengthens the point that I made earlier, that I could dress up like one of these guys and accompany them with just stuff I had, not even with stuff purchased in order to fit in. Go along with them, jump in cars, and as long as I did a good enough job of blending, I would hypothetically, simultaneously be committing a federal crime, but only by doing exactly what they were doing without any extra equipment. The one qualification, of course, being the firearm. But as you said, there's not even a necessary uniformity there, so all I would require would be an appropriate firearm, not something that indicated that, yes, I was part of these people who were supposed to be allowed to carry around weaponry. Now the problem I have with the idea that there is guidance to a warrant rather than actual rules, besides the fact that it's fucking ridiculous, is that whatever you're talking about, it involves a warrant, which implies legality, which implies rules. So acting as though there aren't any rules, even if they are not from the department itself, but in the obtaining and acting like the agents don't have to be aware of those rules, is indicative of their lack of the comprehension that rules are what make them actually effective in any degree, even in the evil degree that I see them to be operating under. It's like they aren't even told what the rules are so that they know how to get around them without bluntly displaying the illegality. Not even for, you know, wicked purposes has it been clarified. Well, and the thing is, if they are discussing this as an idea for some sort of maintenance of anonymity, that should be a uniform, not what they have, because you never know what's going to be traceable. Like, I used the example of the guy, I think one of the earliest examples of one of these fuckers doing something that turned out to be illegal but no one has been held accountable for. I think it was the, it was at least associated, and it used ICE. It was the Palestinian college protester who, you know, got arrested and dragged away from his pregnant wife. And there was a description where it was something like, one of the arresting guys had an Avengers t-shirt on. Now, you're trying to say that anonymity is one of, is being touted as one of their, you know, important operational powers? If you're wearing a fucking limited t-shirt, or something equally, you know, seemingly innocuous, but traceable by someone with a specific area of knowledge, not even a malicious area of knowledge, but just someone who can recognize, for example, that this isn't just an Avengers t-shirt, but one that was, you know, only available at a convention or something like that, your anonymity is shot to shit, not because, or rather, because, instead of requiring the anonymity of mass-purchased shit, you let them express their fucking Gestapo individuality in a way that left them vulnerable. This is what I mean, they can't even be good at being evil, because they don't seem to understand what anything but being a thug is.

M: Yeah, number three is just consistently infuriating anytime I see it, even if it's just a reframing of my own remarks. I mean, I talked about it as being the potential for scapegoating from internally, but in their methodology they've created a situation in which everyone has to take responsibility in ICE because there isn't even a local director or something like that before you get up to the national level. Like now they've got this coordinator that I've heard mocked a few times for acting like, well, almost literally like this was the Gestapo, to the point of jokes because reality is far too scary not to season it with some humor, even if it's dark humor. But they haven't even given their supporters a mid-level bureaucrat to defend because they know that unless they make the perfect choice that any other version will just become a joke. And even that perfect version might be undefinable. Like it doesn't, it wouldn't even have to be the arresting officer level. Just, you know, Lieutenant Carson, who has had, you know, a noble history serving the military police for 20 years and moved to this and was transferred because X, Y, and Z. There isn't an indication, either through identification or even reporting, that there is any kind of superior officer. Just this big clump of ICE agents and a couple cabinet level members at the top. Every reporting seems to indicate this lack of knowledge of who's supposed to be in charge or make decisions. It's all just so disgustingly, blandly thuggish. Like a Mad Libs, a depressingly predictable Mad Libs, where, like, if I were to feed into another silo, a sufficient number of real world examples, it feels like simply through pattern recognition, the next scenario that arose, I could feed in, you know, maybe two or three identified core points and have that silo capable of outlining the entirety of the incident without actually being told what happened. That is how predictable and bland this thug activity has become. Like to the point where with probably a depressingly few number of reported incident records, the next time something happened, I could tell that silo from even seemingly weird circumstances. Briefly, like ICE agents drove by a pastry convention, and it still would be able to at least identify the likelihood of something like, you know, they saw a brown person helping to carry a giant cake in, jumped out, and in the course of wrestling him to the ground without identifying who they were or what was going on, dragged off a sous chef and incidentally caused $5,000 worth of cake damage. The sous chef was later released 10 miles away without a ride because it turns out that he just had a really bad tan or something like that. That's how banal this shit is getting. Like there isn't even a distracting focus being given. It's just doing stupid shit over and over again, seemingly in the hope that we'll go numb. And with me reacting every time because my autistic limbic shit means that there is no numbness, just a repetition, a boring repetition of the same reflexive, outraged surges as the last 23 times. As I'm going through number two, or section two, the officer safety part, I'm realizing that whether it's planned or not, what they're setting up has no chance of going badly without causing the drawing of some kind of line of demarcation. Because when you said the cost of misjudgment is obvious, that made me think, yeah, the cost is because the courts come down like a hammer any time that they can on people who do damage to the police, to the point that they could be called excessive in many places, and it would be agreed by the judge who made the ruling, who then would try to excuse some overextension of police protection as being necessary in order to keep the police safe. And that part, that's where the realization was. It made me think, in contrast, any time that ICE has gotten involved in the court, and I know that might be hyperbole, but not by much, any time there has been any question of whether ICE has done something right, they have usually been shown to have done it so wrong that even judges who would want to grant them protection solely on the basis that they are federal officers have been unable to do so. The result is that instead of being able to take shelter behind the courts because they did it before and the courts tend to just expand the protection, instead, right out of the gate, ICE has been contradicted since January and this whole escalation to the point that no one believes them to be operating legally, even on those few occasions where it's been questioned and they've been able to demonstrate that, you know, through a certain looking-glass, it might be said that it was legal. So when you say police aren't dragged from cars and beaten, at least in part because of the protection of the courts, any incidents that arises is going to end up drawing a line because if someone, for example, is properly trained to resist, and by resist, I mean, as in a citizen resisting being kidnapped, officers who are documented as not having identified themselves and they do get their ass beaten, the courts are going to be forced into a position where they don't have any kind of referenceable history that shows these guys operate at any point in good faith and have been just completely illegal and just happened to do it in the wrong place at the wrong time. But if they don't rule for it, if the courts don't rule for these guys, suddenly it'll become this idea of these unidentified federal officers are heroes who will never be named because they won't be safe, even though they got their ass kicked while they were anonymous. It just is all so tending towards a showdown, which, if it's not designed to be fractious, is the sign of an idiot savant arranging things to proceed thusly. I don't think I have anything new to say in Part 3, but I'll reiterate what I said before about the you-noted-yourself, even though it was in passing. There's no visual chain of command. As far as I can tell, there is no chain of command. Every story that comes out seems to indicate a lack of being able to identify who's even directly in charge, not as an explicit avoidance, but as in no one knows what to do next because they don't know who's supposed to be in charge and make the decision that they need. In Part 4, we're going back to the Gestapo again, although I'm going to ask you to help back me up on this, or contradict me if I'm wrong, because I haven't got the information at my fingertips and might never have had it. But it seems to me like one of the reasons why the Gestapo was able to function was because, for whatever reason, whether because of themselves or because of their proximity to their leader, the head of the Gestapo was thought of as being, if not trustworthy, as being trusted by Hitler and also getting results that everyone wanted. That is like exactly the case, or exactly the opposite case as to what's going on now. You've got a Christinome that no one likes, that Donald keeps at an arm's length, and who is doing something that no one likes. So, it's just the exact opposite of everything. And it leads back to the idea of they're even bad at being evil, if that's what you consider this to be, which I do. I'm just trying to be objective, and if I had decided this was a good idea, I'm not exactly sure how I would have gone about it, but this is like the exact opposite of the way I would have gone about it. And from the objective judgment position, from what they've shown before in other topics, they should know, or at least they should be doing what I would be doing in their place and position and attitude. And they've done it before for things that weren't this. Like someone there, Donald or maybe the right other people, they know that when something goes right, you trumpet it. They know that if you have something to work with, people will listen to a warped version of it if you yell it loud enough, that you can muddy the waters just by shouting. They've done it so many times before, and yet with this, again, we're drawn to the extreme dichotomy of either no one knows what the fuck they're doing, or there's someone who knows exactly what they're doing and what they're trying to accomplish, is catastrophe. Because the right way of getting this to continue without the necessity of catastrophe at some point would be what they've done all the time, which is exaggerate their success, throw out a villain, and make things so noisy that people decide to stop listening. And that is exactly what they haven't done. In Part 5, I'm just going to repeat again because, if nothing else, I need to be able to remember it, and the repeating might help. There is legal precedence, even if I don't agree or like it or think it should stay there, that walks some kind of line of saying that, even if they did it illegally, that does not mean that the person arrested should go free because they actually did something. And that usually makes things murky enough that, even though there might be protests or something like that, no one is held accountable. I think that's stupid. But, if I remember correctly, that is at least close to how things work. But, in this case, you can't even hide behind that because they're doing things that are illegal, but they aren't even getting legal results out of it. They aren't going about things illegally, but also coming up with five different kingpins from across the nation that are, like I was talking about before, being held up as examples that, with an argument I would dislike but could see being used and even accepted by people who didn't think it through, using the argument that, see, this has had positive results, therefore we should keep doing it. Now, the fact that I was listening to something earlier and the governor of Illinois said something like, 97% of the people arrested in Chicago had no criminal record and had done nothing violent in the course of their arrest either. So, I think that the argument would be completely stupid because the counter-argument is, yeah, that's great, what about the other 97% who had their lives at best disrupted and traumatized if not completely interrupted for no reason except that Donald's dick felt small. But, it would at least be something for the malicious actors to work with. But, this is just illegality with illegality. There is no victory being bandied about as being a valid, if logically false, reason to keep doing this. Just bloody-mindedness.

M: The importance I was attributing to the fictional Lt. Carson is that in order to have any kind of thing for the rabid MAGA people to get behind, there needs to be something to get behind. They haven't even presented an edge case. I'll be interested to see if that ever happens. But no Lt. Carson who has an impeccable record and who did something which is tailored, at least in presentation, to look like it might have both been technically illegal but situationally approvable by the MAGA people. You know, like a record of this guy coming into a situation, taking control, the suspect breaks loose violently and is shot in the face. Or something like that. I'm not good at coming up with that kind of scenario. Or at least not on command. But the point is that it's not just a question of the people who disagree. They haven't even given anything to work with with the people who want to defend them. Yeah, that was some truth padded with some frustration. I don't want to get shot or hurt either. I'm saying that from my perspective and interpretation, it's getting to the point where instead of people carrying a gun being, you know, an automatic silencer, it's been misused and, depending on your position, poorly used, if you want to try and support these guys, to the point that being shot by an ICE officer does not seem like the worst thing that could happen for a lot of people who might be in that position. And it would behoove them to become aware of that. Like there was the case of the guy who, like within the last couple days I think, was arrested, held outside freezing to the point that he couldn't feel his fingers, driven like half an hour away, then turned out into the snow with no way to get home except walking, which he was explicitly told to do. Now that doesn't quite reach the point I was talking about, but when your options or potential options start to become something as comparable as, you know, be publicly shot in the leg, in a way that at least could galvanize people into actual action against this horrific set of illegalities, or risk frostbite and amputation by allowing them to do whatever they're doing, we're getting close to the point that I'm talking about. I appreciate and acknowledge the warning. My point isn't, you know, go yell in the streets for anarchy and freedom, but that things are being driven to the point where it's less of a decision not to get hurt and more of a decision of how you might get hurt. I'd like to kind of do a combination of emphasis and checking to make sure that I'm not off base on this. Now they're saying that 2.6% or something of the people who were arrested did have violent convictions or something similar. But you remember I said that they should take the major wins that they've had and be yelling about them at least sufficiently to obscure those numbers like the 97%. So I'm just making sure. They really haven't caught anyone above like street soldier level in these crackdowns, have they? I mean, I wouldn't be willing to wager $100, but I might in the right circumstances be willing to wager $10 at the idea that it might even be shown that while ICE was doing nothing but accidentally rounding up violent drunks and wife beaters, across the nation there were actual significant drug arrests of people here illegally done by actual police that ICE just hadn't thought to talk to or something like that. And I'm willing to believe that there is some sort of written hierarchy somewhere, but I'm not hearing anything being presented either by the people against ICE or even by the people for ICE that indicates that operationally these people are in charge of anything. It seems like no one has any kind of orders, either specific or even sufficient in the standing area to do anything except, you know, go on Crazy Jeff's impulse from a dream he had last night to go check YMCA parking lots because that's where the immigrants hang out when they haven't got any work to do or something like that. That's a fictional thing, of course, but the fact that it has to be clarified that it was fictional kind of emphasizes the point of how disorganized this entire thing seems. Outside of occasional lizard-brain, almost cellular-style coalescing around various actions without knowing what to do afterwards.

M: Yeah, with a Lt. Carson example, or the lack of a Lt. Carson, I'm going to pull up as a parallel. Back in the Black Lives Matter years, there was the incident where the woman got shot because they came for her boyfriend or something like that. And as the story came out, even in situations where no one had done anything wrong, there had been an avoidance of the right choice, it seemed. And yet people who habitually support the police looked for ways to do the moral reframing that you mentioned. Now, in that situation, it might not have been effective, but that was like a reversed situation from what we're talking about here in terms of authoritarian presentation of special cases and displaying them as though they were the standard. By now, if they had been operating with any kind of awareness, structure, and efficiency, they would have at least one case where the person arrested was actually a violent criminal who posed a threat. Like the closest thing they've been able to come up with has been some guy saying these people are a threat and showing four guys taking down an ice cream vendor or something like that, who is in no way resisting, or saying the guy was charging us when it shows them running straight at a guy whose only motion once they actually realize what's going on is to try and get away. And it's just, it kind of adds a flavor to the fear that if they aren't doing this, because they're not aware that they need to for survival. That implies that the edge case that they could amplify hasn't occurred, and that there has not been a clean enough, honest detainment by anyone involved with ICE to be able to even pretend like it was somehow noble, even if it was illegal. The same way that they haven't amplified any arrests because they haven't qualified, it implies that they haven't amplified anyone as being a hero because no one has done anything that could even be considered heroic after being run through, you know, a media whitewashing. For number two, could you do a, not a detailed maybe, but a nationwide broad sweep looking for something that would qualify as being something ICE should have been involved in but wasn't because that doesn't seem to be their mission? Like some kind of state police or, you know, other federal group perhaps. Not a long-term project culminating, but like within the last five or six months, a foreign national, here illegally, of some degree of weight in the drug trade, getting captured and without any kind of, or at least with minimal, ICE involvement. I think that captures the entirety of it. I just would like to see, we're not looking for a comprehensive list, just to see what the closest thing you can find is. It might not be a national story, but instead a statewide thing. But the point is to look for something that can be confirmed to be a, you know, lieutenant or similar person higher up on the drug trade hierarchy that was arrested and that ICE has ignored because they're worried about going after the guy who runs the taco truck. Or going wherever Donald thinks is not giving him enough respect. In part five, I'd like to clarify where my position comes from. There has been no reporting, well there's been no usable positive reporting for the pro-ICE people because that anonymity, for some reason, seems crucial. But from the, you know, case-by-case incident reports, there is consistently this descriptive air of no one knowing what to do once they have whoever it is that they've taken into custody, or illegally restrained depending on how you look at it and what's ruled later. On those occasions when they know where to take the person, if there's any complexity involved there, no one seems to know how to get the decision that they might think they need. And importantly, there is a lack of an indication that any resolution was ever found due to the intervention of someone no matter how unnamed they remained. Like, there is no, as far as I know, report that they were, you know, standing over the guy who was bleeding, arguing about whether or not he got a band-aid, and some guy rolled up or even walked by and with some form of authority told them what to do. There is, as far as I can tell, no reporting of anyone actually getting a direct order within earshot, either explicitly or by interpreting the story that's told afterwards with an eye towards trying to identify whether or not someone might have gotten guidance. It all seems to be that any time a ICE decision is required, no one knows what to do, and the resolution seems to generally come from confusion and exhaustion rather than a direct order. On those few occasions where a decision was made or guidance was issued, it sounds like usually it came from, like, unaffiliated or administrative type people. Not people actually in charge, but being told by someone who does the filing what the rules are, and then someone deciding how they were going to act like they were keeping it. And let's just tie off the Gestapo nod. Who was the guy that was in charge of the Gestapo, and was he trusted by the German people, or was he actually despised and didn't know it, or was it more complex than that, or what?