By John Q. Hosedrinker 
“Operation Metro Surge” in Minnesota is characterized by a significant federal deployment, with over 3,000 agents accused of violating constitutional rights. Lawsuits filed by state and city officials allege the federal government has unlawfully usurped state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and engaged in viewpoint discrimination against peaceful protesters, infringing on First Amendment protections. Furthermore, agents are accused of conducting warrantless searches, racial profiling, and refusing identification, violating Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The article argues these actions, coupled with inadequate training and unclear use-of-force policies, have led to predictable and avoidable civilian deaths, such as those of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, who were killed under circumstances experts deem preventable through standard policing practices.
Read the original article here
The death of Alex Pretti, a deeply tragic event that has understandably ignited outrage, should serve as the definitive moment for the abolition of ICE. The notion that this agency, or any like it, can continue to operate in its current form after such a profound failure of justice is, frankly, unfathomable. The narrative that suggests a single, isolated incident should not be the end of an entire agency is disingenuous when that incident exposes such systemic rot.
ICE, or more accurately, the agents involved who operated under its umbrella, disarmed Pretti, subjected him to extreme violence, and then, in essence, executed him. This is not hyperbole; it is a stark, chilling description of what transpired. The subsequent lack of serious accountability, with only one resignation and no charges filed, further underscores the urgent need for ICE’s complete dissolution. The idea that this was a turning point, a moment of reform, feels tragically hollow when the fundamental structures allowing such atrocities to occur remain firmly in place.
It’s particularly disturbing that the agents involved were not inexperienced newcomers, but rather veterans who had been with the agency for close to a decade. This isn’t a case of a few “trigger-happy greenhorns” being pushed out with inadequate training; this points to a deeply ingrained issue within the agency itself. The failures here are not a recent aberration, but rather indicative of a long-standing problem that predates any specific administration or directive.
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security, by merging numerous agencies post-9/11, was a monumental structural error. This behemoth of an organization is so vast and complex that effective oversight becomes an almost insurmountable challenge. This lack of clear accountability allows for individuals within such agencies to evade responsibility, creating an environment where rogue actions can go unpunished, and the agency’s mission can become corrupted.
The hiring and retention of agents with questionable psychological profiles and a documented history of failing to follow basic protocols should never have been permitted. If proper psychological evaluations were conducted, at least one of these individuals should have been barred from service from the outset. Furthermore, for agents to remain on the job for years with a track record of endangering themselves, their colleagues, and the public, speaks volumes about the agency’s internal vetting and disciplinary processes, or lack thereof.
The argument that ending ICE is an unrealistic overreach, akin to dismantling all local police forces due to individual misconduct, misses the crucial distinction. This isn’t about a single botched arrest or an isolated case of excessive force. This is about a pattern of behavior and a structural inability within ICE to prevent such extreme violence and ensure accountability. The agency’s continued funding and expansion, even under Democratic leadership, signals a disturbing complacency and a willingness to overlook the fundamental ethical failures that ICE represents.
The assertion that Pretti brought a gun to an active ICE investigation and that his gun accidentally discharged is a misleading narrative, often used to justify excessive force. Accounts suggest Pretti was disarmed before any accidental discharge occurred, and the subsequent actions taken against him were undeniably lethal. The claim that he “did everything he could do wrong” seems to conveniently ignore the fact that he was disarmed and then subjected to a brutal, fatal assault.
The idea that government agencies will always exist and that ICE is merely a manifestation of necessary immigration enforcement overlooks the fundamental question of *how* that enforcement is conducted. The argument that “only two options” exist—masked violent thugs or no government at all—is a blatant false equivalence designed to shut down critical discourse. The administration’s deliberate policy of deploying federal agents into populated areas with insufficient training, actively instigating conflict, cannot be brushed aside as mere happenstance. This proactive approach, distinct from any perceived instigation in other tragic incidents, points to a deliberate creation of a volatile environment.
The comparison to historical movements like the Brownshirts is not baseless when examining the potential for unchecked power and the erosion of civil liberties within agencies operating with limited oversight. The blatant disregard for constitutional rights and the systematic denial of due process are deeply concerning parallels. The persistent disinformation and attempts to muddy the waters surrounding incidents like Pretti’s death are tactics designed to deflect from the core issue: the unsuitability of ICE as a functioning, just institution.
The argument that Pretti’s actions somehow justify his death is a dangerous deflection. No individual’s actions, however misguided, should necessitate being disarmed, beaten, and then executed. The claim that his gun went off accidentally, when evidence suggests he was disarmed first, requires rigorous, independent investigation, not apologist pronouncements.
Ultimately, the death of Alex Pretti is not just a tragedy; it is a symptom of a deeply flawed and dangerous institution. The lack of accountability, the veteran status of the agents involved, and the very structure of ICE all point to a system that is beyond reform. It is time to recognize that the continued existence of ICE represents a clear and present danger to the principles of justice and human rights, and its abolition is not only necessary but long overdue. The fight for accountability must continue, demanding that those responsible for Pretti’s death face genuine justice and that ICE itself is finally dismantled.