A Seminal Moment in Portland
I have been reading the various on line accounts recently of both Mayor Potter's and my resolution that will cause certain conditions to be met before the City of Portland continues it's participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). For the most part I have been content to not engage in the blog discussions given our hearing this coming Wednesday March, 30, 2005 at 6 PM.
However, a comment over at Indymedia caused me to realize that one more post by me on the topic of the JTTF may inspire some well meaning, but so far silent, citizens to come forth.
The filing of the JTTF resolution by the Mayor and I has initiated heretofore non existent discussions between various federal officials and the city council. Some of those discussions have been positive and constructive. Others, threatening and divisive.
For me, I am more convinced than ever that the JTTF resolution -which will require that any Portland Police Officers assigned to the JTTF not have security clearances greater than that given the Police Chief and Commissioner in Charge of the Portland Police Bureau- is a reasonable and prudent requirement. It flies in the face of a represented democracy to have our Portland Police only be supervised by the FBI. All members of the Portland Police Bureau must have the check and balance of answering to the Mayor at all times...with no exceptions.
Please know that the council is receiving a lot of pressure, both locally and nationally, on this issue. Some of the concerns are legitimate. However, as Thomas Jefferson said, “He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.”
If you can, please come to the City Council hearing on this important topic this Wednesday evening at 6pm at City Hall, 1221 SW 4th Ave.
If you are unable to come, please write thoughtful and succinct emails to all of us on the city council. Each of us on the council appreciate receiving constructive feedback from the citizens we represent.
I have never worked with a group of more thoughtful and dedicated people as are now serving on the city council. However, now more than ever you need to make your position clear to us before and during the hearing this Wednesday evening
|
March 26, 2005 |
Randy Leonard | Comments (115 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Randy Leonard | Mar 26, 2005 3:06:09 PM
I was not referring to news outlets when I referred to pressure on the national scale.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 26, 2005 3:08:11 PM
This issue baffles me. To date, Agent Jordan has failed to even articulate a single reason why the Chief and the Mayor shouldn't be able to apply for security clearance.
He says it's "unprecedented." Fine, but so what? Just because it's never been done before, doesn't mean it can't be done now.
He says it's "unreasonable" but doesn't provide any reason why.
He's even said it's "unnecessary" because city officials get all the info they need through special briefings. If that's the case, then why not give 'em the clearance?
If Agent Jordan or the FBI can show reason why Mayor Potter or Chief Foxworth can reasonably be declared a security risk, then let 'em do so. Frankly, that's something that Portland voters ought to know.
But if Mayor Potter and Chief Foxworth aren't a security risk, then they should have the right to supervise their own employees.
It's either one or the other.
If Agent Jordan, or any other representative of the FBI appears before the council, I'd recommend that city commissioners ask the question, "Do you believe Mayor Potter to be a security risk? And if so, why? And if not, why not allow him to apply for clearance?"
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 26, 2005 3:10:51 PM
Incidentally, it's clear that the FBI's suggestion that it's never been done before, that it's "unprecedented" are clearly wrong.
After all, the procedures are outlined right here at fbi.gov.
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 26, 2005 3:11:54 PM
He says it's "unprecedented." Fine, but so what? Just because it's never been done before, doesn't mean it can't be done now.
Something The Oregonian latched onto as well.
The Justice Department and the FBI will not -- and should not -- begin handing out top-secret clearances to a hundred mayors and a hundred city attorneys, starting in Portland.
The bizarre implication being that if some other city set the precedent, then maybe it would be okay for Portland to jump on the bandwagon.
To date, none of the arguments on the other side of this -- that I have seen anyway -- amount to much more than distortion, deception, and fear-mongering.
It's not entirely inconceivable to me that there are legitimate arguments to be made against this sort of oversight. But if there are, I wonder why no one is making them.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 26, 2005 3:18:23 PM
Incidentally, just in case you're wondering just what kinds of things the JTTF might be doing - that might be in violation of Oregon law or Portland Police policy... check out the materials obtained by the Colorado ACLU in their investigation of the Denver JTTF. Pretty clear that the Denver JTFF has been engaged in some pretty nefarious "cointelpro" -style surveillance that has nothing to do with terrorism.
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 26, 2005 3:21:20 PM
But, Kari, we're supposed to trust them.
Posted by: Richard | Mar 26, 2005 5:27:26 PM
I can't help but wonder what Randy and Tom are really hoping to gain from this?
I don't buy their stated need for the Top secret clearance.
They haven't made any case. All they have done is claim they need it "in order to provide appropriate supervision".
That's pretty weak.
This just doesn't look good and I think it puts Portland once again on the fringe.
If the city leadership is going to do something like this they need at least try and make a case and explain the practical circumstances and scenarios which prevent them from "providing appropriate supervision" if they don't get what no other city has.
The plainest of questions here is how are all of the other cities "providing appropriate supervision" of their police forces without the Top Secret clearance.
It just looks way too political, nothing to gain with more image and credibility to lose.
Randy and Tom are acting as if no clearance or sharing of anything occurs. If that were the case they would be justified.
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 26, 2005 6:01:51 PM
They haven't made any case. All they have done is claim they need it "in order to provide appropriate supervision".
Actually, they haven't simply made that claim, they've explained why this is the case (as have I, elsewhere).
At issue is the fact that the JTTF-assigned officers receive "top secret" clearance, while the Chief of Police and the Mayor have access only to "secret" clearance.
It's a wide distinction, because (as it's typically explained) while "secret" clearance lets you know who is being targeted for investigation, "top secret" clearance let you know how they arrived at decision on those targets.
That information is important because only if the officers' superiors know the how and the why can they actually determine whether or not the information which led to someone being a target was collected in violation either of ORS 181.575 or ORS 181.850.
At the "secret" level, there's no access to the hows and whys, therefore no actual oversight over the activities of the JTTF-assigned officers can take place.
Posted by: ron ledbury | Mar 26, 2005 6:10:55 PM
Don't forget they don't want to let judges see stuff either.
read some dissent about the scope of claimed authority via executive order
There are two possible options for Potter 1) cave or 2) stalemate.
The feds will look for creative, even wholly unrelated, punitive measures to convince Potter to cave. The Oregonain knows that there will be a price to pay, even if no one yet knows what that will be.
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 26, 2005 6:30:20 PM
Here's a question I've been meaning to pose. The background data is the fact that current oversight procedures rest almost entirely upon the JTTF-assigned officers self-certifying that they are in compliance with ORS 181.575 and ORS 181.850.
(Briefly: Those provisions of Oregon law prohibit state and local law enforcement officers from investigating someone solely because of their political, religious, etc. affiliations, and from acting against people whose only crime is violating Federal immigration laws.)
So here's the poser:
We don't let police officers self-certify that they are properly trained in the use of firearms, or self-certify that they didn't harass someone. So why is it good enough to let them self-certify their compliance with the above provisions of Oregon law?
Posted by: Richard | Mar 26, 2005 6:35:12 PM
That's likely the essence of this. Potter and Leonard are staunch partisans and they do not trust the Bush/Republican FBI. Randy despises Republicans period.
They ought to just tell it like it is and what they are up to. That they want to keep an eye on the Bush FBI.
The methods they are choosing I'm sure appear pretty spineless to the other side. And to some of their own as well.
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 26, 2005 6:37:23 PM
So in other words, Richard, you're going to ignore the facts of how current oversight works, and therefore avoid the legitimate debate as to whether or not it's acceptable, and simply demagogue the issue instead?
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Mar 26, 2005 6:49:05 PM
Thanks to your posts on the subject, Randy, I feel like the JTTF issue is sort of a house Blue Oregon issue. I've followed it and you with great interest. Thanks for the follow up, and thanks for continuing to try to keep citizens in the feedback loop.
After that Schiavo embarrassment, it's good to see government working with the people.
Posted by: richard | Mar 26, 2005 7:15:41 PM
b!x,
It appears to many that it is Leonard and Potter who demagogue the issue.
Potter and Leonard have not even outlined the encumbering differences between security clearance and the top secret clearance they want.
It's just yet another empty claim. One that is centered on a point that is so subjective that it can be true and false at the same time. Depending on one's politics.
Obviously because you are a big Leonard fan he says it you buy it.
So there's no debate for you, right?
Just hand over the Top Secret clearance.
If only John Kerry were President there would not be a problem.
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 26, 2005 7:21:48 PM
Potter and Leonard have not even outlined the encumbering differences between security clearance and the top secret clearance they want.
Yes, they have. As have I, repeatedly both here and at Portland Communique. That you ignore the existence of such evidence does not mean that it does not exist.
Obviously because you are a big Leonard fan he says it you buy it.
Ask the Commissioner sometime about the crap I've given him on various issues if you think I'm just some fawning political sycophant here.
Beyond that, my position rests not one whit on what he or the Mayor have said I've spent the past several months researching and reporting on how the JTTF functions, what the agreement says, and what oversight procedures are in place. My position is based upon the facts of the situation, and my opinion that the facts of the situation do not amount to enough oversight.
Anyone here who has followed my work on this topic knows damn well that what I argue about this issue isn't based on reflex or on party. It's based upon an informed opinion.
As I said, there are two legitimate positions to take on the matter of current oversight: You can beleve it's enough, or you can beleive it's inadequate. Thus far, however, you've demonstrated no grasp of the facts, which is a predicate for taking an informed position on either side.
It's you, not me, who is taking a position out of reflexive partisan positioning.
Posted by: andrew kaza | Mar 26, 2005 7:34:54 PM
Richard et al:
Kari mentioned cointelpro.
As one whose brother was targeted by the FBI's cointelpro operation in the '60s (for anti-war protests), it's safe to say I share the concerns of Messrs. Potter & Leonard.
Of course, that was over 35 yrs. ago but we all have a more recent reminder of FBI abuse...the case of Brandon Mayfield.
Personally, I am far more concerned about an act of terrorism (like that against Mr. Mayfield) by our FBI than by members of Al Quaida infiltrating the NW. I certainly hope our elected officials will continue to work as hard as possible to maintain some control over any local resources being given to Federal authorities.
Demagogue? no. Memory jog? yes.
Posted by: Jenson | Mar 26, 2005 7:48:02 PM
Randy,
No matter the scrutiny. No matter the intense feelings of some. Do not budge an inch when it comes to ensuring that the police force in this city have proper oversight. I regret to think that we have been made so fearful of the unknown that we are now willing to allow a new rule of law to reign throughout the land.
America is not in such danger as to necessitate this bold move toward demagogic law enforcement. In the moment we might think otherwise, but our fear should never overshadow sound judgment. I trust in what you decide because you work hard to create public policy in our best interest, even when we don't know where our interests lie.
Posted by: Richard | Mar 26, 2005 8:21:37 PM
One true Blue b1x,
Look genius, get over yourself. You haven't the slightest idea what the extent of information is learned with Top Secret. You don't have any clearance. Your surmising is only wrapping this up into a neat little narrow minded bundle so you can pretend you have it figured out.
So you think the Portland City Council is the only thing preventing a whole bunch of Oregonians from being victimized by the FBI. Well, good for you. Put yourself in the fringe category.
Did it not occur to you that Top Secret reveals far more than the simple,
>>>Whether or not the information which led to someone being a target was collected in violation either of ORS 181.575 or ORS 181.850.<<<
That there are abundant reasons why there is a need to know firewall between clearance and top secret?
There are decades of intelligence matters and operations behind the need to keep secret many things.
No other city officials in the country have Top Secret clearance and it's for good reasons. They never had it during the Clinton years and Potter and company won't now.
The good reasons, which you can't even imagine, don't included the rampant victimizing of US citizens.
IMO.
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 26, 2005 8:32:05 PM
Since you're such a fan, Richard, of people not beating around the bush and simply saying what they mean, answer this simple question:
Do you support officers of the Portland Police Bureau having the authority to self-certify that they are in compliance with Oregon law?
Posted by: Federalist | Mar 26, 2005 8:53:35 PM
Does it bug anybody else that Randy Leonard is functionally illiterate? He writes like George W. sounds:
"The filing of the JTTF resolution by the Mayor and I has initiated heretofore non existence discussions ..."
For you public school grads, it's "by the Mayor and me" - as in "by us". I won't bother with the rest of his post.
If the FBI really wants this deal, they should come back with a counter-offer of two secret decoder rings and honorary titles of "Special Super Duper Agent" - that'll appease Potter and Leonard, and make 'em feel all grown up and included and important, which is what this is all about.
This nonsense about being kept in the loop is hooey. Neither of them needs Top Secret (or any other) clearance in order to know what their officers are doing, as the reports can be redacted to remove classified details. It's one thing to know that Officer X spent last night tailing suspect Y, and quite another to know suspect Y's identity, or how the tailing is being done, or who the informer is, or where the bug is planted, etc.
Giving out Top Secret clearances like candy would be a mistake, and spending the 9 months per person per clearance needed (with at least one agent if not more working on each clearance application) - if multiplied by 100 cities - would be a significant drain on FBI resources.
And frankly I wouldn't trust Leonard with the data even if he passed the background check - he'd be too tempted to use secret information for his own partisan political agenda. (Potter I haven't formed an opinion on, yet.)
If the real goal is police staff oversight, no such clearance is necessary. If the real goal is FBI oversight, then let Potter/Leonard propose that a third person, say an Oregon judge or retired judge, should get the Top Secret clearance (or better, find one who has it already) and periodically review the FBI's work for infringement on civil rights.
-Federalist1
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 26, 2005 9:01:03 PM
This nonsense about being kept in the loop is hooey. Neither of them needs Top Secret (or any other) clearance in order to know what their officers are doing, as the reports can be redacted to remove classified details. It's one thing to know that Officer X spent last night tailing suspect Y, and quite another to know suspect Y's identity, or how the tailing is being done, or who the informer is, or where the bug is planted, etc.
It's also one thing to know the target of investigations (as the secret clearance allows) and another thing to know what information made that person a target and how it was collected. Only by knowing the information and how it was collected can there be a guarantee that the officers are not violating the Oregon laws at issue here.
And frankly I wouldn't trust Leonard with the data even if he passed the background check - he'd be too tempted to use secret information for his own partisan political agenda. (Potter I haven't formed an opinion on, yet.)
With this, you've quite appropriately managed only to demonstrate the very illiteracy of which you accuse Commissioner Leonard. Nothing in the resolution in question would give him any clearance whatsoever, unless the Mayor designated him Commissioner-in-Charge of the Police Bureau (which isn't likely to happen). If you'd actually read the background on this issue, you'd know this.
Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 26, 2005 9:11:23 PM
Randy, hold firm. I'll be sending a formal email in support next week. You're right on this--there's absolutely no reason for Portland officials to allow federal officials the ability to circumvent our local laws in order to do their work.
Agent Jordan has proven himself nearly as dismissive of the substantive argument, as folks like Richard and federalist have. Their reactions have less to do with the responsibility of localities to uphold their own laws, and more to do with simple demagogy and ridicule designed to intimidate people into going along.
The Schiavo case should make crystal clear that localities need to be on close watch for federal encroachment. The news that perhaps 2 or 3 Pinellas deputies were all that stood in the way of a state kidnapping of Terri Schiavo, sends chills up my spine. Tom DeLay's use of federal law enforcement to track recalcitrant Democrats in Texas during the redistricting battle, is another example. And of course there's our own experience, when federal agents sought to have Oregon violate its profiling and detention laws by cooperating with the FBI shortly after 9/11.
There's no doubt that federal agencies should have access to local resources in order to better coordinate investigations. I can't find a single substantive reason to prevent the necessary sharing of information to the top cop and the top politician, so that it simply EQUALS the information of those in their employ. Demanding that the boss not know what the employee knows, is a recipe for disaster.
Stick with this, Randy. You're on the right track.
TJ
Posted by: Richard | Mar 26, 2005 10:01:07 PM
b!x asks,
>>Do you support officers of the Portland Police Bureau having the authority to self-certify that they are in compliance with Oregon law?<<
How can I be sarcastic enough?
Ya and all of our cops must prove/certify themselves innocent of violating all Oregon laws because they are guilty until proven/certified innocent.
b!x you're a partisan paranoid making excuses for the Portland fringe of which you are a member. Plenty of Democrats know extremism when they see it as well.
You think you got it all figured out but there is no chance of the Top Secret clearance, none.
I can't even imagine what would motivate the FBI to bend to the ridiculous lefty fringe in Portland. It's just another embarrassment. At the end of the day Potter and Leonard will have nothing but guys like you telling them how marvelous they are. Big deal.
Big fish swimming around in their little pond.
They won't have the Top Secret access. They won't have more support. They will have less credibility and a steeper hill to climb with critical issues before the public.
They gain nothing. So tell me b!xy, what is the point of them embarrassing themselves and Portland?
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 26, 2005 10:07:54 PM
Ya and all of our cops must prove/certify themselves innocent of violating all Oregon laws because they are guilty until proven/certified innocent.
So is this a yes or a no? Because that's the way it currently functions: The JTTF-assigned officers self-cerfity that they are in compliance with Oregon law.
So, again, do you support this or not?
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 26, 2005 10:12:28 PM
Or, to pull back to a larger point for a minute. Richard accused me of believing there was no debate. In fact, what I've said repeatedly is that there is a totally legitimate debate to be had from a public policy standpoint, and it's fairly simple: Is self-certification by the officers themselves sufficient oversight or not?
That's the debate, and I have done precisely the opposite of claiming it doesn't exist -- I've tried, in fact, to get you to actually have that debate.
Instead, you toss around accusations of political motives without once engaging in the legitimate debate which arises from the actual facts at hand.
So, like, wake me when you want to have the debate you claim I'm somehow avoiding.
Posted by: Sid | Mar 26, 2005 11:08:43 PM
In considering what the Denver JTTF was involved in and the Mayfield case in pdx, I'd feel a little more assured about the security of our constitutional liberties if the police chief, the Mayor, and Commissioner in Charge of the Portland Police Bureau had the top secret clearance to review information on the JTTF.
If some of our elected officials were to get such clearance, the FBI agents and police officers involved will be more cognizant of any Oregon laws that pertain to our civil liberties. Right now, they can just brush it off and don't even need to remind themselves to think twice about whether or not they might be violating such laws. Simply put, it doesn't matter if no one is watching.
It's the check we need to keep the balance.
Posted by: Sam Clemme | Mar 27, 2005 1:00:14 AM
Federalist1 says:
"Does it bug anybody else that Randy Leonard is functionally illiterate?"
I prefer earnest illiteracy over erudite pomposity.
Posted by: Jon | Mar 27, 2005 1:14:31 AM
Personally, I am far more concerned about an act of terrorism (like that against Mr. Mayfield) by our FBI than by members of Al Quaida infiltrating the NW.
That is one truly telling statement. What happend to Mr Mayfield was sad, but hardly terrorism. I suppose you think the Portland Seven (or Six if you take out the dead one) were railroaded right? And I assume if Kerry was elected, this would be a moot point? That the threat of terrorism would just fade away like a bad fart?
I really dont see a need for them to have Top Secret clearance, and I would be worried about what they would do with certain information if they had said clearance...can they be trusted with it? Would something leak that could threaten the PPB officers or members of the FBI?
And do Leonard and Potter maybe have something in their past that they would not get the clearance at all? Maybe thats why they are making an issue of it in the first place.
If they keep pushing this, the FBI may well pull its Oregon office altogether. Would that make us safer?
I have news for Leonard and Potter...if something happens here because of their (in)actions with the JTTF, I will hold them personally responsible for not protecting my family.
Posted by: Michael Tabor | Mar 27, 2005 5:05:28 AM
Oh Richard !
Oh Jon !
You both are trying to spread the trumped up fear that we need the FBI to keep us safe and only they have the proper clearance to watch over us
Ha ha ha these are the same ones that are lying/spying and have arresting hundreds of suspects of terror since the 911 and so far have charged only one (just one) with terrorism.... What is that all about? Where are all these sleeper cells? Is this some of the same groups who told us about phoney WMD?
Check out this to help explain the terror scare TERROR NIGHTMARE
Calm down nobody is coming to Portland to get us and you should be watching your own Federal Government. The CIA and FBI have probably caused more problems in this whole mess then have done any good. From botched arrests to illegal spying to violating constitutional laws to over seas torturing. So they are certainly not to run unchecked with our city officers. Thank god some people out here are doing their homework instead of falling down helpless to the Fear Mongers claim that nobody needs to watch over them and 'they' are going to save us. Ha
I fear this Secret Government of Ours we now all of a sudden have, way more than anything they can help us with!Lots of mistakes from these guys.
So 'read up'as B!X suggested on this Resolution that Tom & Randy have presented and you will see that the Safety and Constitution and Oversight process will serve everybody Honestly. Which probably will scare the secret scammers that are trolling out there pushing fear as they take freedom away.
By the way, is this same group of guys who are talking about all this Terror, the same one’s who years ago used to say that "the Russians are coming?"
ha!
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 27, 2005 7:10:32 AM
If they keep pushing this, the FBI may well pull its Oregon office altogether. Would that make us safer?
This is ludicrous. Even the Feds aren't making any such rumblings.
One other note, to people who share my opinion on JTTF oversight: Loosely throwing around the word "terrorism" doesn't help convince people that we're arguing from a rational standpoint.
Leave the overheated and nonsensical rhetoric to the other side, please.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Mar 27, 2005 8:32:13 AM
To those opposed to this position, I have one very simple question:
Do you believe Mayor Potter, a former police chief, and Chief Foxworth to be a security risk?
If so, why? And if not, why not allow them to apply for clearance?
(Note that I emphasize "apply for". Not "be automagically granted", just apply...)
Posted by: BOHICA | Mar 27, 2005 8:55:56 AM
Kari Chisholm asks;
"Do you believe Mayor Potter, a former police chief, and Chief Foxworth to be a security risk? If so, why?"
Of course they are a security risk, they went down and talked to the godless protestors at Terry Shrunk Plaza on inauguration day. What could they have been thinking to dare to even speak with the enemies of "Dear Leader"?
-snark off-
Posted by: Randy Leonard | Mar 27, 2005 9:44:02 AM
Thanks, Sam...I think.
Posted by: Jon | Mar 27, 2005 12:27:08 PM
why not allow them to apply for clearance?
Have they even tried to apply? I dont think they have. I think their whole bitch is making an issue that they were not offered said clearance up front. (No mayor or police chief in any city was.)
As for those asking about "sleeper cells"....we have already had one. Do you think there is a slight possibility there could be more?
As for the FBI, I never said they were our "saviors". But I think I trust them a bit more than the dopes running Portland.
Posted by: Jon | Mar 27, 2005 12:33:45 PM
Oh, and the Oregonian said the Feds have offered to let Foxworth apply for Top Secret clearance.
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 27, 2005 12:37:19 PM
Have they even tried to apply? I dont think they have. I think their whole bitch is making an issue that they were not offered said clearance up front. (No mayor or police chief in any city was.)
Yeah, we had to fight to get the clearances available now. If we hadn't, they never would have happened.
Secondly, the point in this case is Oregon has its own specific laws which our own officers must follow, and the FBI doesn't check to see if they are being followed. We have to do that. And without clearance equivalency, we can't.
As for those asking about "sleeper cells"....we have already had one. Do you think there is a slight possibility there could be more?
Of course, this "cell" was a small set of idiots who thought going to Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban would be a good idea. Which is stupid and wrong, to be sure, but it's not like they were sitting around trying to plot exploding a dirty bomb in downtown Portland.
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 27, 2005 12:42:00 PM
Secondly, the point in this case is Oregon has its own specific laws which our own officers must follow, and the FBI doesn't check to see if they are being followed. We have to do that. And without clearance equivalency, we can't.
By the way, my point in saying the above is that our case may pssibly be somewhat unique, because we have these two provisions of Oregon law which our officers must follow, and which the FBI doesn't pay attention to.
In other cities with JTTFs, they may not have similar state laws in effect. But we do have such laws, and therefore have related requirements to make sure those laws are respected.
Posted by: Jon | Mar 27, 2005 12:46:26 PM
Of course, this "cell" was a small set of idiots who thought going to Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban would be a good idea. Which is stupid and wrong, to be sure, but it's not like they were sitting around trying to plot exploding a dirty bomb in downtown Portland.
If I remember correctly, there was also evidence they were planning on shooting up a local school.
Posted by: Jon | Mar 27, 2005 12:48:49 PM
By the way, my point in saying the above is that our case may pssibly be somewhat unique, because we have these two provisions of Oregon law which our officers must follow, and which the FBI doesn't pay attention to.
I would hope the two officers involved would know the laws enough to know if they were breaking one.
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 27, 2005 1:04:37 PM
If I remember correctly, there was also evidence they were planning on shooting up a local school.
Actually, one witness said that one of the men at some point talked about shooting up a Jewish school. As far as I know, that's the only mention of this.
I would hope the two officers involved would know the laws enough to know if they were breaking one.
Officers also hopefully know the proper use of a firearm, but we don't let them self-certify that they are using them properly.
Posted by: paul gronke | Mar 27, 2005 1:28:12 PM
Randy,
I'm not sure where I stand on this.
I am concerned about the spectre of the FBI conducting extensive background checks (required for top secret clearances), including administering regular polygraphs, to our elected officials. What do we do if an elected official fails the clearance? How long before an enterprising reporter uncovers the reason?
While I applaud your desire to make sure the Police force receives proper oversight, I'm less sure that this is a vital issue in representative democracy. In an indirect way, we have control over the FBI via the executive branch of the Federal Government.
The Portland Police are a local force, of course. This is the inherent tension in trying to create a system where interbranch sharing of information and intelligence is possible. It is going to be impossible to set up a system where federal, state, and local authority is completely coherent.
Unlike b!x, I don't minimize the threat; the appearance of the "Portland 7" was pretty shocking (and constantly underplayed by many in this community). The report from the 9/11 Commission was pretty damning; and lack of interbranch and intergovernmental cooperation was one of the key points.
And I suppose also unlike b!x, while I share his suspicion of the FBI, I'm not sure why I should be particularly confident that giving the Mayor clearance is a check. What does that mean? If the Mayor decided that a JTTF target was poorly chosen, what is his recourse? What would he do? Go public? Stop the investigation? Doesn't the Mayor have to defer to the Chief of Police on these judgments anyway?
I suppose I haven't figured out this key point: why secret clearance would not give sufficient oversight, and why clearance equal to the police officers is required.
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 27, 2005 1:41:00 PM
Unlike b!x, I don't minimize the threat; the appearance of the "Portland 7" was pretty shocking (and constantly underplayed by many in this community).
I didn't minimize the threat, I specified what the threat in that case was and what it wasn't. What it wasn't was a threat against the City of Portland. It's important to make the distinction -- not because they were not engaged in something stupid, wrong, and criminal, but because they weren't a "terrorist cell" as so many people in this debate like to claim. They sought to wage war on the battlefield with the Taliban. That's not terrorism, even though it is siding with America's enemy.
I suppose I haven't figured out this key point: why secret clearance would not give sufficient oversight, and why clearance equal to the police officers is required.
Well, the central issue is this: Is the self-certification by Portland Police Bureau pesonnel assigned to the JTTF that they are in compliance with the "181 laws" sufficient oversight or not?
Currently, that's what the oversight amounts to: Self-certification. The currently-approved "secret" clearances only let the Chief and the Mayor know who is being targeted. They don't allow them to know why they are being targeted. And it's the why (or, more specifically, the question of how the decision to make someone a target was made) which goes directly to the provisions of ORS 181.575 and ORS 181.850.
Posted by: allehseya | Mar 27, 2005 1:41:44 PM
Please accept this as my public testimony.
At the risk of being redundant, there is only one question left and I hereby go on record that the PJTTF must allow for legal oversight (aka: City Attorney) to ensure that officers assigned to JTTF cases comply with state law.
The question of Potter being considered for clearance is a non-issue. According to the Reuters article, The FBI has already gone on record stating that they would consider giving the clearance to the current Chief of Police. This being the case, logic would dictate that they should consider making the ‘unprecedented move’ to extend the same consideration to Mayor Tom Potter due to his former experience as Chief of Police himself. This consideration would be based on the fact that Potter has the same training to clear whatever credentials the current Chief would have to meet.
So lets assume that the FBI will consider the above. The only question left is whether or not clearance should be assigned to the City Attorney as well.
Please correct me if I'm wrong in any of the following, but my understanding is as follows:
As confirmed by Commissioner Leonard, the entirety of this issue is centered around the fact that the MoU agreement is set up in such a way that has ”JTTF-assigned officers self-certifying that they are in compliance with Oregon law” This is a valid concern in light of the statement from Special Agent-in-Charge Robert Jordan that "the FBI does not supervise their investigations to see if they comply with state law." Mayor Potter and Commissioner Leonard merely seek to revisit the MoU to adjust for this lack of oversight.
The state laws referred to (OR 181 laws) ensure the civil liberty rights of Oregon citizens. They represent the process of accountability that serves to ensure our civil liberties and protects them from potential violation.
The concern of protecting civil liberties in the midst of local (police) and national (federal) investigations is not unique to Oregon. As b!X has stated, “the FBI, through at least one JTTF in another city (Denver), in fact has investigated people solely because of their religious or political affiliations. Such investigations that are undertaken in Denver would violate the civil liberties that our 181 laws are designed to ensure here in Oregon.
It’s interesting to note that the situation in Denver is such that they have looked to Portland’s own model ordinance that led to the creation of the Independent Police Review Committee (IPR) and the Citizen Review Council (CRC) here to such a degree that they have hired our (soon to be former) director, Richard Rosenthal to manage their police oversight system. This indicates that the concern for oversight in the way investigations are conducted -- especially as they relate to how they may or may not compromise our civil liberties -- is not a concern unique to Portland and it further indicates what b!X rightly states elsewhere regarding our 181 laws “Oregon, rightly and with forethought, got ahead of the curve and passed a firm state statute with this prohibition.”
The question is, if the FBI doesn’t ensure the civil liberties that our state laws are designed to protect, who will? As it currently stands – the officers themselves do. In Denver, it is becoming apparent that isn’t enough and in Portland – it isn’t either. Furthermore, the clearance granted to Mayor Potter (correct me if I’m wrong here) wouldn’t, alone, ensure it. Law is what ensures law – as such the clearance would need to be extended to the City Attorney” as well. As this is part of the proposal in revisiting the JTTF, I fully support our councilmen in the "unprecedented move" of Portland being the first to lead the way in protecting our civil liberties in these times -- and act as a model for other cities, such as Denver, to follow.
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 27, 2005 1:49:39 PM
The FBI has already gone on record stating that they would consider giving the clearance to the current Chief of Police. This being the case, logic would dictate that they should consider making the ‘unprecedented move’ to extend the same consideration to Mayor Tom Potter due to his former experience as Chief of Police himself.
The other issue here was pointed out by one of my readers over at Communique. Back before the Chief and Mayor were told they could apply for the current "secret" clearance, Robert Jordan said that the FBI only extends clearance to people deemed "legitimate law enforcement officials". By which he meant police chiefs and police commissioners.
In Portland, the police commissioner happens to be an elected member of the City Council, traditionally the Mayor. Hence, Vera Katz was permitted to apply for the "secret" clearance.
So, now that Jordan has said that Chief Foxworth can apply for (although not necessarily get) "top secret" clearance, the question goes back to why our "police commissioner" wont be granted the same thing.
Posted by: Michael | Mar 27, 2005 3:14:59 PM
Randy I cannot speak for my fellow
Libertarians on this, but we have discussed
this issue and the general feeling is not
to give an inch. Our civil liberties
have been eroding slowly and this trend needs
to be reversed. If the FBI cannot operate
within the guidelines established by City Council
then perhaps they need to look at how they do
things. "TOP SECRET" is too often slapped
on documents and having been in the service
I do know that often it has no special meaning.
Hell Presidents of the United States have even
ignored the label when it was politically expedient.
Never given an inch.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Mar 27, 2005 11:22:48 PM
Thank you, Commisioner Leonard, for taking the heat on this. Stand firm!
Posted by: Mike | Mar 28, 2005 8:59:46 AM
Tangent question: Should the feds consider top secret clearance for some one who would attribute what I believe (but may be mistaken) is a Franklin quote to Jefferson twice in one month? :) :)
Posted by: Nerd | Mar 28, 2005 9:21:17 AM
Apparently, Franklin wrote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
This sentence was much used in the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto of
Franklin’s “Historical Review,”
also appropriate Franklinism:
"It is hard for an empty bag to stand upright."
Internet. As Jane Addams said: "Good for misquotations, but also good for research."
Posted by: allehseya | Mar 28, 2005 10:42:31 AM
This sentence was much used in the Revolutionary period. As such, many people said it. Its origin matters less than the context in which it is / was used. In this case, the context applies.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: The One True b!X | Mar 26, 2005 3:02:41 PM
Please know that the council is receiving a lot of pressure, both locally and nationally, on this issue.
National pressure? Any details on that? I'm curious because while the story has managed to make it around to various local news outlets around the country via the AP, I've yet to find any mention of it on national news outlets. So I'm wondering what interests may be passing around news of the development on their own.