Dave Lister, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and other weird stuff
Carla Axtman
Blue Oregon contributor Chris Lowe recently laid out what I think is the comprehensive set of questions to be asked about Portland's potential new marriage with the federal Joint Terrorism Task Force. In a thoughtful, intelligent and meaningful way, Chris works to get at the core question: what is the cost-benefit analysis for Portland in entering into this agreement?
Taking the exact opposite approach in today's Oregonian is guest columnist Dave Lister. Lister seems ardently in favor of Portland joining forces with the JTTF, but his column's nebulous, murky reasoning borders on laughable.
Lister cites the alleged attempt by Mohamed Osman Mohamud to set off an explosive device near Pioneer Square in Portland at the November 26 Christmas tree lighting ceremony as reason to partner with the task force--and then discusses the Portland City Council's efforts to decide whether or not to join up with the JTTF:
Commissioner Randy Leonard has said that he still has grave concerns about re-engaging with the JTTF. Concerns about what?
Concerns that President Barack Obama's administration has some fascist agenda to trample on our liberties?
Concerns that Attorney General Eric Holder is too far to the right for Leonard's liking?
Leonard has also said that the outcome of the alleged bombing plot would have been no different were we in or out of the JTTF. I'm glad he's convinced of that; I'm sure not.
Now that Saltzman has publicly called on commissioners to reconsider, they must do so. And Mayor Sam Adams, in a tightly choreographed and typically wonkish fashion, has released a work plan under which the council will reconsider membership in the JTTF. In part, his work plan reads, "Since 2005, the nation has elected a new president and changes in related federal policies have occurred" and "in light of these and other changes the current City Council and the public should reassess the JTTF model of investigating and preventing criminal acts of terrorism."
Translation: Bush is gone so maybe it's OK.
It will be interesting to see whether commissioners can set politics aside and do the right thing when they vote on the issue in February
The way I understand this to be, the FBI identified this kid, figured out his connections, kept him from doing any harm or damage and then arrested him. All of this happened without Portland's participation in the JTTF. Isn't this the very essence of "investigating and preventing criminal acts of terrorism"?
Lister utterly fails to make his case. His column is virtually embarrassing in how it in fact basically makes the opposite case. The system currently in place...worked. How does it benefit Portland to partner with a legally questionable entity, the JTTF, when quite clearly the very circumstances that Lister says require the JTTF to manage, actually didn't in this case?
"Because I say so" is not a legitimate reason. If that makes Portland weird, so be it. Better to be thoughtful and err on the side of freedom: that's the kind of weird I can get behind.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
9:38 a.m.
Dec 23, '10
If we were part of the JTTF, would Mayor Adams have been aware of the sting operation? And is that good or bad?
10:00 a.m.
Dec 23, '10
And he manages to ignore the serious issues, not "politics and personalities," outlined by David Fidanque and Andrea Meyer in their December 1st column: Federal and FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force Still Flawed
9:45 p.m.
Dec 23, '10
The folks who are - and have been - who support joining the JTTF have been both adamant about it and strangely vague about the reasons.
If it's such a good idea, they must have a few good reasons for it.
The fact that they don't leads me to believe that this is more about self-identity than anything else. (Gee, other cities are 'fighting terrorism' by joining the JTTF so why can't Portland?)
8:33 a.m.
Dec 24, '10
Portland is weird, we have all agreed on that. If they wish to remain the only major metropolitan area outside the JTTF, then so be it. If they wish to run some risk, so be it. It would appear the downside is minimal as the federal agencies continue to protect Portland citizens from potential terror and from their own leadership.
9:15 a.m.
Dec 24, '10
What are the risks, exactly, of not joining the JTTF? What are the benefits for PDX to do this?
Nobody seems to have an answer.
This is why Portland is so awesome, frankly. People demand to know this kind of stuff, and get pissy when they don't get answers. So much better than being lemmings, in my view.
1:19 p.m.
Dec 24, '10
I agree Carla, the downside appears minimal. Go for it. As stated earlier, I have no family in Oortland and don't visit. It makes no difference to me, or the majority of Oregonians if Portland is in the JTTF or not.
4:55 p.m.
Dec 30, '10
Lister is right.
The reason we didn't join was fear of the Bush administration. Last time I checked Bush and his cronies were out of power.
If there are problems with the JTTF deal with those problems as a team member instead of a bunch of naive children.