November 03, 2004
Withdraw From The Joint Terrorism Task Force
Now More Than Ever
It is now more important than ever, we must take a moment to stress, that the City Council refuse to renew Portland's participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Members of City Council: It's time to put up or shut up.
(Originally scheduled for today, the matter of JTTF reauthorization now appears to be scheduled for December 22 at 10:30 AM.)
Resolutions of protest (like that against the USA PATRIOT Act) are nice, and not entirely unimportant. But now our City must refuse to aid and abet this administration, at each and every opportunity which presents itself. We have before us at least four more years of unaccountable abuse of power, and as it currently stands, Portland approves.
Commissioners Francesconi, Leonard, Saltzman, and Sten: Will your policies be party to this?
Mayor Katz: Is that the legacy you want to leave?
Comments (58)
Brian on 03 Nov 2004
"But now our City must refuse to aid and abet this administration, at each and every opportunity which presents itself."
To The Barricades! Sounds great-if you spend your weekdays hanging out in the Red and Black bitching about globalization. I've got a deal: Portland pulls out, and, in exchange, no federal dollars flow to Portland. Highways, schools, Veterans benefits, Section 8, etc...you name it (I don't have time to), we'll turn it down.
Ken Spice on 03 Nov 2004
Whoa, Brian's ready to play hard ball! After all, there are knock-off Rubic-cubes being sold in Oregon!
http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/front_page/109896512934940.xml?oregonian?fpfp
doretta on 03 Nov 2004
Brian, what does the one have to do with the other? I don't remember signing up to trade my civil liberties for section 8 vouchers or transportation funding.
Anyway, if you want to talk federal dollars did you miss the point that the feds get those dollars from us in the first place and historically we've been one of the states that puts in more than we get back? By your argument, we should be telling them what to do, not vice versa.
Randy Leonard on 03 Nov 2004
There are many things those of us at the local level are powerless to influence at the federal level.
I strongly believe our participation in the Joint Terrorism Task force is not one of them.
The One True b!X on 03 Nov 2004
Yeah in my bilious haste today, I neglected to re-point out to people Commissioner Leonard's post on Blue Oregon awhile back asking for input about the JTTF. He and Commissioner Sten appear ready to vote against renewal.
Last I saw somewhere in the press, however, the other three Council members are not.
So it comes down to what leverage we can think of to convince one other Council member that it's time to draw a line.
allehseya on 03 Nov 2004
Re: Post #5
Perhaps a starting point for addressing the issue and our stance / concerns may begin with how the Portland police deal with public demonstrations and civil protests in general. Will continued involvement in the JTTF potentially justify and escalate questionable control efforts that police have unnecessarily taken in Public and Open protest rallies, which are within our civil rights to engage in? This may open up dialogue regarding our concerns surrounding police brutality, civil liberties and accountability in general – leading to public demands for specifics that ensure that our involvement with the JTTF wouldn’t be abused to censor or infringe upon the rights of the citizens and of a democracy it is intended to protect.
Jack Bog on 04 Nov 2004
Eventually, this probably will get tied to federal funding. If enough municipalities drop out, this Congress (GOP all the way once again) will just pass a law saying that you lose federal funding for this-or-that if you don't participate. And Portland will come running back.
There's this thing in the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause -- look into it. City government fighting federal government is Don Quixote. Pass a nice resolution if you like, but it will do little good in the long run.
Gary Marschke on 04 Nov 2004
"City government fighting federal government is Don Quixote. Pass a nice resolution if you like, but it will do little good in the long run."
See Webster's definition of apathy.
It's that type of thinking that got Bush re-elected! If we don't make the stands, however small and quixotic, then they continue to win and their agenda further intrudes on our lives and liberties. It's bad enough that we now have a lame duck in the White House who is accountable to no-one. We can't afford to roll over and align with the "will do anything for federal funds" community. This goes way beyond streets and public transportation. Once again it's time to
set the standard for others to follow.
Stand up City Commissioners and be counted! Just Say NO!
Jeff on 04 Nov 2004
Jack's suggestion raises the extremely dark prospect of a Federal government at war with blue cities (and states). Brian, at thread's head, was right on (if unwittingly so): To the barricades!
The One True b!X on 04 Nov 2004
Eventually, this probably will get tied to federal funding. If enough municipalities drop out, this Congress (GOP all the way once again) will just pass a law saying that you lose federal funding for this-or-that if you don't participate.
Cop out.
Randy Leonard on 04 Nov 2004
Interestingly, there is no federal funding that comes with out participation in the JTTF. We provide officers to the JTTF at our own expense. I am not sure which funding would be contingent upon our participation in the JTTF, but I think it would be irresponsible on any issue for us to swallow our principles in order to receive federal funding.
curious on 04 Nov 2004
From my understanding of the JTTF, dropping out would not change anything but the PPB no longer having the shared information. Without PPB, absolutely nothing changes on the federal level. So it's a net loss to Portland.
Is that an accurate assessment?
The One True b!X on 04 Nov 2004
Given that we have next-to-no idea how PPB officers are used by the JTTF, I think that's something of an open question.
Colin Boeh on 04 Nov 2004
Commish Leonard said: "but I think it would be irresponsible on any issue for us to swallow our principles in order to receive federal funding."
I respond: "What principles?"
I didn't realize that Portland had any. I know many Portlanders who are principled, but I didn't realize that a city that doesn't hold it's paramilitary storm troopers (I'm sorry, "police") accountable for murdering unarmed brown people could be considered "principled."
Mike D on 04 Nov 2004
And what principles are you speaking about, Mr. Leonard?
The principle that the City of Portland doesn't want to fight terrorism along side the federal government--well at least along side a federal government that is run by the Republicans. Oh how lofty!
Because as long as we don't participate in the war on terrorism, we won't be attacked! Osama said that last week.
Randy, just because you got re-elected in the soviet-style one-candidate election, doesn't mean YOU have a mandate.
No wonder liberal-thinking got trounced nationwide...you are all bonkers.
allehseya on 04 Nov 2004
Re: posts # 14 and 15
At the risk of speaking for Commissioner Leonard, I do believe that the principles he was referring to (and that we are concerned about becoming compromised with our participation in the JTTF) are along the lines of those envisioned by the founders of our democracy which were outlined within the Bill of Rights:
Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That, Mike D -- is liberal thinking for you.
Randy Leonard on 04 Nov 2004
Exactly.
Gary Marschke on 04 Nov 2004
I find it funny when the only people with principles (or 'morals' if you will) are those that agree with you. Sounds Bush(y) to me!
doretta on 04 Nov 2004
I want a real, principled stand based on reality as best we can determine it. Both our lives and and our constitutional liberties are too important for us to turn this into merely a symbolic political football.
If what the JTTF is doing is truly useful work in preventing terrorist attacks and is not violating anyone's constitutional rights, then I'm for it no matter who is in the White House.
If the indications are, however, that the JTTF is ineffective and thereby wasting our scarce policing resources and/or focused on dissenters instead of on genuine terrorist threats to our security, then let's get out.
Maybe we can't know for sure, but at the very least I want the mayor to get that clearance and make a judgment about which it is and relay that judgment to the council and the city.
I share Commissioner Leonard's concern about the track record of the current administration, particularly the Justice department.
From my last 30+ years of observation people like to argue that we need to "give up some freedom for security" but it never seems to work out that way in real life. In real life we seem to end up giving up freedom and getting LESS security.
As we saw in the reports of the lead-up to 9/11, law enforcement agencies are bureaucracies and they are subject to the pitfalls you find in any bureaucracy. The biggest temptation is always to focus on making sure it looks like you are doing something useful rather than actually doing something useful.
No bureaucrat wants to say to his boss, "We've been looking hard for terrorists, but they are well-schooled at hiding and we don't yet know whether or not there are any here." Much better if he can say, "Look at this big stack of files we have gathered on these suspicious characters." That all those "suspicious characters" are law-abiding citizens and not terrorists becomes a mere detail, easy to overlook.
You'll find plenty of that kind of behavior in the history of both the FBI and local law enforcement. Besides safeguarding the rights of citizens, it's the city council's job to keep the PPB out of that sort of no-win situation.
TomHiggins on 04 Nov 2004
Unlike the 36 thread here I hope folks dont feed the Trolls and we loose a chance at some real conversation.
As for Comish Leonard's comments, thanks for making me happy for putting my mark next to your name. Your comments here and your actions of past would have had me put that mark there even had many others been above and below.
Now to the issue at hand. ACT LOCAL and this is a clear case of that. Rock the feds, call them on thier jackbooted tactics and keep the Federal wolves at bay. At the same time I ask that you also look inward and see where there is JackBooted thugery in the city's policies and take them on as well.
I, at least, will support you again should those be your actions...which speak louder than troll droppings on comments threads.
-tomhiggins
Jack Bog on 04 Nov 2004
Like I said, go ahead and pass it. I remember when colleges and universities banned military recruiters from campus because of "don't ask, don't tell." That quickly ended when colleges who did so lost federally guaranteed student loans. The same thing will happen with this if it becomes the popular thing to do among municipalities.
Jack Bog on 05 Nov 2004
What if the feds threaten to pull federal funding for transit mall light rail and the aerial tram? Homer Williams and the rest of his crew will have the City Council back in bed with the FBI within two weeks. "Principles," my a*s.
allehseya on 05 Nov 2004
Re: Post #18 – a disclaimer:
The word “liberal” has suffered the grave misfortune of being reduced to a partisan slur. I used it in my last post in an effort to retrieve its ideological dignity.
I in no way meant to imply that only liberals have morals or principles. I did, however mean to stress that the morals and principles of a ‘liberal’ echo those that our democracy was founded on.
David Parsons on 05 Nov 2004
Jack Bog> "What if the feds threaten to pull federal funding for transit mall light rail and the aerial tram"
You say this as if it would be a bad thing.
Brian on 05 Nov 2004
(1) I do apologize if I've taken b/x out of context, but I reread it again, and what he's saying is to oppose the entire administration on all issues, not just re JTTF. Is that correct?
(2) Re: Holding-back fed funds as a means of twisting local arms (a venerable tradition, works both ways)...does anyone knows what our local slice of the Homeland Defense pork pie is worth? Is it in the millions? A likely starting point as blowback for posturing on JTTF.
Gary Marschke on 05 Nov 2004
JTTF is simply a federally funded means for furthering a conservative agenda that strips this country from its founding principles (oop, there's that word again). It has NOTHING to do with fighting any form of international terrorism. Instead it's a thin veil over efforts to target those that the administration sees as counterproductive to their efforts to further their own agenda of pillaging the country and the environment to line their pockets. It's intimidation in its purest and often most blatant form. And it clearly reflects an administration that won the election based on platforms of fear and predjudice.
If federal funds are tied to JTTF participation then the price of pork is too high.
Terrance D on 05 Nov 2004
I think it's great if the City of Portland starts to do its own terrorism investigations. Local entities should not outsource local issues whether on local security, education, environment, etc. I would like to see the City of Portland show the guts that Multnomah County has and pass a local income tax to take care of City issues instead of passing the buck to the counties, the state of Oregon, or the feds.
And, I hope that Commissioner Leonard will reverse the bad relationships he has built with neighborhood leaders and follow their wishes in regards to these issues instead of imposing his own agenda.
allehseya on 05 Nov 2004
Re: Post #27
“I would like to see the City of Portland show the guts that Multnomah County has and pass a local income tax to take care of City issues instead of passing the buck to the counties, the state of Oregon, or the feds.
And, I hope that Commissioner Leonard will reverse the bad relationships he has built with neighborhood leaders and follow their wishes in regards to these issues instead of imposing his own agenda.”
I’m not sure what you are specifically referring to regarding Commissioner Leonard’s relationship with neighborhood leaders and specifics would aid me in addressing this post more thoroughly – however -- it is my belief that Randy Leonard has the “guts” which you claim to admire in Multnomah County.
One of the major issues that we face here is how to fund our local schools and the ever-unpopular taxation of the homeowners being one way to maintain an existing infrastructure for that until a new one is developed.
As I see it, Commissioner Leonard, represents a person willing to make the necessary sacrifice for the greater benefit of the next generation – as a father, a homeowner, a citizen and as a Commissioner on City Council. That illustrates, in my opinion, a person that has the guts to “…take care of City issues instead of passing the buck to the counties, the state of Oregon, or the feds.”
Please do correct me if I’m off base – I’m a fairly new transplant to Portland and although I have researched each of the councilmen in this city which I have, in a short time, come to be proud to live in – I may have missed something you alluded to in your post?
disclaimer: I post this at the risk of misrepresenting Commissioner Leonards stance and would appreciate being corrected either directly by him -- or by specific sources that I can add to my research if this is the case.
allehseya on 05 Nov 2004
Added Note:
County homeowners take care of county schools via taxation. Unpopular -- yet -- it demonstrates accountability. Perhaps the City of Portland can follow that model with Businesses either in taxation or via tax incentives for businesses that address city-wide issues such as affordable housing and generating tourism revenue (one possible way of the city raising money for itself and the state)
Jim on 05 Nov 2004
Without debating the surface premise, I sense that the meta message here is that even when people have tried to stand for principle, it's been been a failure, and we ought not bother. If this was Jack's intent, I think it views the world too narrowly. When educational institutions (including local high schools) took a principled position on discrimination against gay people, the obvious indicator of success might have been whether or not that discrimination was redressed.
It wasn't.
BUT, much collateral good came about, and few people in the mainstream know about it. I know of several gay teens who said they perceived their schools to be a somewhat safer place as a result of powerful adults [in their view] taking a stand on their behalf. Given the findings a few years ago of a study of gay students in Multnomah County, wherein they described their schools as "places of terror and abuse," I conclude that standing on principles had a VERY positive outcome for them and their peers, short lived as it may have been.
Go Randy!
Brian on 05 Nov 2004
"I think it's great if the City of Portland starts to do its own terrorism investigations."
Hmmmm. We could do our own air traffic control, FDA approvals, and Coast Guard ops too.
Seriously, there is such loathing in these pages for the current Federal elites that many of you are, wittingly or unwittingly, calling to de-evolve power back to the states to escape their clutches. I am seriously down with that - along with at least 3-1/2 members of the Supreme Court - but I'm not sure that's where the left wants to go. Nor do some of the power-freaks on the right, for that matter.
As for Commish Leonard - a little respect for his public service, please. Anyone else here held an elected public office? Try it sometime. And Leonard leads with his chin, which is fun to watch.
Jack Peek on 05 Nov 2004
My thoughts on Randy Leonard and Eric Sten........my real thoughts I will keep to myself........But, I write this letter to ask for common sense not election year politics on the subject of what the real first job of any elected official is, that being security.
These officials are showing some of the folks in Portland, they would rather play "games" than do the job they are well paid for.
The "joint terror task force," Leonard is against, isn't a video game where you press "play" and "stop" and rewind...it's a deadly game with real deaths and real blood on the playing field.
I'm ashamed and angry at most of the demographics of who these people are playing too, because the terror cells we have or have potential to have don't give a damn who Randy Leonard thinks he is impressing by the ridiculous statements he was quoted on in the article.
Randy Leonard needs an "attitude adjustment" ... people like him who do not get the idea that the freedoms he claims we are risking mean nothing if we are dead!
Jack Peek
allehseya on 05 Nov 2004
Re: post #32
“the freedoms. . .we are risking mean nothing if we are dead!”
Fear is very persuasive – it is working on a mass scale. It was utilized in getting us involved in the war in Iraq. A rash move on the side of government, justified by a fear-based society. This action and those policies set in place surrounding it have proven questionable to say the least – and as such – sets a precedent for us questioning similar rash actions / reactions in continuing those policies.
There IS a middle ground – a “common ground” – where we don’t have to remain divided on the issue discussed here whether one is afraid of being attacked in Portland by terrorists or not. America’s Bill of Rights does define that common ground and represents the parameters of negotiation we should engage within when discussing matters pertaining to their defense – including our involvement in the JTTF.
Fear only serves to caution – it boggles my mind that anyone, be they democrat or republican, would be UNwilling to negotiate the specific details of how participation in the JTTF ensures both our rights and their defense -- AND -- the financial / legal means in which to do so. No (re)action should take place in a rash manner until that has been addressed and guaranteed.
Blindly risking our commonality, the one thing that should UNITE us under a democracy – renders it potentially null and void. People have died to maintain those liberties, those ‘principles’ and freedoms we discuss here.
The least we can do is not allow them to be compromised out of fear.
doretta on 06 Nov 2004
You don't even have your facts right, Jack. Many elected officials take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" not your life, but the Constitution of the United States of America.
The founders of this country had their priorities in order on that one. They understood that without freedom your life ultimately can't be defended.
Many people have died to protect those liberties you want to give away so blithely.
I don't exactly want to join that group, but if taking that chance is the only way to preserve that freedom, I'm willing.
Jack Bog on 06 Nov 2004
I'm serious when I say, I'm not opposed to the City Council doing this, if they feel it's important. But it's really a symbolic statement more than anything else.
JACK PEEK on 06 Nov 2004
If the time comes that I have to die to preserve the freedoms for which this country stands
Thanks at least for the reply.HOWEVER....The failure of the city elected to protect us and people like you as well.....will cost us all dearly in the near future.
And Doretta,You say I'm cowering...you mention Patrick Henry, nope,I'am like Paul Revere....calling attention to the fact you are cowering from the fact...there were, 7 people, caught right here in your town, with plans to kill school kids.....are you saying its OK for those kids to die? Of course you are.
This was my personal response to the lady above.
Now,my response to the rest of you folk's
Just for the record, I AGREE with you all about those who died to protect us, I agree with that 100 percent as I HAVE 2 kids in Iraq.
The problem fellow "PDXERS" is the "founding fathers" did not have a clue as to the problem of a good religon being hijacked by extreme radicals bent on killing those that do not follow their perspective of the teachings they seek.
The people who died for those liberties in all wars had more understanding then some of you...this is war, its not a war of words and posts here, it is a war unlike we have ever fought.EVER!
The idea of leaving the JTTF..was and is a political statement, Randy Leonard know's it, he know's I know it, and some of you do as well.
The left in PDX, has a "blackeye" from the election, the loyal core wants payback, but at what cost?
The rehetoric is getting scary...you folks have kids and loved ones as I do, there is too much evidence proving there are factions here now, that have one purpose, the being too eliminate us from the face of the earth
You say some of you, I COWER in my home, this is beyond me how you say such a thing.
The fact is years ago, my father a WW2 vet taught me to prepare for being a man, to protect my family, my only job even before I even provide for them, the same is true here in Portland, Randy Leonard's job is to maximize all assets to protect those who put him there.
I submitt he isn't doing that job.
doretta on 06 Nov 2004
"The problem fellow "PDXERS" is the "founding fathers" did not have a clue as to the problem of a good religon being hijacked by extreme radicals bent on killing those that do not follow their perspective of the teachings they seek."
Jack, your ignorance of history is appalling. You really think this is the first time religion has been hijacked in the service of massively murderous purposes? Get a clue. The founding fathers understood that potential all too well.
The deal is, some of us understand that Islam is not the only religion capable of being used in that way and that Arabs are not the only people susceptible to doing that.
There are Americans who think we should dump the Constitution and become a theocracy or a fascist state. Despite the oath he no doubt took upon taking office, it appears to me that one of them is currently serving as Attorney General of the United States.
I am not siding with b!X in favor of randomly spitting in the eye of the Bush administration.
I am in favor of vigorously defending the U.S. Constitution and if Randy Leonard is too, more power to him.
Randy Leonard on 06 Nov 2004
I want to make just two salient points:
First, I made it very clear last year that I expected any Portland Police Bureau officers assigned to the JTTF to be supervised by the Mayor and Police Chief with both of them receiving the appropriate security clearance. I said my vote in favor of continuing our participation in the JTTF was contingent upon the Mayor and Police Chief receiving those clearances.
In the briefings I have received in the past two weeks I have learned that while the Mayor and Police Chief have received "Secret" security clearances from the Federal Government, the Police Bureau Officers assigned to the JTTF have "Top Secret" security clearances. Therefore, those officers are involved in investigations that neither our Mayor or Police Chief will not be briefed on.
Not good enough.
Second. If the Federal Government wants our officers assigned to the JTTF the Feds should reimburse the city for those costs. Currently, we are only reimbursed for overtime and we are allowed the use of a federal vehicle for those officers assigned to the JTTF.
Here in the city, I am working to raise funds to open a closed wing at the Justice Center to house people arrested for buying, selling and manufacturing drugs. Offenses for which people are currently cited and released in Portland. Car thieves are regularly cited and released. We are opening a fire station next year for which we do not have money to hire enough firefighters to staff. We do not have enough money to house women and children who sleep on our streets and under our bridges every night.
If the Feds want us to participate in the JTTF they need to do -at minimum- two things to get my vote. First, make sure we have civilian oversight of our officers who are assigned to the JTTF and, second, reimburse the city for all costs associated with our officers assigned to the JTTF.
In carefully coming to the position I have, I do not think either of the two conditions I have outlined here are unreasonable.
Gary Marschke on 06 Nov 2004
I'm not about to claim that I fully understand all of the ramifications and implications of any of our actions as a city relative to terrorism or the JTTF.
What I DO understand is that thanks to those who have pushed an agenda based on fear and prejudice we are more divided than we have been since the days of Vietnam (not a coincidence).
I have absolutely NO trust in the declarations much less the decisions of anyone associated with the Bush administration. They have blindly and recklessly endangered this country and its future in more ways than their mishandling of the war in Iraq or the war on terrorism.
They have divided this country to get re-elected. They have mortgaged our future to line their pockets. They have successfully killed off almost 1200 of our young to protect the oil interests they represent so zealously. They continue to place their own self-interests above those of the American people and the principles of our constitution.
As much as I fear another 9-11, I fear this lame duck administration more. They're already here and in a position of power.
The JTTF is simply an extension of their willingness to go to any length to protect themselves NOT us. Just say "NO" to the JTTF!
Jack Peek on 06 Nov 2004
I have absolutely NO trust in the declarations much less the decisions of anyone associated with the Bush administration.
Gee.What the hell have I SAID? The response to all this about the JTTF is political, the above reponse was pure hate, pure politics, purely something that needs to be put aside so you can run Bill's wife in 08.
Jack Peek
William on 06 Nov 2004
Jack, I don't see the above response as being political. The functioning of the FBI is impacted by whichever administration is in power, and it HAS been impacted by the Bush administration. Thus, it is meaningful to consider which administration is in power. The behavior of the FBI during a given administration is something that can be studied, and is beyond politics.
Many of the readers of this thread are certainly anti-Bush. But let's say that we all loved Bush. Why should we pay to participate in the JTTF? Oregon already kicks more money to the Feds than it gets back--and we're not a rich state. Leonard is right here.
Let's say again that we all loved Bush. Given the reality that a bad future president could corrupt the functioning of the FBI, why should we leave a system in place that allows that corruption to hurt us? Again, Leonard is correct in demanding that we have proper oversight.
If you've been following the news, you'll probably be aware that the FBI has infiltrated groups of peace activists, and that, here in Portland, it went after Mayfield without probable cause (which is why they held him as a material witness). And don't forget that case against the Muslim in the airport with "explosives residue", either. And the government is still trying to bust Mayfield and the airport Muslim even though there's just no good evidence that either of them wants to harm us.
And if you've been following the news, you might have concerns about due process not just for those two cases. The Portland 7, regardless of whether or not they were up to no good, received suspect treatment from our government. Read: they were coerced. As for that claim that they were planning to kill kids, you really need to go back and learn about how that statement was obtained. It is public record, but you apparently think that the news media will give you decent coverage.
So, please, tell me, why is it that you think Randy's demands are unreasonable? Why is it that you think our police force can't effectively participate with the FBI to capture terrorists WITHOUT the JTTF? Do you know if the JTTF was instrumental in "busting" the Portland 7? If the JTTF was needed to "bust" them, or if it was even involved? Do you have any concerns about the erosion of our rights? When would our loss of rights begin to outweigh the terrorist threat?
JACK PEEK on 06 Nov 2004
William,GREAT POST!
The value of the JTTF is simple,its a tool. a weapon,leverage to assist with a war on terror.
Please William, we live in Portland, Oregon, where one of the Portland 7, was caught employed by the cities highest offical,is that saying Katz was involved...of course not.
It says that "sleeper cells" are everywhere, do you for one minute think they are gone?
The city has a well known documented history of "sleeper cell activity" The junior senator here said so....and was nearly hung for the comments..low and hold, there they were at a local university.
The country was attacked..not here of course so then that didn't matter,was not a problem here, but the "fire" of the elected officals to prevent the DC elected officals from even working to assist the pursuit of potential harm was an is an embarresment nationally for us.
I will stand my ground on this as all the rest of you can...it's pure politics, the timing of Leonards "call" for input was political, and he knows it. The reports of "mental problems" from folks on the left are surfacing of distress and depression over the election are showing up ,respectfully I ask for all of us to "cool it" and really consider what might happen if we all don't unite against a foe who would laugh at the idea Randy Leonard or John Kerry might want a "summitt" do discuss the possibility we could all just get along.
William on 06 Nov 2004
Jack, glad you appreciate my reply. Dialogue is important and it's what Leonard, and hopefully the rest of the board, would like.
I'll leave my somewhat positive opinion of Leonard aside for now, and will assume for a moment that he's being political. That doesn't mean one way or the other that JTTF participation is right or wrong.
I'll persist in my belief that there may be terrorist cells right here in Portland. That doesn't mean one way or the other that JTTF participation is right or wrong.
I'll still believe that the US could best fight terrorism by improving its foreign policy -- not because we'd be capitulating to the demands of a bunch of irrational extremist terrorists, but because our policy enrages ordinary and reasonable people. That doesn't make our participation in the JTTF right or wrong.
You're right, we should work to fight terrorism, but you still haven't answered any of my questions. When Oregon gives the Feds more than it gets back, isn't it reasonable to ask the Feds to cover our costs? How could it hurt the functioning of the JTTF for our mayor and chief of police to oversee things? Why is it that you think our police force can't effectively participate with the FBI to capture terrorists WITHOUT the JTTF? Do you know if the JTTF was instrumental in "busting" the Portland 7? If the JTTF was needed to "bust" them, or if it was even involved? Do you have any concerns about the erosion of our rights? When would our loss of rights begin to outweigh the terrorist threat?
Me? I agree with Bush on a couple of things. One of those things is that the terrorists have actually won if we sacrifice our freedoms to defeat them. Given the failure of the FBI to explain concretely why the police can't cooperate effectively without the JTTF, I can't support the JTTF without AT LEAST proper oversight. Why not? Because of the prominent examples we've seen of FBI behavior where, especially if our deputized officers were involved, our constitutional rights were violated.
There's a reason that the FBI, the CIA, and local law enforcement all have different standards of conduct. The JTTF, on the surface, would seem to fly in the face of that.
Suzii on 06 Nov 2004
Jack Peek: "the timing of Leonards "call" for input was political."
What, you think it would be less political if Randy Leonard had called for input either before he learned that a decision would be coming up or waited until after the decision had been made?
Oh, yeah.
And as for "The problem fellow "PDXERS" is the "founding fathers" did not have a clue as to the problem of a good religon being hijacked by extreme radicals bent on killing those that do not follow their perspective of the teachings they seek," please investigate the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, one very real impetus for the migration of European Protestants to North America.
On the night of Aug. 23, 1572, 8,000 people were slaughtered in Paris specifically for following an unaccepted perspective on religious teachings. That's about three times the number killed at the World Trade Center three years ago, and that was only the beginning of months of killings across France.
Our founding fathers were far better educated than many of us seem to be, and knew all about the risk of a good religion's being hijacked (unless you want to argue that Christianity doesn't qualify as "a good religion," which probably doesn't belong on this site) by extreme radicals. They also knew the consequences of governmental interference with people's exercise of conscience. They weighed those against the danger of people's conspiring (to, say, kick out a king), and chose to give us the Bill of Rights.
allehseya, Randy Leonard raised hackles among neighborhood leaders by (as I recall their complaint) installing, early in his tenure, his own people to run the Office of Neighborhood Involvement without consulting with the neighborhood associations, which are a significant but undersung part of what makes Portland a place to be proud of.
They responded by fielding a slate of people with little name recognition across the city but strong name recognition in their own neighborhoods to run against him in the May primary, with the objective of holding him under 50% of the vote and forcing him into a runoff. The fact that he was unopposed on the November ballot has nothing to do with soviet-style politics and everything to do with his success in defeating the multi-person chalenge.
Terrance D on 06 Nov 2004
Allehseya,
You might refer to who Commissioner Leonard's opponents were in the primary election. There was a lot of news coverage at the time which spelled out neighborhood leaders' concerns. I haven't checked, but Communique probably has archives on this.
allehseya on 06 Nov 2004
Thank you for the clarity.
While I wasn’t sure what Terrance’s specific critiques were regarding Commissioner Leonard’s current relationships with community leaders, I am familiar with the controversy surrounding his community planning for neighborhood involvement.
I personally don’t see why anyone would object to Commissioner Leonard’s idea of bringing city support services to a central location where the people who use them would have greater access and opportunity for involvement. I commend him for implementing an infrastructure designed to disseminate information and services to the neighborhoods he was charged with overseeing and for attempting to bring diversity in that arena.
In various threads relating to the critique of Tom Potter and how he is going to work with the community, I pose that Commissioner Leonard -- has done his part in setting the groundwork for that becoming more than campaign rhetoric.
At the very least -- if (at the time this was a hot topic), community leaders felt as though they were merely “service providers” within Randy Leonard’s planning structure, then they should now consider that with the appropriate Mayor in office (willing to engage them directly and empower the Bureaus to do so), Randy Leonard may have set the much necessary foundation in which their role potentially now becomes one active in addressing public policy.
The worst accusations I’ve read about Randy Leonard’s actions (relating to this issue) claimed that he wasn’t interested in a true democracy with citizen input – and I remind people that we are having this discussion upon his initiative here and on the Blue Oregon site – which is in effect: engaging citizen input regarding public policy.
The way I see it, Randy Leonard’s efforts on behalf of the communities and his actions here on the Internet represent the beginning stages of building channels for an infrastructure that allows for further development, diverse input and broader involvement.
I could be wrong. I could be misrepresenting Commissioner Leonard’s agenda. I could have idealistic hopes for how Tom Potter may utilize what he’s built – it’s just how I saw it when I arrived to this city and researched it – and part of the reason I decided to stay.
Jack Peek on 06 Nov 2004
#43 thread.
I remain consistent on my thoughts that you use all your assets in a "gunfight", going too a fight against the elements of what in other parts of the world(the many attacks of these people, no need to highlight them all) with an unloaded gun is stupid.
Sorry, my view of Leonard because of promise to assist me with another issue of neighborhood safety, then he getting "pissed" when the direction he took was complained about by me caused a real gap personally. He and I are a lot alike. I once told him, we both do not back down in a fight, verbal or physical.and we can both be assholes at times,and we really should hangout. We both are very high type "A's.
If you care too I will fill that information in sometime.
The JTFF.The FBI, and Bush hasn't a chance in this town, PERIOD!
The demographics here are against the above...they could nail Ossama at Portland State and some of you would bitch ..his civil rights were violated.
The issue of this city doing anything but creating a roadblock to the issue is already set in stone as Vera and her lack of working with all the above named assets are well known.
William, you haven't lost a thing, nor have I lost any thing, we might however see Marshall law in the worst case scene, but so what, that being if a "suitcase nuke" goes off in Pioneer Square,or anywhere else, we both might not be able to discuss this again. You need to ask yourself.....is there really a threat to your personal freedoms? I can't come up with anything I lost. And as far as Mayfield....in time, he will prove out like the guy in Hillsboro that all his friends defended,a sworn enemy of us all.
Thanks
PS. There are nuke suitcase bombs and some are missing.PS also ,this comment was made on this forum, proves what I said also about the demografics of co-operation in PDX
"But now our City must refuse to aid and abet this administration, at each and every opportunity which presents itself."
allehseya on 06 Nov 2004
To Jack Peek
The following quote you used:
"But now our City must refuse to aid and abet this administration, at each and every opportunity which presents itself."
Was made by One True b!X, NOT Commissioner Leonard.
One shouldnt confuse the two independent stances on the issue. Commissioner Leonard outlined his in post #38 and shouldnt be lumped into a "guilty by association" critique.
I for one find his conditions for the vote to be within reason and the grounds for potential negotiation which may serve address your stance on the issue as well as his concerns.
Jack Peek on 06 Nov 2004
The qoute I posted is the heart of the problem here in PDX period. The person who made it on this forum really shares Mr.Leonard's views in my humble view ,Randy as Steve Duin wrote me is a smart man/ he said in fact we both are and should discuss our problems ,Randy is too smart to state it out front as "True" did. Great, But Leonard has "antijackpeekits" and won't listen. That is another post topic which the subject of the issue was in the Metro section today under the heading of a lawsuit against a mental health providor I have a major issues with.
William on 07 Nov 2004
Hi Jack. Thanks for the back and forth. Hope all your computer problems are sorted. Now, on to our thread. I'll pick up by posting part of the email I sent to you after your most recent thread to me.
We agree that it's important to fight terrorism. The purpose of the FBI is very crucial to our safety. But when they deviate from the standards they are supposed to live by, that's when I get upset. And the FBI has. Time and again. To mix our local officers is troubling for as long as the FBI disregards the law.
I'm not a guy who would bitch if we nailed Osama at PSU. We have probable cause against that guy. Unlike Mayfield. Who had his rights violated. Clearly. The national FBI probably knew the prints weren't a match, and weren't even close. Well that's not an indictment of our local office. But when our local office then went on a witch hunt, however well-intentioned, that's a problem.
Did you or I sacrifice any of our freedoms? There are lots of proverbs that say we did. An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. If they come for you in the morning, they'll come for me in the evening. Etc. But beyond that, and I won't go into it here, yes I personally have felt the pinch. And if I hadn't, I still wouldn't want to leave in place this system without righting its potential for evil. Proper oversight goes a long ways towards accomplishing that goal.
The thing with sacrificing freedoms can be viewed kind of like riding your bike without a helmet. No big deal until that one time you crash badly. And if your terrain gets bad enough, you'll suddenly be really greatful for that helmet on a frequent basis. So I'm willing to accept that you haven't been hit yet, and I ask you to look and see where things are headed so far in this war on terrorism.
But really, can you tell me why we need to have our cops serve as deputized federal agents? I really haven't heard a good explanation as to why the cops can't effectively cooperate with the FBI without the existence of a JTTF. And I have been to a couple JTTF renewal hearings. Those questions I asked you up above are the things that I will need answered if I am ever going to support the JTTF.
On a more general level, haven't we all lost something? When our journalists are afraid of being labelled unpatriotic and we then get biased news, isn't that painful to our country? When my friends don't want to put up yardsigns for fear of hurting the unity in their neighborhood, isn't that something? Of course, that's a digression related to the ills of nationalism, and not a discussion of the JTTF.
Colin Boeh on 08 Nov 2004
This is a very good discussion.
I hate to be labeled a "troll" but here goes:
I greatly respected Mr. Leonard while he was in Salem and was very excited for him to join us here in PDX on the council. I do have to admit to being a little disappointed with his performance over last few years, particularly with regards to the Portland Business Alliance, but generally I am pleased with his aura of "independence."
I think that we need to do everything in our power to separate ourselves from the money coming from the federal level. Looking at what is going to happen to the Supreme Court, Portland may "find itself in a position" where it has to sacrifice what matters it to it ("principles") in order to get that money. I suggest that we say "NO!"
We are in a fight for our lives. (All of us, though only some realize it.) This "administration" means to strip us of all the power we have to resist it. We have to become self-sufficient. This may mean the loss of a lot of what we hold dear, but we must maintain (create) our independence from the federal government. It is the only way we can survive as a "progressive" or "blue" region amongst the rest of this nation.
A rethinking, at every level of the city government, is necessary. We have to protect what we have, as much as we can, and prepare for the storm. This pResident does not represent me, nor I think, most of the people in this city. Now is the time to fight, and now is the time to refuse their money.
Jack Peek on 08 Nov 2004
If the Federal Government wants our officers assigned to the JTTF the Feds should reimburse the city for those costs. Currently, we are only reimbursed for overtime and we are allowed the use of a federal vehicle for those officers assigned to the JTTF.(Sayeth Mr.Leonard)
Dear Randy.Since you refuse to debate me on the other issue( you know the one) maybe on this forum you can set me up for the kill.
Word is we got a bunch of money from JTTF ,( HOW MUCH?) Will you provide some details what the money was used for? And the biggest question,was a dime of it spent on other mission work outside of the JTTF scope of interest? I hear you did spend some of it..
Randy Leonard on 08 Nov 2004
The City of Portland has received no money from the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
JACK PEEK on 08 Nov 2004
Ok, Thanks for the reply, however rank-in file cops say that there are Fed dollars coming in, would this be "homeland security dollars? and if so care to fill us in on these dollars and how they are spent?
Jack Peek on 08 Nov 2004
PS...Mr. Leonard.
We are only reimbursed for overtime and we are allowed the use of a federal vehicle for those officers assigned to the JTTF.
So how much overtime dollars in round numbers are we speaking about and the car is worth something??? Don't you think?
William on 08 Nov 2004
Colin,
A factoid for you. With very few exceptions, the blue states get back less than they send in to the Feds and the red states get back more. And still the red states support folks who oppose social services!
Have you started your Red State Boycott yet? ;) No Idaho potatoes for you, young man! It's nothing but Oregon and Washington in THIS household!!!!
I guess now I'm the troll. :)
JACK PEEK on 09 Nov 2004
I really haven't heard a good explanation as to why the cops can't effectively cooperate with the FBI without the existence of a JTTF...SAYETH WILLIAM.
Gee, maybe you should ask Vera, and then ask Potter.
Its POLITICS, hello, a little known but quickly growing fact,if you kick out certain major population centers(AHH YES, PDX)being one, Bush's win would be a bigger mandate then the one you people say he didn't get.
A bit off topic but inline with what I said, the DNC,better wake up or you guys better go Libertarian soon. You are dis-connected with the red state map.
I digress, The major function of any elected offical is safety, from chief "dogcather" to presidents of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
This city has a horrible track record of compromise, co-operation, and since 911, any work to seek out those that are here, that aim to do us harm.
Some security analyst think there is too much evidence of sleeper cells right here.
Before you cry foul, one I spoke too used to live here for years and voted for Kerry.
At sometime, I want to speak about the other issue Leonard, and other elected officals I have "dogged" for a few years has avoided.
Then you will understand why I lead the "unsucccesful" yet all too close recall of Katz.
Too "WILLAIM", thanks so far as to trying too understand that the "red" of us living here are not so bad.
Some of you have the chance to go too the hearings on JTTF, I DO NOT.Please, please, ask Mr. Leonard questions that are tough, you want too know that he is doing the first task he promised to do. The constitution isn't worth crap if we are not here to defend it.
Tenskwatawa on 14 Nov 2004
#
Translation of what follows:
The British Broadcasting Corp. on its secondary site announced Friday that it has available the video feed of the acclaimed new documentary "The Power of Nightmares" which aired in a three-night series on BBC television.
(Of course, you would want to click through to get the video straight from the horse's mouth -- neigh-heh, neigh-heh -- and see for yourself all the obviously phony facts that aren't going to prove anything, it's only some kind of lame attempt to keep the 9/11-lovers -- "It was just a godsend for Our Otherwise Imbecilic President" -- busy debunking and refuting worthless garbage facts that are not even worthy of a response. Of course. Or not, facts are stubborn things, and who's got time for debunking, and crap like this doesn't even deserve debunking. Or not.)
----------
BBC2: New Doku about the "Terror Myth" up online
Date 2004/11/12 21:08:21
Update: Video Backup (Pt.1-3) now at InformationClearingHouse
------------
Translation of what follows:
There is no al Qaida organization.
There are no worldwide sleeper cells.
Everything you think you know you found out about all this -- gosh, overnight everyone was an expert on fanatical Islamist religious movements and fringe groups of the 20th century -- has all been carefully orchestrated and programmed in your brain on TV.
----------
(Transcript): "...There is no international Al-Qaeda organisation...there are no worldwide sleeper cells...what we see is a fanstasy which has been created..."
Update (10/20): "Al Qaeda" training videos shown on CBS were fakes:
"...The source of the tapes, a former U.S. Special Forces soldier named Jonathan Keith Idema—known familiarly as Keith—was more than a little dubious.
Airing today on BBC2 (10/20): Power of Nightmares
The making of the terror myth
Since September 11 Britain has been warned of the 'inevitability' of catastrophic terrorist attack. But has the danger been exaggerated? A major new TV documentary claims that the perceived threat is a politically driven fantasy - and al-Qaida a dark illusion. Andy Beckett reports
Much of the currently perceived threat from international terrorism, the series argues, "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media." The series' explanation for this is even bolder: "In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power."
Adam Curtis, who wrote and produced the series, acknowledges the difficulty of saying such things now. "If a bomb goes off, the fear I have is that everyone will say, 'You're completely wrong,' even if the incident doesn't touch my argument. This shows the way we have all become trapped, the way even I have become trapped by a fear that is completely irrational."
. Over the past dozen years, via similarly ambitious documentary series such as Pandora's Box, The Mayfair Set and The Century of the Self, Curtis has established himself as perhaps the most acclaimed maker of serious television programmes in Britain. His trademarks are long research, the revelatory use of archive footage, telling interviews, and smooth, insistent voiceovers concerned with the unnoticed deeper currents of recent history, narrated by Curtis himself in tones that combine traditional BBC authority with something more modern and sceptical: "I want to try to make people look at things they think they know about in a new way."
The Power of Nightmares seeks to overturn much of what is widely believed about Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The latter, it argues, is not an organised international network. It does not have members or a leader. It does not have "sleeper cells". It does not have an overall strategy. In fact, it barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence.
Curtis' evidence for these assertions is not easily dismissed. He tells the story of Islamism, ... Curtis points out that al-Qaida did not even have a name until early 2001, when the American government decided to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence and had to use anti-Mafia laws that required the existence of a named criminal organisation.
...
In fact, Curtis is not alone in wondering about all this. Quietly but increasingly, other observers of the war on terror have been having similar doubts.
Some may find all this difficult to swallow. But Curtis insists,"There is no way that I'm trying to be controversial just for the sake of it." Neither is he trying to be an anti-conservative polemicist like Michael Moore: "[Moore's] purpose is avowedly political. My hope is that you won't be able to tell what my politics are." For all the dizzying ideas and visual jolts and black jokes in his programmes, Curtis describes his intentions in sober, civic-minded terms. "If you go back into history and plod through it, the myth falls away. You see that these aren't terrifying new monsters. It's drawing the poison of the fear." ..
This article comes from INN World Report
http://inn.globalfreepress.com
The URL for this story is:
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/article.php?storyid=891
-------------
Nah, can't be, must be some wild-eyed Brit and now he's trying to fool everybody the other way ... can he do that? I mean, how could he fool people into thinking there is no al Qaida -- we've all seen 'em, we're living next door to 'em, nobody'll ever convince me there's no one home, that's not even worth debunking. ... Not that a fella would know where to start to debunk something anyway.
#