December 20, 2004
(Updated) Breaking: Joint Terrorism Task Force Vote Postponed
Action Delayed Until New Council In January
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Just in within the past few minutes from the Mayor's office is an announcement that Wednesday's consideration by City Council of the City's participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force has been postponed until after the beginning of the new year.
According to the announcement, "it had become clear that there were not four votes to approve the [Memorandum of Understanding] as an emergency measure on Wednesday".
Without those four votes, the matter would have had to pass to a second reading as a non-emergency ordinance. Because there are no Council sessions after Wednesday until January -- when a new Council takes over -- the decision was made to postpone this week's scheduled public hearing until the new year.
"I would like to have had this issue resolved before I left office," said Katz in the announcement, "but I
have no doubt the next Council will address this issue thoughtfully, consider the ramifications of both approving or not approving the MoU, and resolve it in the best interests of the community."
Readers here should recall that Commissioners Leonard and Sten have expressed reservations and concerns about the City's participation in the JTTF, given both low- and high-profile examples of abuses of law enforcement power. In other parts of the country, JTTFs have been caught spying on local activists, while here in Portland the FBI was involved in the wrongful targeting of local attorney Brandon Mayfield.
As of this posting, it is not known for certain that it is the votes of Leonard and Sten which prompted the Mayor's decision to postpone consideration of the Memorandum of Understanding. Leonard recently solicited public input via the BlueOregon weblog.
In addition, the ACLU of Oregon recently submitted a Freedom of Information Act request in order to determine whether or not the local JTTF has engaged in any monitoring of local activist groups.
More on this as we piece together for certain which Council members would have prevented the requisite four votes in order to satisfy the "emergency" designation.
Update
One of the other concerns Council members expressed last time around on JTTF renewal -- and that likely will be raised again -- was that of proper City oversight of the involvement of local police officers, especially given certain provisions of Oregon law which prohibit law enforcement from engaging in certian activity.
Specifically at issue are provisions of ORS Chapter 181 -- 181.575 designates specific information not to be collected or maintained by law enforcement agencies, while 181.850 places restrictions on state and local law enforcement from enforcing Federal immigration laws.
The ordinance that had been scheduled to come before Council on Wednesday attempted to address those concerns by reporting that the Mayor had reached agreement with the Federal government on such oversight, and that Chief Foxworth and Assistant Chief Ferraris had provided her with signed certification that the activities of local officers assigned to the JTTF are in compliance with these provisions of Oregon law.
At the same time, the ordinance reports that while the Mayor did not receive similar signed certification from the FBI, she is "satisfied" from briefings by FBI Special Agent-in-Charge Robert Jordan that local officers are not violating Oregon law.
Update
Some further clarification, since the release out of the Mayor's office is not as clear as it should have been. An emergency ordinance requires not only at least four votes but a unanimous vote. So, only one potential "no" vote can scuttle passage of an emergency ordinance, and therefore the Mayor's office needed an indication only of one "no" vote to realize that the ordinance could not be passed this Wednesday.
Therefore, as a regular ordinance, it would have to have two readings, and since the second reading would have been before the new Council next year anyway, it made more sense simply to postpone the entire process until next year.
As for where the two commissioners who have expressed concerns stand, we have this from Commissioner Sten: "I'm still officially on the fence and planning to listen to the arguments from both sides before making a final decision."
Update
Meanwhile, we also have something as to the ACLU of Oregon element of all of this. "We do not know when the FBI will respond to our FOIA request," Andrea Meyer, the group's Legislative Director, told us. "We will update our web site when something moves on this."
Update
Today's Portland Tribune has a brief item on the postponement, while the Oregonian offers a deeper look into the current situation.
While the Tribune says that Commissioner-Elect Adams "leans toward voting against" renewal, The Oregonian reports that if Adams is given security clearance, he will vote for it. Last year, when the oversight and security clearance issue arose, it was made fairly clear by the Federal government that only police chiefs and police commissioners have been given clearances. In our case, that translated to Foxworth and Katz.
Meaning, if things hold together, the FBI could be in for a loss here. Presuming that the FBI doesn't change it's rules and grant Adams clearance, Adams would be a "no" vote. Leonard appears to be a "no" vote. And if Sten's concerns aren't somehow addressed, he could very well be a "no" vote as well.
And that, of course, is three votes out of five. What remains to be seen is, on the one hand, if the FBI begins to mount any pressure on those three Council members, or, on the other hand, if any of the three are taking positions of possible opposition to renewal only so long as there are not enough votes to actually withdraw. Not to be cynical, or anything, but in politics the possibility has to at least be recognized.
Posted at 02:53 PM | PermalinkComments (36) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Joint Terrorism Task Force, Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, Metro-Area Politics
Trackbacks (1)
-
OR: Portland Might Withdraw from Joint Terrorism Task Force on 26 Dec 2004
Over the last year, there's been much controversy at the Portland City Council about the city's participation in the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. Oregon law prohibits our local police from engaging in certain intelligence gathering and immigration...
Comments (36)
Jack Peek on 21 Dec 2004
Dear "True", What if Randy Leonard is wrong?
Please meet me at what maybe left of Pioneer Square to continue the debate on this issue.
With that said, My thoughts on what may have caused the devastation.
Here is an observation>>>
Watch the French, and the Canadians. These countries have been infested with liberal ideology and are about to reap the whirlwind.
Statistics show that Muslims stay pretty quiet as a group in a host country UNTIL their numbers reach 18-20% of the host countries population. Sweden and Holland are about to hit that magical number within the next 5 years. Already the Muslims are turning on those "host countries" with violence and racial attacks on anyone who opposes their doctrine or Islamic ideology.
Lets look at Liberalism from a historic stand point. After WW2 France was trying to hold on to its colonies and rebuild itself. One of its major cash cows was VIETNAM. The Conservatives in French politics had an idea.
Vietnam was a valuable colony and the Communists were aiding the rebel Ho Chi Minh who wanted independence from France. Ho was ignored by the US after he helped us fight the Japanese. Ho only wanted for the US, his "perceived" ally, to acknowledge Vietnams bid for independence from France...nothing more, we refused and aided the French, and it cost us 58,000 American lives.
Some French politicians came up with a brilliant idea...After the war there were thousands of German Infantry soldiers unemployed and no longer needed. They were professional, the best in the world at what they did...fight.
They hired these unemployed German warriors to fight the rebellion in Vietnam. At this point the French Foreign Legion was getting its butt handed to it on a platter by the Communist Vietnamese, later to be known as the NVA. The Vietnamese were driving the French out of Vietnam...and they didn't care how long it was going to take. The French Foreign Legion was suffering huge loses in every engagement.
From the moment the ex German Infantry troops arrived the bloodbath began. The German troops destroyed the Vietnamese troops at every opportunity. The German tactic was historical in nature, and simple in execution...instill FEAR, then RESPECT and victory will follow. The Vietnamese were terrified of the Germans and rightfully so.
Just as victory was within their grasp, some French leftist news people got wind that ex German soldiers were fighting for France in Vietnam....the French people were outraged that their tax dollars would go to pay GERMANS.
The German troops/mercenaries were withdrawn and French troops sent in to take their place...the left wing news outlets were satisfied, and the French people were satisfied...and the Vietnamese were VERY SATISFIED too.
Within months the Vietnamese cornered the French military in a valley, that's right the French military took the LOW GROUND...the Vietnamese army in the mountains rained down artillery on the French forts and then attacked in human waves...the French were destroyed and Vietnam was returned to the Vietnamese.
Liberalism snatched victory and turned it into defeat, they did it in France, they did it to us in Vietnam as well. Today they are doing to our troops in Iraq.
Sit down and list all the good things Liberalism has brought us...
1. They cause billions in fire damage to our forests because they demand the forest be left dirty and cluttered with dead wood....natural isn't cluttered.
2. They passed a bill that people in Washington State who own rural land cannot use, put any structure, or encroachment of any kind on more than 10% of the land they own. If you own 100 acres...you can only use 10, but you pay taxes on the whole 100.
3. They refuse to allow water to farmers in favor of a 4" sucker fish
4. They make cattle ranchers in California fence off their only access to water, on their own land...as not to endanger a few 1/4" fresh water shrimp.
5. They made lumber prices skyrocket because a Spotted Owl was sighted in forests about to be cut and replanted....(I hear now that the Spotted Owl tastes just like Chicken).
6. They sued and won keeping lumber companies from cutting their own forests, forests by the way that are maintained, replanted, and cared for far better than nature ever intended. Due to proper management by lumber companies there are twice as many deer in America than when the Pilgrims came. Have you priced a 2x4 lately ?
7. Liberals and their rabid obsession with abortion as a form of birth control have resulted in the deaths of over 4000 babies everyday in American since Roe v. Wade in 1973.
8. Liberalism removed the US troops from Vietnam, after tying their hands for almost 10 years....result 3 million dead civilians from the Communist take over.
9. Are there any less poor in America today...or does welfare just make career poor out of the temporarily poor.
Since the Liberal "great society" of LBJ began in 1964 black children born out of wedlock has now reached 80%. The number one cause of death among young black women 16-35 is AIDS, just like in Africa. As in Africa the number one cause of death among black males 16-35...is other black males.
What has all these liberal social programs cured, prevented, or helped ? Right now we could have made millionaires out of ever black person on welfare, then stop welfare....and been money ahead.
10. Over $14 trillion has been spent on the liberal program called Head Start. Yet over 50% of all black 4th graders in America cannot read.
11. 47% of all US Welfare goes to black women. Black women are only 4% of the total population of America.
If one reads the Communist Manifesto you will see almost word for word the platform of today's Democrat Party ie. LIBERAL.
When in history has the Communist Party of America ever endorsed a Democrat candidate ?...first time 2004, John Kerry.
It was once called Communism, then Socialism, and now Liberalism....all parts of the same bird and all flying in the same direction. Wealth Re Distribution, ie taking from those with money and giving it to those without, is a communist thread that runs through every communist movement. Liberals want wealth re Distribution from a sliding tax code that rewards those who refuse to work.
Communism has yet to make a single country prosper, educated, or free. NOT ONE. Liberalism has failed to maintain a single nation in the history of the world....but it has destroyed a few mighty civilizations....Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, French, German...and soon the USA and England.
Liberalism is taking the fair, the earned, and the merits of hard work and removing them from public arenas. In Black colleges students are given a passing grades even if they fail every test...they receive "Life Points" for color and race and for just showing up.
Affirmative Action means if your black you can get into college without passing the entrance exam. Liberalism doesn't level the playing field it removes it. How would you feel if your black doctor passed medical school because he showed up, and got there because he was not white....? Would you want him doctoring your child ?
What does this accomplish ....it perpetuates the hatred among the races. Whites feel oppressed because the merit system doesn't apply. Blacks are still oppressed because even with a college degree they are not hired, because employers demand results, and just showing up doesn't count in the real world.
Black culture is the only culture in history that has made a productive career out of unemployment. Black culture is the only culture that has ever thrived in poverty. It is also the only culture that due to down breeding, and ambition impairment each successive generation exhibits lower ability than the previous.
What is more startling, is this cultural decline is directly related to WHITE... greed and guilt along with Black dishonesty and corruption....both in high places. 400 years ago Blacks sold their own people into slavery for power & profit....today they're selling them into poverty for the exact same reason.
Whites feel cheated, blacks feel cheated....the hatred continues. It perpetuates the racism in America, keeps politicians and black leaders employed and prosperous. Class warfare is a communist invention and nation destroying ideology. What is absurd is when you take a normal black and a white, and remove the social sparks...you have harmony. In the military there is no racism, not really. UNTIL you come back to civilization, in the field there is harmony for the "greater good".
That's today's rant
MarkDaMan on 21 Dec 2004
glad to see Jack Peek is posting his rants all over the liberal blogs...I've heard you can also catch him spewing his God damnation sermons in the square at lunch too!
The One True b!X on 21 Dec 2004
For what it's worth, that's a good example of why other people have suggested you need you own blog. Reader comments are really not meant for tangential essays.
And before the half-cocked reaction to that kicks in: Note that nowhere in the above paragraph did I suggest that I was blocking you from posting.
Colin on 21 Dec 2004
And before the half-cocked reaction to that kicks in: Note that nowhere in the above paragraph did I suggest that I was blocking you from posting.
Damn! You know, after reading Peek' comments for so long, they're beginning to sound like the quotes from the spambots "visiting" my blog... Maybe "Jack Peek" is really just an advertiser for an online poker operation. His name does sound like a pseudonym… I can see the tagline now: “Peek at their hands at Jack’s offshore online casino!”
Hmm…
Karen on 21 Dec 2004
If Jack Peek is advertising for an on-line poker operation, I wouldn't participate, if I were you. It wouldn't be a fair game, because he isn't playing with a full deck! Snort! Snort!
Jack Peek on 21 Dec 2004
Good True...if the kitchen is too hot for comment GET OUT! But in your corner on this one, it stayed up on the Blog.I WAS SHOCKED! TY
Jack Peek on 21 Dec 2004
Good True...if the kitchen is too hot for comment GET OUT! But in your corner on this one, it stayed up on the Blog.I WAS SHOCKED! TY
PS. What if Randy Leonard is wrong? love to hear that arguement.
Jack Peek on 21 Dec 2004
...I've heard you can also catch him spewing his God damnation sermons in the square at lunch too!
Dear Mark, NO, not yet, but you get a front row seat when I DO!
The One True b!X on 21 Dec 2004
The issue is simple, and two-fold.
One: If the JTTF won't permit real oversight, with whatever clearances are required to have real oversight, we should not be associated with it.
Two: If the JTTF has engaged in the monitoring of local activist organizations (which, with any luck, the ACLU of Oregon's FOIA request will tell us), we should not be associated with it.
Barring satisfactory actions to address these two issues, Portland should not be lending its name to the JTTF.
Randy Leonard on 21 Dec 2004
On November 13, 2004 I made the following comment at http://www.blueoregon.com/2004/10/joint_terrorism.html#comment
"Steve-
One of my responsibilities is to vote on inter-governmental pacts such as the JTTF. I look at each one and vote based on the merits of what is before me. The JTTF pact, in its most simple terms, requires the city to assign two police officers full time to the feds.
My concerns with the JTTF pact are three.
First, the Feds are spending hundreds of billions of dollars fighting “terror”. I don’t consider it unreasonable, given the city’s financially strapped condition, to ask the Feds to reimburse the city for the cost of the two full time officers assigned to the JTTF. Were I negotiating the agreement, and I’m not, I would make that a condition of our participation. I consider that fiscally prudent policy.
Second, in the vote that I made a year ago renewing our participation in the JTTF I said my yes vote was contingent upon the Mayor and Police Chief receiving the necessary security clearance to adequately supervise our officers assigned to the JTTF. According to Chief Foxworth, he and the Mayor have "secret" security clearances while the officers assigned to the JTTF have "top secret" security clearances. In other words, we have two Portland Police Officers who are involved in activities that neither the Police Chief nor the Mayor to be briefed on.
Why Chief Foxworth and the Mayor are OK with that will be the subject of another post at some time in the future. For now, let me just say that I consider that irresponsible management.
Third, we all read that the Feds who were identified as agents from the Department of Homeland Security conducted an investigation of the selling of Rubik Cubes at Pufferbelly Toys in St. Helen's.
This is how the Feds prioritize their resources? We are paying the costs of two officers to help the Feds do these kinds of investigations? We don't know because those officers are not supervised by the Chief or Mayor. Only the Feds know fully how they are being used.
According to Chief Foxworth, if we did not participate in the JTTF formally the city would still cooperate with the FBI in any specific request to assist them in any kind of investigation.
I prefer that case by case approach rather than the current blind approach we have by assigning two full time officers that have no supervision from the Mayor and Police Chief.
One last thing, Steve. Did you notice how I made it through my explanation without name calling? It is a skill you may consider developing.
Posted by: Randy Leonard | November 13, 2004 10:04 AM "
I have, as a matter of record, decided I will vote No on reauthorizing the JTTF whenever it comes up again for a council vote. As far as the pressure from the FBI that Bix alluded to that may cause me to change my position, I would hope that at a minimum I have made it clear that I do not respond well to pressure and/or intimidation tactics.
On Bix’s implication that my No vote (I am the only member of the current or future city council who has publicly taken a position on this issue) may change now given there may be two other No votes, I can only say that I do not think or behave that way.
Sometimes I think my life would be easier if I did, but the bottom line for me is that when I am done with public service I want to be able to look at myself in the mirror.
The One True b!X on 21 Dec 2004
Actually, it wasn't an implication, it was a recognition of the way politics sometimes works.
And it wasn't directed at any one individual. While you (Commissioner Leonard) are on the record as to a vote, Commissioner Sten has clearly voiced his concerns and is a potential no, and if Commissioner-Elect Adams' only criteria for voting yes is getting clearance, then he's a potential no as well. So the remark wasn't aimed at an individual. Hence the phrase I used: "if any of the three [who] are taking positions of possible opposition".
Jack Peek on 21 Dec 2004
So......you have this neighbor, seems he is middle-eastern, seems he goes to meetings with people of the same, shall we say the same "flavor" a lot, and you see him and others hauling box's of things into a garage late at night, then a few days later your town explodes and thousands are killed, you learn your city council has forbidden the cops to find these people before they killed your family because they didn't want to offend these "guests" in our country or draw the wrath of the ACLU who wasn't after all "looking after you".it's OK ,you live in Portland, Oregon where civil Liberties come first over a few thousand innocent people.
You think I'm nuts for writing this unlikly scene? What if it's not unlikly, but reality, but then you can only wish you had at least listened to some of us who tried to tell you. What if Randy Leonard was wrong......DEAD WRONG!
Randy Leonard on 21 Dec 2004
I appreciate your clarification.
The One True b!X on 21 Dec 2004
you have this neighbor, seems he is middle-eastern, seems he goes to meetings with people of the same, shall we say the same "flavor" a lot, and you see him and others hauling box's of things into a garage late at night
Is this is all you have on said neighbor, there is no reason to be investigating him.
And please, Jack, no airquotes. Say what you mean and define the word "flavor".
The One True b!X on 21 Dec 2004
Actually, let's remove this little scenario from the hypothetical. I used to have neighbors, with skin darker than mine, who spoke in a foreign tongue, never said hello to me, and who all seemed to come home at the same time late at night every day. One of them wore a turban.
In your world Jack, should I have reported them to the FBI?
Randy Leonard on 21 Dec 2004
When some rely on their “suspicions” of certain members of our community to justify spying on citizens, I am reminded of one of my favorite songs from the Viet Nam era by Buffalo Springfield entitled “For What Its Worth”;
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your mind it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
Step out of line and the man comes to take you away
The One True b!X on 21 Dec 2004
For what it's worth -- a not insignificant amount -- the affadavit the FBI dummied up in order to hold Brandon Mayfield was full of crap like the scenarios above.
Jack Peek on 21 Dec 2004
I have made it clear that I do not respond well to pressure and/or intimidation tactics.
Hell, Randy, you don't respond at all!
What if your wrong? Who do the victims call?
The One True b!X on 21 Dec 2004
Jack, you may not like Leonard's responses (Hell, I've been there myself on occassion), but the guy spends so much time in local blogs... well... responding to people that I'm surprised his family doesn't disown him.
The One True b!X on 21 Dec 2004
And at any rate, the question wasn't necessarily directed to me as well, but I'll give a response of my own. Problem for Jack is that it's going to be not quite as simple as he wants to make it out to be.
Well, actually, maybe it is. On the one hand, Jack wants to toss the Constitution in order to be safe. Anyone innocent who gets caught in the net, well it's their own damn fault for talking in Arabic or attending mosque.
Others of us, on the other hand, believe that we don't have to ditch the protections of the Constitution in order to be safe. We simply believe that law enforcement has to rely on, well, facts and evidence. If that means a little extra work for them, so be it. That's their job.
Julie Ann Leonard on 21 Dec 2004
Randy Who?
Julie (Mrs. Randy Leonard)
Jack Peek on 21 Dec 2004
when I am done with public service I want to be able to look at myself in the mirror.
You know "commiss" I say the same thing,had an Ex-Marine for a line coach in high school, he told me to look in the mirror after the game and if I could look myself in the eye,that was all he asked,didn't ever let hinm down.
With you it will not be a mirror to worry about if your wrong, and the potential is in place for you to be " dead wrong"
Jack Peek on 21 Dec 2004
What have you lost "true" NOTHING!
Do I, or folks like me get a "hand signed" letter from Leonard? Or a rubber stamp, if the good public servent is wrong, or do I get a feature write up with your byline....I'am sorry Jack, signed, TRUE.
Your racial traps are no longer funny, and neither was 911.
The One True b!X on 21 Dec 2004
What have you lost "true" NOTHING!
If anyone loses part of the First Amendment, or the Fourth Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, Jack, what have I lost?
I've lost part of my country.
Also: Only one kind of person falls into the "racial trap" Jack. We all know damned well what "flavor" meant.
Jack Peek on 21 Dec 2004
oh and dead wrong wasn't personal... dead meaning me and thousands others.
Jack Peek on 22 Dec 2004
GEE..flavor, chocolate, vanilla, when I hangout with a "black guy" and a Mexican at work don't hang the race card on me, it's really getting old that deal you "people" use.
What does "you people" mean?
The question True that you and Leonard avoid still get's passed on by you both...WHAT IF YOU AND RANDY ARE WRONG?
And who was it that worked in Vera's office?
It sure wasn't a GIRL SCOUT!
The One True b!X on 22 Dec 2004
Well, Jack, if "flavor" doesn't mean what I think it means, why won't you explain what it meant? You gripe about Leonard being non-responsive, but you yourself are not respinding to a question put directly to you about something you yourself wrote.
Don't write it if you can't back it up when challenged.
As to the other: If we're wrong about what? If there's evidence that people are up to no good, then let the authorities pursue them. But if there's no evidence, they simply have no grounds to pursue them. If something happens because they didn't go after someone against whom they had no evidence -- and I understand this will make you absolutely apoplectic -- I accept that.
If you want law enforcement to be able to ignore the rules of evidence, then petition the government to repeal those portions of the Bill of Rights you think are standing in the way. Don't just do an end-run around them.
The One True b!X on 22 Dec 2004
And who was it that worked in Vera's office?
It sure wasn't a GIRL SCOUT!
What does this have to do with anything? No, wait, I know. It's the same thing as "flavor".
Well, Jack, Timothy McVeigh was some sort of white Christian. So, by your own logic, should we be locking you up?
Jack Peek on 22 Dec 2004
Well, Jack, if "flavor" doesn't mean what I think it means, why won't you explain what it meant? You gripe about Leonard being non-responsive,
Leonard is non-responsive. "Flavor", of course it means profiling groups of people that have sworn to kill us.
The Christian Right, THE "BAD'Christan right, OH! True, don't go there unless you wanna finish the fight.
Don't wake some of us up that didn't get the head out of the rear of apathy.
You didn't learn a thing in this election, you may not want more of us voting in 08, then we did in 04, your choice big boy.
"GIRL SCOUT IN THE MAYORS OFFICE", That implies just what it said,(An you the bigtime wordsmith) that was a person with "friends like Mike Hawash,( who was that True?) He wasn't a BOY SCOUT either.
Lastly, to your credit...I can debate you, we may not agree...but so far I'am really thankful for it......But,lastly True, if the next 911 isn't here.....Did it mean Randy Leonard was right? I know what you will say already.
The One True b!X on 22 Dec 2004
"Flavor", of course it means profiling groups of people that have sworn to kill us.
There are groups and there are groups. I'll explain that below.
The Christian Right, THE "BAD'Christan right, OH! True, don't go there unless you wanna finish the fight.
Well, you're more right than you realize here. There's the general Christian Right. And there's the bad Christian Right. There's a difference and a distinction between the two.
Difference and distinction is where this conversation falls apart Jack. You refuse, or are incapable of making, distinctions.
There are Islamic people just going about the routines of their lives, and there are militant Islamic extremists who commit themselves to do violence against us. There's a difference and a distinction, and I and otherd will simply not silently abide the profiling -- legitimized stalking, really -- of the first group just because the second group exists.
And you also never responded to my counter-scenario about my neighbors. Why do I have to keep pushing you to respond to things, Jack.
Jack Peek on 22 Dec 2004
And you also never responded to my counter-scenario about my neighbors. Why do I have to keep pushing you to respond to things, Jack.
Did you respond to all I challenged you on? NO!
On your neighbors, Please, you profile me, you assume I want to hunt down all the groups for no reason what so ever, that shows your over run with so much hate, that you refuse to think there is another side of me. I want too afford the right of you, an my family first of all to live safely in the community we live in,after that, the freedooms we all have paid for one way or another comes on then.
The group/flavor I speak of are not all good neighbors, I can think of six.
The people in Mike Hawash's neighborhood, fought for him too,but now they distance themselfs and feel like fools.
The issue is not the one or two examples of American terriost we all know, but the millions of people world-wide that have sworn to kill us.
If you want to defend them and there rights...do so at your own risk, not my kids and wife.
Until you admit the reality of the situation, and realize you can't hide in "PDXVILLE",that if there were six here, there are possibly 12 more.
The "religon" you adhere too is the "PROGRESSIVE" doctrine, you are passionate, so am I...Can we respect that? Can we all work to be safe first? The next 911, will make the first a joke!
My question still is: What if there is another 911? Was Randy Leonard wrong, not to provide all possible weapons to protect us? Please don't hand the rights arguement back, means nothing if your dead.
The One True b!X on 22 Dec 2004
Did you respond to all I challenged you on? NO!
Actually, I have. You just don't like the responses.
On your neighbors, Please, you profile me, you assume I want to hunt down all the groups for no reason what so ever, that shows your over run with so much hate, that you refuse to think there is another side of me.
You gave a hypothetical neighbor situation, with no context, and presented only the information of a certain "flavor" of people (a term you still avoid defining, I notice) doing normal things that presumably you consider suspicious only because of their "flavor".
I countered with a a situation taken directly from my own personal experience, which in content was directly comparable to your hypothetical-without-context.
And I asked you if in my actual situation, given that it nearly directly paralleled your hypothetical in specifics, the response should be the response you wanted to your hypothetical. Namely, to call the FBI or whatever.
You refused to answer. That's your hang-up, not mine.
Look, here's the point of my counter-offered neighbor situation, Jack. Take your hypothetical and my counter-situation. In neither case, given the facts and descriptions offered in each one, is there any reason to call the FBI, unless the observer has a prejudice against the "flavor" of people in question.
You can't suddenly turn around and say you were talking about a real situation (Hawash or the Portland Six), because we were looking at a very specific set of descriptions of each situation. The fact that one of them later turned out to be about an actual threat is irrelevant because that's 20/20 hindsight.
At the time, looking only at what you described in your hypothetical, there's no legitimate reason to suspect the actions of the neighbors... except prejudice against their "flavor".
My question still is: What if there is another 911? Was Randy Leonard wrong, not to provide all possible weapons to protect us? Please don't hand the rights arguement back, means nothing if your dead.
And my country means nothing if it turns its back on what it's supposed to stand for. Once upon a time, people of the Right Wing would cry, "Better dead than Red!" because they didn't want to lose the fundamental principles of America to some alleged threat of Communism to take them away.
Well, now it's you who want to take those fundamental principles away, Jack. So don't hand the "if you're dead" argument back, it means nothing if you're not free.
jack peek on 22 Dec 2004
When in history has the Communist Party of America ever endorsed a Democrat candidate ?...first time 2004, John Kerry.
My question still is: What if there is another 911? Was Randy Leonard wrong, not to provide all possible weapons to protect us?
The "flavor" comment really bugs you, but so does Redneck, trailer trash etc., towards me. These kinds of things have gotten out of hand for sure.
In my own defense, I give back what I GET.
True, someone will be killed in one of these high risk group homes I yell and bitch about,someone already did die,more people will die because our asine( OK,I name called)electeds like Leonard who's ego is bigger then yours didn't do his job. I may have 6-9 months to sort out a brain tumor, If something ever does happen, I have too much information on the lack of response from him and others, and if we are ever hit here in a 911 attack, people will remember folks like you and Randy at the correct times,like the next election.
Getting to weak now to fight, tell Kari, his blog and kids are safe now.
The One True b!X on 23 Dec 2004
My question still is: What if there is another 911? Was Randy Leonard wrong, not to provide all possible weapons to protect us?
And my point still is: This question wrongly frames the issue because it leaves out relevant bits.
To wit: Many of your fellow Americans, Jack, do not believe that sacrificing American principles counts as one of those "possible weapons" we should be using.
It's remarkable to me, frankly, that you're willing to let American soliders go off to fight, kill, and die, allegedly to protect our way of life, but you're too scared to let Americans here at home actually live that way of life. You want to round them up because of their "flavor". It's a cliche by now, but why is it that those who wrap themselves in the flag are always the first ones to abandon what it stands for when they get a little nervous?
But here's the wider issue no one here is daring to touch: None of us are ever going to be completely safe, Jack. If a radical wingnut of any "flavor" wants badly enough to take out some group of Americans, he or she is going to get through, and going to pull it off. Even if we followed your beliefs through to their logical conclusion and rescinded the entirety of the Bill of Rights, you still wouldn't be finally and totally secure.
So I guess the real question for you and others who share you views, Jack, is this: Please describe and define the precise and exact amount of American freedoms you wish to give up in order to nurture your false sense of security.
allehseya on 23 Dec 2004
re: the nature of loss
...but why is it that those who wrap themselves in the flag are always the first ones to abandon what it stands for when they get a little nervous?
And consider Jack -- what if that is precisely what they (the extreme you oppose) wants?
For us to abandon our own principles of democracy -- to reveal our own inherent hipocrisy?
Consider, Jack -- that in this way -- they win.
myrln on 23 Dec 2004
Dear Jack: I am not a democrat, republican, liberal, conservative or any other political designation. I am an American, plain and simple, whose commitment is to democracy. And democracy is and always has been a risky business because in a society born of and grounded in constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms, there are risks. So we have to choose between freedom and democracy or restriction and totalitarianism. To build a wall around democracy and to restrict individual freedoms is to choose restriction and totalitarianism, to choose nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. I'd rather take my chances, risks in the profound belief that differences are only that, differences. We can argue and debate and work on differences,try to learn what I do that hurts another and what another does that hurts me, to find the common ground we all share as human beings, as FREE human beings. To be afraid of that is to be afraid of the most basic thing we all share: life. Given the choice, I'd rather take my chances on democracy and the belief that all differences can be resolved.