January 23, 2005

Comments (21)

1. Jack Peek on 24 Jan 2005

   
   FBI: BOLO
   20 January 2005--The FBI has issued a BOLO to law enforcement to be on the lookout for 11 Chinese nationals. They are reportedly armed and dangerous "All pose a risk to national security".

   
   Mei Xia Dong DOB: 05/30/1982
   Xiuming Chen
   Chang Yin Liu
   Xiujin Chen DOB: 12/15/1984
   Guozhi Lin DOB: 03/08/1991
   Zengrong Lin DOB: 10/27/1982
   Yu Xiang Weng DOB: 10/04/1963 or 04/05/1964
   Qiquan Lin
   Min Xiu Xie DOB: 11/21/1977
   Xing Wei Liu
   Liqiang Liang
   Per BOLO: "If located, detain and hold for questioning. Suspects are believed to have entered the US via New York or Boston. THE WORD IS THEY MAY HAVE A DIRTY BOMB.

   Note: Perhaps you "bix" and the rest of the city council need to catch up with the real world.

   That world isn't a nice place, that world is almost as bad as Portland/ little Beruit on a Friday night, what this city deserves is it's butt kicked real good by some of these "nice" people that the ACLU,you, and Randy Leonard want to protect, then and only then would your "post", maybe have a differnt slant, but in the real world of so far left PDX.....HELL, BUSH WOULD BE BLAMED IF WE WERE! The JTTF,is not the problem.
   

2. The One True b!X on 24 Jan 2005

   Hey Jack, if you don't like Oregon law, then lobby to change it. Unless your view is that Portland police officers should be allowed to violate it.

   You might possibly think ORS 181.850 is wrong (I don't know this for certain but I assume it's a safe bet), but it is the law of the land.

3. The One True b!X on 24 Jan 2005

   And for some not-so-random context for Peek's example, it might be helpful for example to read this item which explains the current facts of that situation without the big scary "THE WORD IS THEY MAY HAVE A DIRTY BOMB" bit.

   In the event Peek doesn't click through, here's the skinny: One of those lsited has already been in custody for months and has no terrorist connections. As for the others, no evidence of terror connections has surfaced, no evidence of a dirty bomb threat has surfaced, officials have doubted the claims since they broke on Wednesday, and some officials believe the tip was a fake emant to punish those listed.

   Oh, wait. There I go again, living in the reality-based community. Silly me.

4. The One True b!X on 24 Jan 2005

   And here's my point about the importance of knowing the actual facts about situations like the one Peek mentions. Without facts, all we have is the fear.

   Yes, there are things to be scared of. Of course there are. But if we don't specifically make sure we know the facts, all we are left with is a near-hysterical fear.

   Funny, I thought that's what the terrorists wanted of us: To be constantly and disassociatively afraid.

   I guess my question to Jack Peek is this: Why are you giving the terrorists what they want, by constantly and repeatedly wedding yourself to fear instead of fact?

5. Maru on 24 Jan 2005

   Since 9/11 this country has had unprecedented opportunities to embrace and be embraced by the world and to make ourselves a much safer place to live. Instead we have squandered every good feeling towards our country and taken a multitude of steps that have NOT resulted in our safety but instead has only fed on our fears. We stand in lines in airports for security checks and yet cargo is loaded and flown everywhere with little examination. We chase arbitrary lists of supposedly "dangerous" people that turn out to have no links at all to any 'danger' and yet our lengthy Oregon border to the ocean is unpatrolled and ships roll into our ports filled to capacity with crates and crates of who knows what.

   What I want is an action plan based in reality and not created to give 'less thinking humans' a false sense of security.

   What I want is a country that acts on its beliefs of LIBERTY and doesn't arbitrarily give over its power to those Bush Approved FBI officials in hopes that they are doing their jobs.

   What I want is a chain of command that makes sense. Why should officers involved with the JTTF have higher security clearences then those whose job it is to supervise them? (Police Chief and the Mayor specifically).

   In my little mind it is all to keep thinking people out of the process. It is all to give the illusion of something being done when all we really have done is signed over the rights of decent citizens to "Big Brother".

   Need proof of that? Ask yourself how a national manhunt for a previously unknown local Portland lawyer could all come down to a mistake. The next one they target could be you or someone you love.

   So take your scare tactics and shove them Jack.

   This citizen wants the FACTS.

   
   

6. Lea on 24 Jan 2005

   Hear hear, Maru!

7. doretta on 24 Jan 2005

   That whole interview was such a perfect reflection of the kind of bureaucratic gamesmanship that killed our chances to catch 9/11 before it happened.

   "If the single biggest threat to the region is terrorism, it doesn't make sense to have the largest police presence in Oregon be absent from the terrorism task force."

   For "single biggest threat to the region" I nominate a magnitude 9 subduction zone earthquake with accompanying tsunami. Certainly terrorism is a threat--and maybe the biggest threat the FBI has responsibility for--but the PPB has a lot of other stuff to deal with.

   Meth houses, street gangs, identity theft, car theft, burglary, drunk driving--all big problems with well-documented costs in both human and financial terms. The number of people killed in the attacks on 9/11 is about 20% of the number of homicide victims in this country EACH YEAR since 9/11. Portland police officers are already trying to keep up with all this stuff short-handed.

   "And it's absolutely key to be able to plug into the Portland Police Bureau, to put out alerts and to plug into their information system."

   Well, sure, and every city official and his cousin has agreed that we should cooperate in that way--which has nothing to do with whether or not there should be two full-time officers assigned to the JTTF whether or not there currently happen to be any alerts or any things to plug into the information system. While it will no doubt look good in Mr. Jordan's file when he's up for his next promotion, I have a hard time imagining that two free police officers is going to make the difference for those "more than 100 FBI agents in Oregon."

   "Jordan said Portland stands alone in its demands for civilian oversight among the 100 cities that have terrorism task forces or an equivalent force."

   Well Mr, Jordan, if everybody else were jumping off a bridge would you do it too? Didn't this guy's parents go over the stupidity of this argument with him when he was in 7th grade?

   "Jordan says he is not willing to grant security clearance to all city commissioners who want civilian oversight of the task force."

   Jordan fails to mention that in the past they have granted sufficient clearance to nobody, not the mayor and not the chief of police. You can make an argument for not letting the numbers get out of hand and perhaps our city commissioners will need to compromise--but absolutely no oversight is a lot harder to justify and that's what we've been getting so far.

   "There are people in Oregon right now who have trained in jihadist camps overseas and in some of those camps they preached the murdering of Americans, and they took vows to murder Americans."

   Those jihadists may exist but it's been three and a half years since 9/11, we've been participating in the JTTF since the beginning and they haven't arrested a single person who they've charged with terrorist intent. Possibly had they not arrested the "Portland 7" for trying to play soldier in Afghanistan some of them might have gone on to attempt terrorist acts. Of course, the key to catching them was an alert local law enforcement officer who was apparently not informed he could not do such key work unless he was a part of a JTTF.

   "I'm very proud of how we conducted ourselves with the Mayfield case. We built a castle and the foundation turned out to be sand. But it was not our fault, not FBI Portland's fault."

   But FBI Portland provided the troops that carried out those orders built on sand, and guess what, those same people are giving FBI Portland their orders today. Civilian oversight is not a luxury, it's a neccessity.

8. Suzii on 25 Jan 2005

   "I'm very proud of how we conducted ourselves with the Mayfield case."

   Ok, I'm not saying Jordan and his crew should be despondent, but to be PROUD of seizing Mayfield's son's Spanish homework as "evidence" of a link to a bombing in Spain? That's just weird.

9. The One True b!X on 25 Jan 2005

   I think perhaps Peek might want to read this: "The FBI said Tuesday that the possible terrorist plot reported against Boston by a tipster last week was a false alarm."

10. Jack Peek on 27 Jan 2005

    HEY GUYS...WHATS FEAR????

    Fear is what you know.Combat vets tell you the "newbies" say..."I'M NOT AFRAID, THERE IS NOTHING TO BE AFRAID OF." That is why there are "newbies!"

    The infinite stupidity of there isn't anything too fear in these times, or the stupidity of saying your sure I'm running around like "chicken little"...Chicken Little loses his head, I will not, but you lib's will. You don't talk your way out of this one, but be my guest if that's what you think. Just don't give me "excrement" for my fear and wanting to protect my country, my wife and kids, and HELL! even a "lib" with the head where the sun never shines.

11. The One True b!X on 27 Jan 2005

    Looks like it's time for an episode of Reading Comprehension With Jack Peek.

    Jack says this: "The infinite stupidity of there isn't anything too fear in these times..."

    In saying this, he pretends, ignores, or failed to notice that back in comment #4 I said this: "Yes, there are things to be scared of. Of course there are."

    Further, he dodges wha my point was, which I made clear when I said this: "But if we don't specifically make sure we know the facts, all we are left with is a near-hysterical fear."

    Hence, we can see that Peek once again ignores the facts in favor of peddling fear. Either that, or it's that he either doesn't actually read what other people say here.

12. Jack Peek on 27 Jan 2005

    Further, he dodges wha my point was, which I made clear when I said this: "But if we don't specifically make sure we know the facts, all we are left with is a near-hysterical fear."

    No dodge, there is nothing wrong with facts!

    Your position is we do nothing, "We might offend!" "We may upset someone!" We cannot sit and do nothing! WE MAY GET IT WRONG, WE HAVE TO BE RIGHT ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME!

    That is impossible, they(can't use the wrong word here) only have to get it right once!

    The stupidity of doing nothing offends me to tears of anger. The idea it's not ok just because it's Bush, really makes me ill.

    You, "True", and the rest of you, go ahead and "fight a more sensetive war," and like the loser that said that, STAND ON THE PLATFORM, and think what you could have done, that, thank GOD, is all you should get.

13. The One True b!X on 27 Jan 2005

    This is why it's entirely pointless to have a conversation with you, Jack. You are incapable of seeing more than two sides to an issue, or any shades of gray.

    No one here has ever argued that we should do nothing. But because people don't agree to subscribe to your hysteria, you equate that with saying we should do nothing.

14. Jack Peek on 27 Jan 2005

    Bix: Your side's debate amounts to doing nothing!

    Why don't you ask for solutions to dealing with the "fact" there are elements right here in this country that have, or will plot to kill us, that have killed us in locations overseas(too many to list), why don't you drop the rhetoric of "Bush stole the election etc. and put a thread on solving the mess. I'll bet it starts with a more "sensetive war!"

15. The One True b!X on 27 Jan 2005

    You're continued lying about my position is getting old. Nowhere have I ever stated that we should somehow abolish law enforcement or prevent it from ever doing anything -- and that would be the equivalent of the "doing nothing" that you keep claiming I support

    Let me know when you learn to stop lying about your opponents' positions. Then maybe something productive can occur.

16. JACK PEEK on 27 Jan 2005

    Let me know when you learn to stop lying about your opponents' positions. Then maybe something productive can occur.

    let me know when you will post a thread and make your post #1 on the "blues" way out of this mess....I'm sick of the debate/whinning about how bad it is...show me the money!

    The election in Iraq is going on, we had an election in Afganistan, we haven't been attacked here, your words are getting read in places other then "little Beriut!"

    I'm like you, I'm sick of the dissing of the President, sick of being called for being concerned for all our safety in these times, sick of people like "FAT TEDDY" dropping our troops morale and Iraqi voters hearing his BS!

    All your sick of is you don't have power, I can see say this with few, if any reservations......keep on course, in 08...the Democratic party will be a burned out shell if people with some brains like you don't wise up.

    Put up a thread on solutions to Iraq..it will be fun!

17. The One True b!X on 27 Jan 2005

    Take up the many offers from people willing to help you start your own blog and do it yourself.

18. bystander on 27 Jan 2005

    Yes. Please, please PLEASE start your own blog. If you improve your debate skill, I might even visit!

19. thatgirl on 28 Jan 2005

    You are not wrong to want to support and protect and defend your country. Noone here has brought that into question. Aren't we given, as citizens of a democracy, the right and responsibility to hold our government up to the test, to ensure that it operates within its own laws? What good is protecting freedom if there are no freedoms left to protect?

    Here is a hypothetical scenario for you that is a little off topic to this particular entry, but you strayed a little from that, so i'm just following suit.

    How would you feel, Jack, if you were vacationing in Mexico with your family, just having a great time. Maybe you rented a summer home there so that your kids could hang out on the beach. One day, without warning, you are incarcerated without being charged with a crime. In jail, they beat you up and spit on you. Your children are taken away and you have no idea where they are. You are there for three years, never given a trial or a lawyer or a legal reason for your capture other than the fact that you are white, you speak English, and a few years before a group of white neonazi racists from America had come across the border and blown up a bank tower in Mexico City?

    On a side note, I suppose people probably took your position during WWII when Japanese Americans were herded into internment camps, out of fear. Is that a mistake you want your country to repeat?

20. JACK PEEK on 28 Jan 2005

    Aren't we given, as citizens of a democracy, the right and responsibility to hold our government up to the test, to ensure that it operates within its own laws? What good is protecting freedom if there are no freedoms left to protect?
    
    Of course you are....But, and it's a big one.

    None,none,none of you said a word when Bubba nailed Kosovo and that area with bombs...none of you. This big speech about rights is a cover for the loss..(twice now) of the WHITE HOUSE.

    As with BlueOregon, you want me out, anyway you can.

    But it remains, you will not as your loser JFK Kerry didn't do, and that was to articulate a plan other then to cut and run. He "killed" his potential as a possible president with the "sensetive war" BS....it was the dead on arrival statement.

    You lost and will again,if you do not step up to the plate an reconize we are at war.

    The storyline about Mexico was a dodge for what none of you have..that an answer that will play at election time in 08. The people that killed us on 911 are real, not fiction, nor can they be ignored by looking the other way when we are hit as we have so many times in other parts of the world. At some point, it all will come to your door, then you will want my 3 kids to do something about it(three kids in service) two in Afganistan, one in Iraq.

    If you have no answer other then to run....get out of the way of the rest of us who will address the issue.

21. thatgirl on 28 Jan 2005

    "None,none,none of you said a word when Bubba nailed Kosovo and that area with bombs...none of you. This big speech about rights is a cover for the loss..(twice now) of the WHITE HOUSE."

    What? How on earth can you extrapolate that nonsense from anything I stated? And, what's more, how can you even pretend to draw a connection between those two statements? You have created, from my single post, a fictitious persona to attack and deride. This single post revealed no evidence to you of any party affiliation I may have (which I do not), no past voting record, no loyalties to presidents or presidential candidates. All of the true answers to these questions would certainly surprise the hell out of you. I am not a sign waving political cartoon. YOU inserted those characteristics, not me.

    My post was merely designed to appeal to whatever sense of empathy or civility you may possess, to draw you back into a discussion of rights and responsibilities and to try to portray to you the reasons to consider the merit of the actions of the JTTF. Yours was an exercise in namecalling. You portray the democracy we share as though it were some kind of baseball game--something to be won or lost. It isn't.

    I NEVER ONCE denied the FACT that we are at war. I think thus far it has been a sloppy, underfunded, undersupported catastrophe of a war. I am sorry that your children do not have the necessary supplies to defend their lives. I am sorry that a first strike was taken against a government that has not been shown to hold any responsibility for any of Al Qaeda's attacks. I recognize that we are there, and I recognize the need to follow through. Pulling out would be more of a disaster than anything we have concocted thus far. And I agree, a 'sensitive war' is a contradiction in terms.

    As far as combatting terrorism, what good has America done to protect its allies whose nations have been the breeding grounds for terrorists? The 'war on terror' that we are fighting is against an amorphous, insipid, invisible suicidal army, which we must work to protect ourselves from. But, and it's a big one, most of them are not here. They are being recruited out of the impoverished regions of Turkey, France, Spain, Britain, etc. If we ignore their activities there...well then, expect to see them here very soon. They are being indoctrinated in marketplaces on the other side of the world and dispatched upon the innocent citizens of our ally nations. Their activity HAS NOT diminished since the first attack. We should be helping our allies, not alienating them. This is not a war we can win on our own, and it is no ordinary war (if war can be called ordinary). This should be an exercise in quiet infiltration and dismantling. We are engaged in two separate wars, one in Iraq and one that knows no borders, and we have not yet succeeded in either of them... yet.

    This is no longer a discussion for this message board. I have already strayed way too far off topic--which I will remind you was the examination of the merits and pitfalls of breaking our own laws to make the people of Oregon feel safer.

    As to my character, of which you know NOTHING, you are not to attack it again. If you want to know who you are really speaking to, you just need to ask. I am a citizen of the United States. I am not a "blue" or a "red." I am a thinking individual that carries in me the capacity to sympathize with others in an attempt to fortify a nation, not divide it.

    And on another note, I would like to extend my hopes for the safe return of your children and admiration of their courage.