February 23, 2005
Inside The Mayor's JTTF Oversight Protocol
Policy Appears To Rest Entirely On Officers' Self-Certification
The striking thing about the debate over Portland's participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force (other than the manipulation of that debate at the hands of The Oregonian editorial board) is how many aspects of the City's involvement have never really been reported.
Earlier this month, for example, there was the revelation that even absent a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), officers from the Portland Police Bureau can continue on assignment to the Task Force.
A further aspect that has never really been reported is the precise nature of the oversight put into place after the City insisted upon, and the FBI granted, "secret" clearance to Mayor Vera Katz and Chief Derrick Foxworth.
(Understand, we're not saying any of this is some sort of secret. The information has been there for the getting all along, it's just that apparently no one has ever bothered to get it, examine it, and report on it until recently.)
In an item last week, we mentioned portions of the ordinance which would have authorized a new MoU last December, had that decision not been delayed indefinitely. Those portions referred to a policy called the "Mayor's PJTTF Oversight Protocol", intended to provide "for regular briefings of the Mayor and regular certifications by the Chief of Police that Portland officers working with the PJTTF are in compliance with ORS 181.575 and ORS 181.850".
An undated copy of the protocol, obtained from the office of Mayor Tom Potter (and still, oddly, marked as a draft), details the processes through which the Mayor can exercise oversight over the activities of the Portland officers assigned to the JTTF.
That oversight appears to be almost entirely dependent upon quarterly briefings by the Special Agent-in-Charge of the Portland office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (currently Robert Jordan) on "issues involving the Portland officers assigned to the JTTF based on a need to know basis" and on monthly briefings by the Chief of Police (or the Assistant Chief of Investigations) "to assure compliance with Oregon law".
That latter briefing in some ways is the most important from the standpoint of proper City oversight of Portland officers, since it deals directly with the local chain of command (there's not much we can do about what SAC Jordan determines the City has a "need to know").
Prevously established in the JTTF debate is that while the Portland officers assigned to the JTTF receive "top secret" clearance, the Chief and Mayor receive only "secret" clearance -- described by The Oregonian as permitting "information about the targets of joint investigations, but not the sources" and by the ACLU of Oregon as not permitting "access to working files of Portland officers taking part".
So while the Chief is given the responsibility to brief the Mayor on the matter of compliance with Oregon law, the Chief is dependant upon what the officers themselves report to him about their JTTF activities.
According to the Protocol, the officers assigned to the JTTF are required to provide a monthly memorandum to the Chief of Police certifying "that each officer has received training on ORS 181.575 and ORS 181.850 and is operating within ORS 181.575 and ORS 181.850 for work performed while assigned to the JTTF". That certification is then passed by the Chief to the Mayor.
Current oversight processes, then, boil down almost entirely to the self-certification of the Portland officers assigned to the JTTF that they are not violating Oregon law. Due to the vast distinction between "secret" and "top secret" clearances, neither the Chief nor the Mayor appear to have any authority to verify independently that the offcers' involvement indeed does not violate either of the specified statutes.
It logically follows, then, that we need to understand the nature of the "training on ORS 181.575 and ORS 181.850" reportedly received by the Portland officers assigned to the JTTF, since that training is the basis upon which those officers make their self-certification that they are in compliance with state law.
Which is precisely where our continued attention to the JTTF issue heads next, in an item to come later.
Comments (18)
myrln on 23 Feb 2005
What all of this means, essentially, is that the mayor has no oversight and that the police are acting independently within the city hierarchy insofar as the jttf is concerned. What the city has to decide, therefore, is if this is acceptable: police acting alone with no responsibility to the entity that employs them. It's this simple: who the hell's the boss?
Jack Peek on 24 Feb 2005
What this all means is that these are different times which require different needs to prevent another 911, or even close too it.
And this city with all it's debate about the need for law's allow's an idiot to perch on a building ledge and trespass, 1000 people on bikes to delay a fire truck, to bitch about the cops when they take back the streets.YOU PEOPLE CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!
The oversight deal is fine, if the JTTF is allowed to do the job, but that is clearly not wanted here, we might offend some guy who plays "terriost" and plans too "off" a local school.
William on 24 Feb 2005
Life without straw men isn't so bad. Try it.
Miles on 24 Feb 2005
This is really about how the tentacles of Federal power are being built around the facade of any actual State or local power.
No surprise... the right wing claim to favor state power over federal power has never been more than a tactical position... not a matter of principle.
You could put this in the historic context of Federal power grabs in time of war... except we're not in a time of war in any legal sense.... no declaration of war... just a President who is playing a war leader on TV... and using the idea of War to create a stronger Federal police state, whose local allies are police and law enforcement officials.
You would think someone would care... but of course what is crafty about this is that it's so much harder to understand than a sex scandal.
These are matters of great political and moral principle... but they sound like bureacratic quibbles to most people, I would think.
myrln on 24 Feb 2005
It puzzles me how folks seem to keep avoiding the only central question: Is the police force under the mayor's control or not? Should or shouldn't it be? (The latter question seems to require a referendum of the voters.) If not, then why is the city paying them? And also if not, then do folks understand they have turned their police force over to federal control and no longer have any say in any local way about what the police do or don't do? And also if not, are folks satisfied to let their LOCAL tax dollars pay for a federal police force over which they have no say?
Just asking.
Jack Peek on 24 Feb 2005
And this city with all it's debate about the need for law's allow's an idiot to perch on a building ledge and trespass, 1000 people on bikes to delay a fire truck, to bitch about the cops when they take back the streets.YOU PEOPLE CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!
Gee, not one comment on the above....interesting!
William on 24 Feb 2005
Um, I commented on it. I think that my comment also reflects why nobody else bothered to. We are not "YOU PEOPLE". We are a diverse group and we don't uniformly think that it's ok to block fire trucks any more than Republicans uniformly think it's ok to privatize Social Security at the cost of trillions of dollars.
As long as you persist in "knowing" what "YOU PEOPLE" all believe, instead of recognizing a more nuanced reality, you will never get anywhere with "us". You might think that "we" can't address your arguments, but that's not how it is at all; "we", whoever "we" are, will address your arguments when they display a firmer understanding of the way things are--not just that terrorists want to kill us, but also that "we" care about "our" rights and have historical precedent to suggest that "we" must be vigilant in their preservation.
Jack Peek on 25 Feb 2005
We are a diverse group and we don't uniformly think that it's ok to block fire trucks SAID WILLIAM
Then William, fix the above for a start, let the "REST OF US PEOPLE" know you don't support that crap. You will then find the rest of us willing to work harder to work out problems we have to the beneifit of us all.
My problem with you "people" is that 8 yrs ago, I tried honest outreach on an issue I have yelled about too many times ,an got my ass kicked.
My thing with you "people" is there is no compromise and you "people" get back the same from me. When you look honstly at the issues I mention here, both are issues of safety for us all.
If its for us all,(safety) why the storm landing on me for it?
William on 25 Feb 2005
fix the above for a start, let the "REST OF US PEOPLE" know you don't support that crap.
Sorry your outreach effort didn't work. If you tried it again today, it still might not. Whatever "our" behavior, that doesn't mean that it's reasonable to expect "us" to protest everything we think is wrong. As long as we're playing with stereotypes let's be real. There's a "lefty belief" that a lot of the right supports the suspension of habeas corpus. And the destruction of social security. And environmental destruction. And corporate welfare. And the list goes on.
When I suggest in this forum that I don't support that crap, I'm letting you know that I don't "support that crap". You can let me, and others, know what you do and don't support with words--since you clearly don't have the time and go out to protest all of the things you think are wrong with the world. Yeah, folks may be skeptical and call you on it if they think they see an inconsistency, but hey it's a start. Anyway, I don't think the "lefty" posters to this web site expect you to protest everything that we think is wrong with what we see as being the "right". Some of us recognize you as an individual and maybe we make some characterizations that aren't fair, but you understand how that might be unintentional because you do the same to us. I hope you will try not to.
As far as compromise, you know and I know there are some things that are tough to compromise on. How am I supposed to stand by idly while the Feds tear apart our Bill of Rights? That's one of those things I'm not willing to compromise on. History shows that we shouldn't, and we look back sadly on the times that we have. You see it differently. You see it as required for our safety and maybe you use history to justify your views. Anyway, I don't see any compromise, but I do see room for debate. For me, that means understanding that you don't want the terrorists to get anyone any more than I do. If the government takes away our freedoms to keep us "safe", then haven't the terrorists badly hurt us again after 9/11?
This JTTF is supposed to keep us safe, but it doesn't make me feel safe. We have examples from around the country where the FBI has targetted people for their political dissent, and we have Jordan here in Portland, who you'll recall was demoted to his current position due to inappropriate behavior towards a whistle-blower back East. So we do need oversight (which I was pleased to note that you are ok with), but the FBI has said we can't have it. If we can't, then I am prepared to go back to the way things were pre-JTTF. Our officers can call on the FBI and visa-versa if need be, and things will likely be nearly as safe as they were with the JTTF. After all, if we only need two officers assigned, then how much utility, really, can Portland be getting out of it?
Jack Peek on 25 Feb 2005
Some of us recognize you as an individual and maybe we make some characterizations that aren't fair, but you understand how that might be unintentional because you do the same to us. I hope you will try not to.
William..in all honesty, I never, ever started those character attacks, but did respond, I did indeed.
For me, that means understanding that you don't want the terrorists to get anyone any more than I do. If the government takes away our freedoms to keep us "safe", then haven't the terrorists badly hurt us again after 9/11?
William, again I agree with you on neither wants anything close to another 911, but these are different times..there is an enemey unlike we have ever fought here and worldwide.."A COLD FACT!"
Sorry, but when Bush said "We will fight terror worldwide" He was speaking honestly. If Portland, Oregon doesn't agree with that fight, then haven't the terroriost hurt us again as well?
And finally .... THANK YOU! for a fair response, I mean that!
William on 26 Feb 2005
To me, it sometimes doesn't matter who started what. I slip sometimes and respond in kind, but really, I should be big enough not to sink to the level of character attacks. If "we" (most people) refused make character attacks (especially our politicians) and refused to reward them, things would be much better.
...these are different times..there is an enemey unlike we have ever fought here and worldwide.."A COLD FACT!" Sorry, but when Bush said "We will fight terror worldwide" He was speaking honestly. If Portland, Oregon doesn't agree with that fight, then haven't the terroriost hurt us again as well?
To be honest, I think that Portland does agree with Bush that terrorism should be fought, but as to how it should be fought, that's another story. You say that we've never had an enemy like this before. Big deal. No two enemies are ever exactly the same. One major question is: can we respond to this enemy without taking away our freedoms and still be effective in fighting it? You already know what my answer is, but do you know why? Some of the reasons are contained in this article, which is more talking about fighting it right here in America than around the world, which is what the JTTF is supposed to be about. Which is why I'm not planning to debate you about whether Bush is right to fight it around the world.
I don't think we should diverge too far from the local focus in this discussion because the JTTF is plenty to talk about. You agree with us that oversight is ok, and you seem also to agree that the FBI will not grant it. You're happy if the JTTF sticks around unchanged, but not if we reduce the scope of our officers' participation or eliminate it. At least that's what I get when I read your messages.
For a focused debate, what is it you want to talk about? While you're fine with accepting oversight, do you have any concerns when we don't have full oversight of OUR employees (as things are now)? If you don't, then I'd suggest that's a great place to start.
Jack Peek on 26 Feb 2005
You're happy if the JTTF sticks around unchanged, but not if we reduce the scope of our officers' participation or eliminate it.
Lets start here.The scope of this is worldwide,(We have to agree on that )the mission is before an attack,not after we catch these bastards. (we must agree on that)
The idea it's Bush,an not Kerry is a problem for you as Kerry would be to me to lead the FBI/JTTF> (we proberly agree on that)
You bought into a "sensetive war", I did not, not ever will I. The nature of the attack on terror is not, nor will it ever be PC/sensetive, it must be swift,an as nasty as these animals are that fight us. If you think a kinder, softer approach would work....GOD HELP US!
Having said that, and having the direct input on the type of people who really are fighting us there and not the Iraq people who he worked with while there, we better take heed to the fact these folks will do anything, anywhere to wipe us off the face of the earth. They clearly understand one thing, that is brute, consistent,and deadly force.
The videos of the Iraq army surrendering in the first war is clear proof, they fold if we don't show weakness or fear.
That brings me to my point, If we debate too much and a PC VERSION of the JTTF comes out of it, these "flys"will see us as weak, unable too match or overpower their attack or potential attack, or play "politics" as I honestly think Mr.Leonard has and is doing, then a qoute from the former Israel offical Benjaimin N.(sp?)applys, sometime like this, Half efforts to thwart terrorism will result in increased problems, for then, they see you as weak an unable to mount a strong resistence to there frontal attack on you.
If he isn't an expert on terror, I don't know who is! Randy Leonard isn't nor will he ever be.
The idea that Portland maybe the first city to withdraw from the JTTF,is a signal to the wrong people...Period.
So William, I may have rambled too much, but I have faith you know what I seek to say.
William on 28 Feb 2005
The scope of this is worldwide,(We have to agree on that )the mission is before an attack,not after we catch these bastards. (we must agree on that)
Hold it. There are terrorists around the world. I would hope that the world would proactively move to put an end to terrorism, yes. When you say it’s worldwide and that we have to catch them, do you mean the US can just barge into any country it wishes to so that it can catch a suspect? Or do you mean that the US must respect the sovereignty of other nations and must work with them to catch terrorists? I can’t agree on this without clarification, and I note that it’s no black-and-white thing. What if there’s a neutral nation that we think has terrorists plotting, but the nation doesn’t have clandestine services to determine that this is the case, and tells the US it can’t come in?
The idea it's Bush,an not Kerry is a problem for you as Kerry would be to me to lead the FBI/JTTF> (we proberly agree on that)
Yes, both suck as far as I’m concerned, though I’m more on Kerry’s side than Bush’s. Either would cause concern for me if I knew they were leading the JTTF.
You bought into a "sensetive war", I did not, not ever will I. The nature of the attack on terror is not, nor will it ever be PC/sensetive, it must be swift,an as nasty as these animals are that fight us.
I did not buy into a sensitive war. I simply refused to buy into the war the way it’s being fought. I know we’ve discussed this in the past, but hey it’s not just “sensitive” to treat all people equally before the law—it’s a precondition to liberty for all. Also, these “animals” that fight us have, on their shoulders, a brain that could have been like yours and mine if they’d had a different life. They didn’t and now they’re after us, but let’s get one thing straight—something is causing them to behave as poorly as they are and Bush’s pathetic game plan doesn’t account for that. He tries to tell us they hate our freedom. Yeah right. If you believe that, maybe we’d better back this discussion up a bit in spite of all we agree on. They are not trying to get us because they hate us, they’re trying to get us because they’re striking out against something they think is swinging at them—namely our government. You probably disagree. Think about what that means. Are you trying to tell me that, if America were an isolationist nation and we never left our borders, and minded our own business, that we’d have suicide hijackings just the same?
The videos of the Iraq army surrendering in the first war is clear proof, they fold if we don't show weakness or fear.
First, “they” are not the Iraq army. “They” are more like the suicide bombers in Palestine/Israel. Israel has spent years being totally hard-assed against them and it got them no-where. Did you read that Israel recently decided to stop leveling the homes of the families of suicide bombers? Weak? By some standards. Smart move, I say. Do you agree? Why is it smart or not?
The idea that Portland maybe the first city to withdraw from the JTTF,is a signal to the wrong people...Period.
You’ve gone forward a bit too fast, there. Humor me. The bulk of your posting struck me as being about the nature of terrorists, and what must be done to combat them. At first I thought your post was too broad-themed but now I think you may have started at the right place. After all, if we don’t know what we have to do to fight “them”, how can we realistically know how useful the JTTF is? For that matter, we won’t know how useful the JTTF is even after we’ve defined that, because we don’t have proper oversight. OK now that I think about it some more I think you started off on the war on terrorism. I currently think that was a bit tangential. Or maybe not. You say that if we’re strong they’ll fold and if we’re weak they’ll attack, and that ending the JTTF is weak. So ok let’s continue on your path. But once we’ve come to a better understanding, we may need to define weak and strong. Israel has been getting hit for many years and by the standards of pretty much every humanitarian agency I’ve heard from it’s been absolutely brutal to “them”. Apparently that’s not the strong we’re looking for.
Jack Peek on 02 Mar 2005
4:00 AM in the morning:
Some of us go too work then!
That brings me to my point, If we debate too much and a PC VERSION of the JTTF comes out of it, these "flys"will see us as weak, unable too match or overpower their attack or potential attack, or play "politics" as I honestly think Mr.Leonard has and is doing, then a qoute from the former Israel offical Benjaimin N.(sp?)applys, sometime like this, Half efforts to thwart terrorism will result in increased problems, for then, they see you as weak an unable to mount a strong resistence to there frontal attack on you.
If he isn't an expert on terror, I don't know who is! Randy Leonard isn't nor will he ever be.
I see any less then 100 percent focus on this point, I fear for us all. The history of those that want us dead is simple, anything less the 100 percent effort will show them fear...they thrive and feed on it to survive.
I will respond on your good post soon.
The One True b!X on 02 Mar 2005
Even if for the sake of argument we were all to grant that Benjamin Netanyahu is an expert on terror, it's still irrelevant -- because one thing he is not is an expert in American democracy.
I, for one, don't care to emulate Israel's approach to balancing liberty and security as a substitute for the American approach to that balance.
Jack Peek on 02 Mar 2005
Even if for the sake of argument we were all to grant that Benjamin Netanyahu is an expert on terror, it's still irrelevant -- because one thing he is not is an expert in American democracy.
One thing is for sure as well, Randy Leonard and you are no expert on terror.
The potential vote against the JTTF, is about to make this city a national disgrace.
Then Randy will become a rising star in the so-called progressive movement, both aboves only make me want to throw-up.
The last time crap like this was debated, the cops wanted a police helicopter to assist the problem of high-speed chases..then commissionar Gretchen Kafoury stated she would not vote for the chopper,"IT GAVE THE BADGUYS"AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE!"
Sort of like "IF THEIR IS AN INVESTIGATION OF A SUSPECT.."WE NEED TO INFORM THEM OF IT!" just as bright as Gretchen "K'S" dumb remark.
The above makes me wanna throw-up!
The expected remark from Leonard would be about the same.....NO JTTF, IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR TO SLEEPER CELLS HERE.
Jack Peek on 02 Mar 2005
Benjamin Netanyahu is an expert on terror, it's still irrelevant -- because one thing he is not is an expert in American democracy.
And John Kerry is an expert? Kerry is not an expert in terror or democracy according to the last election cycle and the American voter.
William on 03 Mar 2005
Well, I suppose I am still waiting for a response to my post! :) However, I'd like to point out that all the people you seem to think are experts at fighting terrorism (Bush Administration, Netanyahu, etc) don't seem to have succeeded in making the world safer from terrorism. By US government estimates, Bush's invasion of Iraq has caused the ranks of Al Qaeda to swell. For all your talk about knowing how to fight terrorism, I have to wonder how it is that you support things like the Iraq war that serve to bolster it.