February 16, 2005
'Oregonian' Ignores Context And Specifics In JTTF Editorial
But That's Par For The Course
It of course is no surprise whatsoever that The Oregonian supported participation in the JTTF in an editorial published yesterday. But since they've kicked up their exasperation a bit, how could we not respond?
Over the course of its editorial, The Oreognian refers to the "time and energy being wasted" by Council members who are "in a dither" over "unfounded reservations" and making "unrealistic" demands. We'll skip their views on reimbursement, because the issue of oversight is the one with which we are concerned.
The concern about civilian oversight is bogus, too. The mayor and police chief do have adequate security clearances to keep tabs on what city officers on the task force are up to. Leonard & Co. have yet to document a single incident of misconduct by city police in the five years Portland has been cooperating with the federal task force.
First thing, we need to revisit the question of just what sort of security clearances had been granted to Mayor Katz and Chief Foxworth last year.
In a recent article, The Oregonian described it this way:
Foxworth and Katz both had what's known as "secret" clearance, meaning they can receive information about the targets of joint investigations, but not the sources.
In a set of talking points, the ACLU of Oregon describes it this way:
First, we don’t know the scope of Mayor Katz’ oversight and her ability to prevent Portland officers from participating in investigations that violate ORS 181.575. But we do know that she obtained only the lowest level of security clearance, which wouldn’t allow her to have access to working files of Portland officers taking part in the PJTTF. Second, the Mayor has told us she cannot disclose her actions or scope of involvement in her oversight role.
Turning now to the ordinance which would have authorized a new Memorandum of Understanding last December, had the matter not been delayed, we have a couple of other descriptions of the oversight process. After explaining that Katz and Foxworth had recevied the aforementioned "secret" clearance, the ordinance went on to offer the following set of Council findings.
The Mayor has reached agreement with the federal government on the Mayor's PJTTF Oversight Protocol. The Protocol provides 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.
In accordance with the Mayor's PJTTF Oversight Protocol, Chief Foxworth and Assistant Chief Ferraris have met with and briefed Mayor Katz on the activities of the Portland Police Officers assigned to the PJTTF through Thursday, December 9, 2004 and have provided her with a signed certification that the activities of the officers are in compliance with ORS 181.575 and ORS 181.850.
In exercising her oversight responsibilities, Mayor Katz has met with and been briefed on PJTTF operations by FBI Special Agent-in-Charge Robert Jordan, Chief Foxworth, and Assistant Chief Ferraris and is satisfied that the Portland officers assigned to the PJTTF are performing their duties in compliance with ORS 181.575 and ORS 181.850.
So what does all of that say about the problem with the argument, advanced yesterday by The Oregonian editorial board, that the Mayor and Chief have adequate security clearances?
We've learned in the past that while the Mayor and Chief were granted "secret" clearance, the officers themselves are given "top secret" clearance. In and of itself, you would think that would trigger some alarms from anyone actually concerned with Portland officers being properly under the control and authority of Portland officials rather than the federal government.
But it becomes increasingly clear when you read what would have been the authorizing ordinance last December that Mayor Katz wasn't actually engaging in much oversight at all. Rather, she was accepting the word of another official who was given only "secret" clearance, who was accepting the word of the Portland officers assigned to the JTTF.
And because of the "secret"/"top secret" split, no one in a position of authority in City government can access and examine the infomation held by the JTTF which would actualy determine whether or not there is ever a violation of Oregon law. It's would appear from the delayed ordinance that no such direct examination has taken place.
Now, we don't mean to suggest that the Portland officers assigned to the JTTF would knowingly violate Oregon law and then knowingly keep that fact from the Mayor or the Chief. But the point, as we've argued before, is that we're supposed to ensure, not assume.
To insist upon a proper chain of command and upon real civilian oversight is not an affront to the character of the officers involved. Those officers are part of a system that is meant to be deliberately constructed to guarantee as much balance and accountability as possible, blind to the question of the good or bad character of the specific individuals at hand.
Returning to yesterday's editorial, there's something else to address: Their argument that because no critic has "yet to document a single incident of misconduct by city police in the five years Portland has been cooperating with the federal task force", there are no grounds for the criticism.
This of course is a time-honored Oregonian editorial tactic of ignoring inconvenient context. Returning to the talking points from the ACLU of Oregon, we can see the litany of problems other localities have had with their respective JTTFs when it comes to infringing on the civil liberties of individuals and groups.
What The Oregonian appears to be arguing, once you take that greater context into consideration rather than regurgitate in a vacuum, is that it's perfectly acceptable to just wait around and hope that if abuses ever occur here, someone will happen to let us know and then we can deal with them well after the fact.
We wonder if all of the people and organizations who turned up in the historic secret files undecovered by the Portland Tribune a couple years ago would consider that to be a proper exercise of civilian authority over law enforcement agencies.
Our suspicion is that they would have preferred knowing about those abuses at the time, and therefore having the opportunity to address them right then and there. And that should be the very standard we seek to apply today.
Comments (10)
allehseya on 16 Feb 2005
The editorial's author makes the claim that the controversy is about politics.
It couldn’t possibly be an issue of accountability that provides assurance in guarding our civil liberties as outlined in our Bill of Rights. Assurance that we remain a Democracy with the laws we pass to protect it.
The controversy surrounding Commissioner Leonard is -- ironically -- due to his attempt to ensure that such laws are designed in such a manner that they cannot be used to compromise these principles of our democracy – the controversy exists because there is opposition to this attempt and its only rationalization is based on fear. To be fair -- if not fear – then a naïve trust in a system ruling through fear.
b!x once said – in a different context – “Principles mean nothing if you abandon them to save your own ass.”
I quote him in this context because I believe it applies to Commissioner Leonard's stance in not abandoning the very principles we live by and trust our elected officials to ensure.
carla on 16 Feb 2005
Our Oregonian editorial staff seem eager to run to "politics" on that which they disagree.
Their vehemently outspoken displeasure at the citizenry's votes on Doctor Assisted Suicide and their support of JTTF somehow isn't.
Incidentally, this is my first visit to this blog. It's very well done. I hope to make this the first of many.
The One True b!X on 16 Feb 2005
Okay, I have email off to Saltzman's office, the general All Things Considered address, and the NPR reporter's own email address. If and when I get back anything useful, I'll give it its own item rather than merely posting an update here (although I will post a pointer here to that new item).
myrln on 16 Feb 2005
As one who once upon a time went thru and had clearance for govt. materials of highly classified nature, I must point out that the divide between secret/top secret is considerable. In this particular instance, the mayor is getting very edited info; there are things the mayor can't know about what's actually going on because he can't be told it and those telling him what's what are severely limited in what they can tell him, lest they violate laws governing classified material. In fact, therefore, the mayor has NO oversight because the mayor will never know what's really being done. Were I mayor, I would be mighty uncomfortable with that kind of situation.
PACK JEEK on 17 Feb 2005
Talk of the Portland Joint Terrorism Task Force just isn't the same without Jack's commentary... thus this obligatory well-CAPPED Jackatribe ;-)
---
Don't you people understand? There's an ENEMY that wants to GET US. Are you CRAZY?
Civil rights Schmivel rights, I say! When there are HALFWAY HOUSES in NEIGHBORHOODS you KNOW the TERRORISTS WANT TO KILL US (YOU!).
I don't want to talk about the past civil rights abuses by the FBI. Or the PPB. Or the fact that JTTF members have been caught "spying" on anti-war groups. THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS THIS POWER TO SPY ON US SO THEY CAN GET THE TERRORISTS. THE TERRORISTS ARE IN OREGON. THE FBI SAYS SO.
WHEN WILL YOU PEOPLE EVER GET IT??
---
End Jackatribe :-)
Jack Peek on 17 Feb 2005
Here is a prime example of why I HATE LIBBERS AND ALL THEY STAND FOR!! Sounding like Howard Dean.
The One True b!X on 17 Feb 2005
So you all know just where Jack Peek stands: While he will fly off the handle when he thinks someone is trying to stifle his own speech, he asked me to delete comment #5 -- a send-up of Jack's posting style which was posted by one "PACK JEEK".
My message to Jack Peek, in email just now: "Jack, if you want freedom to speak for yourself, you have to accept other people getting to have that freedom as well. That's how America works. Love it or leave it."
Jack Peek on 17 Feb 2005
Yes...I remember the ass-chewings I took on the other BLOG, about a lowering the level of my discussion, the level the other guy took wasn't in the best interest of the discussion, but as usual, it's ok as long as you "people" do it.
WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND.
My Mom died a few days ago, she was fond of saying that when I would talk about what and who lives in this hole....."it may take awhile she said, those who want to harm you, or diss you always get it in the end"...I'm patient.
Jack Peek on 17 Feb 2005
Leonard & Co. have yet to document a single incident of misconduct by city police in the five years Portland has been cooperating with the federal task force.
Care to discuss the above...
As Sir Winston Churchill once said: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last.". The latest terror attack in Spain gives an interesting example - it could be not the crocodile one feeds, but one watching you feeding it.
The appeasment of the elected officals here is a sick deal.
There is no threat, there are no terror sleeper cells. THEN WHAT DID THOSE PEACEFUL PEOPLE PLEAD GUILTY FOR?
And what will you infidels say when the next attack comes...Like the Colorado professor say's..It's all America's fault...I'd bet money you do then blame Bush.
The One True b!X on 18 Feb 2005
Jack, let me tell you the two things I, personally, can't stand about your part of these conversations.
(1) You lie about what people have said or haven't said.
(2) You apparently don't read what I write before you respond to it.
Let me demonstrate.
Leonard & Co. have yet to document a single incident of misconduct by city police in the five years Portland has been cooperating with the federal task force.
Care to discuss the above...
I already have. In this very item. The point is to do all we can to make sure that abuses that have happened elsewhere do not happen here. It's not about proving there have been abuses, it's about trying as much as possible to prevent them from ever ocurring in the first place.
The appeasment of the elected officals here is a sick deal.
There is no threat, there are no terror sleeper cells. THEN WHAT DID THOSE PEACEFUL PEOPLE PLEAD GUILTY FOR?
Not one elected official here (nor me, for that matter) have ever once argued that there is no threat, nor that there are no sleeper cells.
That's not the first time you've lied here. And let me tell you something: You lying about your opponents' positions is a far, far worse problem than some random reader posting a comment satirizing your posting style. And far, far more damaging to useful democratic debate.
I'm still not going to kick you off, because as I've told you repeatedly, I don't do that.
But please, I beg you. Stop lying. Now.