March 23, 2005
(Updated) Early Federal (And Media) Reaction To City's JTTF Demands
The Misstatements, Spin, And Scare Tactics Begin
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Over the course of the day, various stories have appeared incorporating reaction from the local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to today's unveiling of the City's likely requirements for participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
First, a quick tour through some of that coverage, and then on to some far more important statements and misstatements from a news conference by Federal authorities which apparently, unbeknownst to us, was held today.
An online version of a KOIN report says that the FBI "cannot and will not" grant top secret clearances to local elected officials.
"FBI cannot and will not support the granting of security clearances to anyone who does not have a legitimate and direct need to know our nation's most closely guarded intelligence information" Robert Jordan of the FBI said.
In addition to the early KGW postings we referenced in our previous post, they now have their broadcast report online as well. It repeats the Jordan statement from above, but says that the FBI is willing to "compromise" by pursung top secret clearance for Chief Foxworth only.
Over a KATU's website, they carried an Associated Press report in which has Jordan simply saying that the precedent for such clearances doesn't exist.
Also included with that KATU story is a poll graphic, which if properly reflective of the question demonstrates only that some of the press is going to insist on distortion the issue at hand. That graphic presents the results of the question, "Who do you think should be responsible for dealing with local terrorism issues?" A full 84% reportedly responded that it should be a "joint effort".
Taken on its own, this poll result suffers from the implication that the criteria set forth in today's proposal somehow disagrees with the notion that a "joint effort" is the best way to deal with terrorism issues.
In reality, nothing in the resolution or in the comments today by Mayor Potter or Commissioner Leonard contradicts the notion that a "joint effort" is the best approach. We hope that the local press does not intend to suggest otherwise.
But the real treasure trove comes via Andy Seaton who posted a series of mp3 files from today's events, collected as he was putting together a report for KBOO. Included amongst those files is one of FBI reaction to the City's proposed criteria.
Among the information included in the questions and answers there is a statement from Special Agent-in-Charge Robert Jordan that the FBI does not supervise their investigations to see if they comply with state law.
In that news conference (which we didn't know about, and so we're working from Seaton's audio file here) a representative of the U.S. Attorney's office apparently misrepresented the current situation regarding Portland's participation in the Joint Terrorism Task Force, in response to a question about the JTTF and Oregon law.
The Memorandum of Understanding already in place, the one that we're presently operating under, addresses exactly this fact. It assures that the Portland POlice Bureau officers will not participate in any investigation which they, or their superiors, or their counsel at the City Attorney's office believe run contrary to the two Oregon statute which have raised concerns in the past.
By now, regular readers here should be able to spot how many things are wrong with this statement, and we wish we could properly make out the name of the person from the U.S. Attorney's office who said it.
First, there is no currently-operational Memorandum of Understanding. The last MoU approved by the City Council expired at the end of September, 2004. Period. Full stop.
There is no "Memorandum of Understanding already in place". Period. Full stop.
There is no MoU "that we're presently operating under". Period. Full stop.
Further, the process as described by this representaitve of the U.S. Attorney's office is precisely the problem with current oversight practices. Given that the JTTF-assigned officers are given top secret clearance, the Chief of Police is given only secret clearance, and the City Attorney is given no clearance whatsoever, there is no direct way for either "their superiors" (meaning the officers') or "their counsel in the City Attorney's office" to know whether or not investigations in which those officers are participating "run contrary to the two Oregon statutes" in question.
As we've previously-reported -- and as has yet to be properly picked up by other media outlets -- the entire oversight process as currently constructed appears to depend entirely upon the JTTF-assigned officers self-certifying that they are in compliance with Oregon law.
To date, we have yet to receive specific information from Deputy City Attorney David Woboril as to the training he provides to JTTF-assigned officers that ostensibly enables them to make that self-certification.
One other revelation from that news conference, as seen in the KATU report as aired on their nightly newscast: Expect the Feds to dangle the threat of revoking Federal grants to the City of Portland if City Council ends up withdrawing from the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Robert Jordan -- no stranger to scare tactics in the debate over the JTTF, as evidenced by his recent unsubstantiated remarks about "jihadists" in Oregon -- had this to say: "Both the City of Portland and Multnomah County have sought, and accepted, millions of dollars in Department of Homeland Security grants."
Update
There's another KGW story posted, about FBI reaction.
Also, a Portland Indymedia report from both news conferences held today. Disclosure: This report mentions and links to Portland Communique.
Update
Oregon's right-wing blogopsphere has begun to weigh in, with a stereotypical lack of fundamentals. John Dunshee suggests that Potter has offered no justification for insisting upon access to information which would allow proper local oversight of Portland Police Bureau personnel.
We won't bother to rehash the reasons Potter and others have in fact provided, since we've reported them nearly ad infinitum at this point. If you all want to dispute the rationale, that of course is fair. But will people please stop lying about it all?
Yes, we realize that's an entirely rhetorical question which inevitably will fall upon willfully-deaf ears.
Comments (11)
allehseya on 24 Mar 2005
I’m confused. Back in your November archives, Randy Leonard stated:
”Interestingly, there is no federal funding that comes with out participation in the JTTF. We provide officers to the JTTF at our own expense. I am not sure which funding would be contingent upon our participation in the JTTF, but I think it would be irresponsible on any issue for us to swallow our principles in order to receive federal funding.”
and
”If the Federal Government wants our officers assigned to the JTTF the Feds should reimburse the city for those costs. Currently, we are only reimbursed for overtime and we are allowed the use of a federal vehicle for those officers assigned to the JTTF.”
and
“The City of Portland has received no money from the Joint Terrorism Task Force.”
And yet you reported that when Potter was asked “whether or not a possible withdrawl from the JTTF could lead to ramifications such as the loss of Federal grant money, Potter said, "I would hope not." Saying that Portland still wants to work with the Federal government, he said it would be "foolhardy on the part of the Federal government to withdraw assitance to us."
Yet, Robert Jordon claims "Both the City of Portland and Multnomah County have sought, and accepted, millions of dollars in Department of Homeland Security grants."
Can anyone provide clarity, please?
Randy Leonard on 24 Mar 2005
Allehseya-
The JTTF itself does not provide grants of any kind. The issue of receiving grants relates to those given by the Dept. of Homeland Security. They do award grants around the country to cities and regions they determine are most worthy.
The FBI, in it's statement, does appear to imply that our lack of participation in the JTTF may influence whether or not the Dept. of Homeland Security will refuse to issue the City of Portland more grants in retaliation of our position on the JTTF.
Thus my comment "...I think it would be irresponsible on any issue for us to swallow our principles in order to receive federal funding.”
The One True b!X on 24 Mar 2005
Yes, that point of Jordan's remarks is to threaten the possibility that Portland will lose out on funds that have nothing to do with the JTTF, because the Feds will want to teach us a lesson and/or retaliate against us should we stick to the principles of the filed resolution.
It's Jordan once again running to the press to announce that because he's a Fed, he clearly has the bigger dick, and would everyone please recognize that fact.
It's also, in case anyone missed it, the Feds pushing to see if our rights are for sale.
allehseya on 24 Mar 2005
Thank you for explaining. It's a little more clear, although -- I'm rather daft and am still slightly confused....
My confusion doesnt derive from your stance when you state that "...I think it would be irresponsible on any issue for us to swallow our principles in order to receive federal funding.” I understand that reasoning and fully agree.
My remaining confusion is based on two questions: is "Homeland Security" basically equivalent to "FBI" and if not, how can the FBI even insinuate that funding to Portland from "Homeland Security" would be compromised if we merely seek to negotiate a new MoU in relation to oversight in the JTTF agreement? Also, wouldnt the statement from Special Agent-in-Charge Robert Jordan that "the FBI does not supervise their investigations to see if they comply with state law" inherently admit that the MoU being revisted is justified?
And while you're addressing my confusion, Commissioner Leonard -- could you also confirm, deny or provide clarity on the most excellent point b!X raised:
"that the entire oversight process as currently constructed appears to depend entirely upon the JTTF-assigned officers self-certifying that they are in compliance with Oregon law."
The One True b!X on 24 Mar 2005
That question of self-certification really is the crux of the entire issue of oversight, and I hope that the continued and deafening silence form other media outlets in town means not that they don't care, but that they are working on that aspect but aren't ready yet to publish.
allehseya on 24 Mar 2005
Yes -- I just posted a comment on the City Club site pretty much stating that you've been my main source of information and understanding -- and how if the local media caught up with you there might not be so much 'controversy' surrounding this issue.
Jeff on 24 Mar 2005
Right. This is a bit off-topic, but you popped over to my little blog for a quick comment, which, to my mind, provided an opening to get an answer to something that's long puzzled me: could you provide a phonetic pronunciation for "b!x?"
If it's elsewhere on the site, my bad for not checking. Feel free to drop it off on my blog.
The One True b!X on 24 Mar 2005
All those answers and more can be found here. Heh.
allehseya on 24 Mar 2005
(ahem). That does explain... a lot.
Randy Leonard on 24 Mar 2005
"And while you're addressing my confusion, Commissioner Leonard -- could you also confirm, deny or provide clarity on the most excellent point b!X raised:
"that the entire oversight process as currently constructed appears to depend entirely upon the JTTF-assigned officers self-certifying that they are in compliance with Oregon law."
Confirm.
myrln on 24 Mar 2005
Within the Secret/Top Secret matters, it is also important to remember (as I didn't in a much earlier comment on this) the element of "Need to Know," because even a Top Secret clearance is no guarantee that you get all the info that the underlings may be getting. It could be withheld on the basis of the higher-up not having a Need to Know. In other words, everybody has to have exactly the same level of clearance if this is to work at all. Otherwise, it'd simply be what has previously existed.