March 28, 2005
(Updated) Neighborhood Activist Seeks Delay Of JTTF Resolution
Cites Absence Of 'Terrorism' Definition
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
In an email on Sunday sent to various neighborhood officials and crime prevention specialists, and forwarded today (pdf) to a local mailing list, neighborhood activist Martin Slapikas urged the delay of this Wednesday's public hearing on the Joint Terrorism Task Force oversight resolution filed last week by Mayor Tom Potter and Commissioner Randy Leonard.
Among the issues raised by Slapikas in the email is one which he also raised as a caller into yesterday morning's edition of Oregon Crossfire: That neither Leonard nor Potter "provide a definition of terrorism upon which their decision is to be based." Slapikas seeks to have City Council establish such a definition, and wants consideration of the City's participation in the JTTF postponed for at least 90 45 days. "It has, after all," he wrote, "already been postponed 5 months."
Slapikas also sent copies of the email to the chair of the Citizens Crime Commission (an arm of the Portland Business Alliance), and to Senators Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden.
Of all the arguments against the proposal, we find ourselves befuddled the most by Slapikas' concern that the resolution does not define terrorism.
If the most recent Memorandum of Understanding regarding Portland and the JTTF (it was adopted in 2003 and expired in September of last year) is to be taken as a guide, the City Council has never offered a definition of terrorism when agreeing to participate in the JTTF.
As far as we know, Slapikas never complained about the lack of such definition until the introduction of the Leonard/Potter oversight resolution, so we're not sure why it's suddenly has become an issue for him now -- unless it's being viewed as a handy rhetorical tactic to try to derail the resolution.
On the matter of Slapikas' concern that "the first public exposure to their resolution" was last Wednesday afternoon, in the literal sense this certainly is true. But the fact that an oversight resolution was on its way has been known for some time, and was reported by (at least) The Oregonian, The Portland Mercury, KGW, and here on Portland Communique.
While in the strict sense, Slapikas is correct that the text of the resolution itself was unveiled only five days ago, the intention to formally discuss oversight issues at City Council has been no secret.
Update
Included in Slapikas' original email, but unobtained by us until a few minutes ago, was his own proposed resolution (pdf) for continuing participation in the JTTF without any mention of oversight matters.
It's five pages long, so interested readers should be sure to go through the entire document for all of the concerns Slapikas raises. For our part, we want to point out that you may want to filter it through one particular piece of demagoguery he includes in the section he describes as providing background on the issue.
"Unfortunately, the memory of that massacre of our fellow citizens appears to have faded from memory," Slapikas writes. "Certain members of Portland’s City Council act as if our nation hasn’t been terrorized at all."
Comments (15)
Jack Peek on 28 Mar 2005
TERRORISM 101....GO TO THE SMOKING GUN WEBSITE.
There was an email sent to me by the editor of this blog saying "the otherside" Me, and others refuse to debate.
Well, get ready for a debate, a national one with Randy and Bill O'Reilly, It should be confirmed soon.
Its the guy who started it all -VS- next too Bush, an Lars..the most hated man on the right in PDX.
Ill take out a loan and collect all my popcans to put some dough in Vegas on the winner of this one.
"Come on down" Mr Leonard, make my day, PLEASE!
In the mean time, B!X read the terror manual and ask how we stop any of that without the JTTF and the Patriot Act?
I'll be happy to debate that with you and no name calling.
The One True b!X on 28 Mar 2005
It's difficult to debate anyone who keeps framing the debate under false pretenses. None of this is about doing "without the JTTF and the Patriot Act". None of the parties involved have suggested not being in the JTTF, or in tossing the PATRIOT Act.
What's been argued is that law enforcement authority without proper and inadequate civilian oversight is improper.
But the other side doesn't seem to want to debate that issue, which is the actual point of contention raised by the proposed resolution. Instead, they lie about what's being proposed, misstate the issues involved, and then dare the rest of us to explain why we don't beleive there's a threat.
(For what it's worth, I would fully expect, in any hypothetical debate with anyone such as O'Reilley, that the same demogoguery and deceptions will be used to bludgeon away the actual facts and actual issues.)
If someone can find me an opponent who will not ignore, trivialize, demonize, demagogue, or outright lie about the facts and the public policy question at issue, then by all means, let's debate.
But I'm not holding my breath, because I've yet to see any such opponent.
The One True b!X on 28 Mar 2005
As an example of what I mean by the non-debate my opponents seek to impose on this controversy, Jack Peek just emailed me, in response to this:
His message to me?
I defy anyone to explain to me why I should debate Jack Peek on these issues when he insists upon lying about his opponents.
Jack Peek on 28 Mar 2005
"Unfortunately, the memory of that massacre of our fellow citizens appears to have faded from memory," Slapikas writes. "Certain members of Portland’s City Council act as if our nation hasn’t been terrorized at all."
Since the two recall efforts against Katz and Linn failed, WOW! there is a call for Tom's head already.
I was not wrong in my recall effort and learned a lot from it.
You talk about "terror" one can say the council lead by Katz then, is a "terror group" all by itself.
Let me explain,some of the largest downtown business people who were YELLING the loudest about her and the rest were approached by another business man who has been in this city as a family business forever.
He said these 10 guys all with a combined net worth of about a billion $$$$$ were all called individually and to a man...turned us down because each of them, soon or in the future had a ruling of some sort coming up in council and could not give a dime for fear of getting "killed" in a council vote!
We were promised a bunch of money and we couldn't and wouldn't take the dough outside of the rules we swore too abide by,so we lost the 70K we needed and came up short on the signatures.
The point of this is there is a real threat..which Leonard swears Bush is just scaring the country with, this guy who is contesting the resoulution deserves our thanks, maybe a recall wasn't the best at the time, but maybe the "silent majority" has been pushed again(LEONARD IS GOOD AT PUSHING)and people here will start to push back.
Lastly,I think a recall is in order, but it's Leonard who is responsible,not the mayor.
People..this is as Mr. Slapika say's..it is all about you and your family, and their safety.
Jack Peek on 28 Mar 2005
Then get a call into Lars and ask to be on the show with them to debate( yeah right), you want a debate.
You better read the Terror training manual found in a raid in London about how these "people" operate.
There is so much there that can be tied to Hawash, the attempted purchase of the Bly,Oregon training site, weapons training that ties to the Portland seven.
There is no debate...you frame your deal on oversight of the cops assigned to work on the finding of these creeps, yet by allowing a diluted investigation process, you play right into the hands of the people who wrote the "book" on how to kill us.
What the man said..there is no defining of terror by the city because ...WELL IF THEY DID, Leonard would look really silly. (could have called names) People are seeing this for what it is...a play to the core that elected these ........PEOPLE!
The One True b!X on 28 Mar 2005
I'm going to take a moment and put to rest once and for all Jack's repeated accusations that I have somehow forgotten the event of 9/11.
Have you been to New York City since then, Jack? You may have, I don't know. But I do know that I have.
I grew up in upstate New York, and spent a not insignificant amount of time in NYC, including living there for nearly a year. This past November, I went back for the first time in a decade. While there, I deliberately went out of my way to visit Ground Zero.
When I got there, I found myself unable to move from my spot on the sidewalk across the street for a good fifteen minutes, so heavy is the sheer mental weight of the place.
And then I walked. For however long it took me, I walked the complete circuit around the entire site (it does take some time, since it's not like there's accessible sidewalk directly ringing the site), stopping frequently along the way to look out or down upon the site from new angles.
A good chunk of that afternoon was spent doing this, something I did very consciously and deliberately because I had to.
So don't you dare, even one more time, Jack, ever accuse me of somehow forgetting.
Not one more time.
tom on 28 Mar 2005
Jack, since you keep avoidind my questions maybe this one will hit you as something to answer?
You seem so attached to the events of 9/11..so tell us,..how many close friends did you loose? How many lives did you know so well that you feel empowered to belittle thier memories by making petty poltics of thier death? How many of the dead have you shamed, how many familys have you made cheap the lasting pain of thier loss by trivilzing it with cheap deabte tactics?
How many freedoms are you willing to trample on in order to mouth ugly rehtoric, freedoms hard won by dedicated lifes who strove for freedom and by the bodies of the dead slain by those who seek to destroy those freedoms?
How much of this Experiment In Democracy are you willing to dismantle of for the privillage of being a blow hard wind bag whose foul utterings wither the flower of freedom?
The work of any great society is not only is building itself to be the best it can, but to deflect the damage done to it by ALL enemys forgien AND DOMESTIC.
Know thine enemy Mr Peek, look in the mirror and say hello.
Have a Nice Day
-tom
myrln on 28 Mar 2005
Once again, Jack: required reading of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights.
Once again, Jack: check the 9th Commandment.
Finally, Jack: I am sympathetic to the fear you feel of being the personal target of terrorists in Portland. Living with that fear is not good for your mental health, so I implore you to move. The Antarctic is likely a safe place (save for the ozone hole). Truly, you must care for yourself before you crack under the strain.
William on 28 Mar 2005
Jack, you really ought to play by the rules of civilized debate. Don't mischaracterize your opponents. Do stick to the subject on hand. Your postings above are so filled with mischaracterizations and other inaccuracies that it would take me hours to deal with them all. So I'll just smack down one of the less blatantly obvious ones.
yet by allowing a diluted investigation process
Bzzzt. Try again. Our officers in the JTTF are already bound by the Oregon law. Leonard, Potter, and the rest are not asking for any dilution at all. They are demanding oversight of city employees (as it should be, in my opinion). Any reduction in the investigative scope of our officers is a direct result of the Fed's refusal to accommodate reasonable demands. The ball, if all goes as expected this Wednesday, will be in the Fed's possession. Just where it belongs. And the Feds can choose to drop it (force Portland's withdrawal or something else unfortunate) or to play on (allow Portland to effectively oversee the actions of its own employees).
Jack Peek on 28 Mar 2005
Then if the "impact" of the once tall buildings matters too you, if the lifes lost matter, if the smell of death is still there.....DO NOT EVEN TELL ME YOU INTEND TO CALL YOUR POSITION ON THIS MATTER PROTECTING THE SECURITY OF THIS NATION.! PERIOD!
Myself and a few others are waking up to Leonard and the mayor...
And frankly I wouldn't trust Leonard with the data even if he passed the background check - he'd be too tempted to use secret information for his own partisan political agenda.
The above posted on the BlueOregon blog, which is still bitching John (I'll fight a more sensetive war)Kerry isn't president.
You don't seem to have kids...if you do, god help them, because it's just why I FIGHT this issue and the battle on the stupidity of criminally insane grouphomes next to schools, you don't risk your familys safety EVER!
The One True b!X on 28 Mar 2005
Then if the "impact" of the once tall buildings matters too you, if the lifes lost matter, if the smell of death is still there.....DO NOT EVEN TELL ME YOU INTEND TO CALL YOUR POSITION ON THIS MATTER PROTECTING THE SECURITY OF THIS NATION.! PERIOD!
I don't. I call my position a belief that we can have security without sacrificing the rule of law.
Jack Peek on 29 Mar 2005
I don't. I call my position a belief that we can have security without sacrificing the rule of law.
From The One True b!X
OK..As you do not respect my position, I'll just say as Vera Katz's last email to me about my commment "WHY WAS IT OK FOR HER GRANDKIDS NOT TO HAVE A CRIMINALLY INSANE GROUP HOME ON THEIR BACK FENCE, AND IT WAS OK FOR MINE...HER REPLY, "WELL,JACK, WE WILL JUST HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE!"
The link to the copy of the captured terror handbook should show you that as Bush said, "THIS IS A WAR, UNLIKE WE HAVE EVER FOUGHT."
If you think you can catch these people being PC an "sensetive"...maybe you should pay the price for it if your way fails, leave me, my family, my neighborhood, this city, this state ,and the rest of the country out of it.
Richard on 29 Mar 2005
" I call my position a belief that we can have security without sacrificing the rule of law."
From The One True b!X
This whole JTTF thing reminds me of the "I support the troops but not the mission" crap. And the denigrating of the troops which then follows.
b!x supports the police but not their mission.
They can't be trusted to obey the law without Potter micro managing them.
The only way we can preserve the rule of law is if Potter has a Top Secret clearance to make sure our cops don't break the law. Ya sure.
Why not ask the cops how they feel about this latest jab at their work?
I'm sure the answer will come back just as the troops view that brand of support.
Mr. Peek,
b!x, Randy Leonard and Potter are fringies in every way. Obstructionist fanatics (with deep hatred for Bush and Republicans)pretending they are preserving our rights.
They are the same people working feverishly to take away all sorts of fundamental rights including voting on initiatives or the big ticket spending schemes wasting billions.
They can't stand anything the majority wants. Anything. Not taxing levels, not property rights, not marriage, not security.
They will continue to undermine and embarrass our state for years to come.
Fortunately they can't even persuade their own party to adopt their extreme views.
Primarily because their message is so unappealing and their methods are adolescent. Especially Randy Leonard who forms permanent opinions and then stomps his feet every time reality contradicts him.
Anne Dufay on 29 Mar 2005
I just want to make clear that forwarding of any email to our discussion list by any NW-NW staff person should not be in any way construed as our organization, or individual staff, supporting or not supporting the writer's purpose.
Our discussion list is open to anyone who wishes to post or participate in discussions on issues of interest to NW and inner SW Portland citizens, including the broader NA system, Coalitions, the City or our friends -- the local non-profits working beside us in our neighborhoods.
We take no stand on content, nor do we moderate the posts, beyond the basic requirements of civility (as best as possible :-) pertinence to neighborhood issues, and no ads, no spam.
Thank you,
Anne Dufay
List Administrator, wnwdiscussion
Neighbors West-Northwest Coalition
anne@nwnw.org
Jack Peek on 29 Mar 2005
Richard:
The gentlemen that asked the city to hold off on the vote on the JTTF called me in response to my call thanking him for his "guts" in this PC HELL.
His message was clear, any man that has a "dimes worth" of caring, has to go first to the responsibility of security and protection for his family, if that isn't done, then these idiots have won...THEY CANNOT!
Thanking you again for your response .
Jack Peek