March 25, 2005
'We won't overstate the stakes here'
Someone Slips Valium To 'Oregonian' Editorial Board
We admit to being somewhat disappointed in today's Oregonian editorial on Portland and the Joint Terrorism Task Force. That should come as little surprise to anyone, but one reason for our disappointment may.
While the board remains off-base (and we'll get to that momentarily), its typical performance of highly-shrill hysterics seems to have been kept in check this time. We were so looking forward to their usual hyperbolic hyperventilating (yes, we just used three words beginning in "hy" in one paragraph), that we had written an opening to this post way back at 12:45 AM Thursday based upon their previous track record on this subject.
Ah, well. So it goes. On to the substance of the editorial itself.
First of all, the editorial repeats the allegation that the Potter/Leonard resolution may in the end cause withdrawal not only from the JTTF but "from task forces focused on gun crimes, drugs and sexual predators who use the Internet."
We're beginning to suspect that this is little more than a bogus distraction meant to confuse people, which might explain why Special Agent-in-Charge Robert Jordan has used it as well. While the FBI might dislike the idea of granting to the Mayor, Chief, and City Attorney the same clearances as the officers assigned to the JTTF, we can't imagine the security implications of clearance equivalency are quite the same when it comes to the other inter-governmental law enforcement agreements of which the City of Portland is a part.
It's important to understand that the resolution doesn't directly call for City officials to receive "top secret" clearances for all task forces, it simply calls for clearances at the same level as the officers themselves. In the case of the JTTF, that ends up meaning top secret. In the cases of the other task forces, that may not necessarily be the case.
If nothing else, most of those other task forces don't fall under the rubric of national security secrets, and therefore simply do not rise to the FBI's professed level of concern over the resolution as it applies to the JTTF.
Interestingly, while the editorial board opposes proper clearance for Mayor Potter (they endorsed Jordan's offer to let Chief Foxworth apply for it), they give only one reason.
The Justice Department and the FBI will not -- and should not -- begin handing out top-secret clearances to a hundred mayors and a hundred city attorneys, starting in Portland.
That's it. They don't argue it would be a security risk. They don't argue the notion is somehow inherently illegitimate. What's more, they specifically argue that there's no threat of the Federal government taking away our grant money, and that national press attention over the issue will "do no lasting harm".
They simply say it shouldn't be done, without arguing that there are any actual flaws in the idea. What's more, the wording above suggests that the problem is doing this in Portland first. Does that mean, if other cities had the balls to demand proper local oversight, the editorial board of The Oregonian would then pipe up and wonder why we aren't getting it as well?
After crediting Potter for "standing on important principles" on this issue, failing to provide not only any legitimate argument but any argument at all against the proposal, and then even countering some of the stupider rhetoric against the proposal, the editorial board nonetheless says that the proposal is a bad idea.
Apparently, whatever drugs the editorial board took this week to reverse their normally overagitated persona failed to address their other common problem: They still don't know how to put forth an actual considered argument.
Comments (7)
William on 25 Mar 2005
The Justice Department and the FBI will not -- and should not -- begin handing out top-secret clearances to a hundred mayors and a hundred city attorneys, starting in Portland.
The comment also fails to mention what the Feds said at one of the renewal hearings several years back; Portland is a unique city in the way that they mayor relates to the police department and the Feds are able to grant "secret" clearance to the mayor due (only) to the structure of this relationship. I am being a little non-specific here because I do not remember the exact relation. Ignorance on my part. Was it that the mayor, as opposed to all of the council, is the boss of Foxworth and the whole dept?
I would also like to remind folks that, at that same meeting, the Feds left folks with the impression that the clearance they were granting was going to provide comprehensive and meaningful oversight--something that seems to be clearly untrue, as I see it.
allehseya on 25 Mar 2005
eh. The fear may be that somehow Portland sets some sort of 'legal precedent' in proceedures and oversight. If our Mayor gets a clearance, other Mayors in other cities may use our case here for the same option. I dont see how that would be a bad thing as long as it ensures civil liberties and those with the clearance are trained in whatever they need training in to maintain the status. We just happen to have the great fortune to have an exceptional Mayor with the same training as the officers involved and Police Chief -- so even if other states tried to use our case as a precedent, I dont see how it could fly.
The One True b!X on 25 Mar 2005
William, you are quite correct, and thanks for bringing that up. The issue was that the FBI said the were willing to let chiefs of police and police commissioners apply for "secret" clearance. Here in Portland, the police commissioner is whichever Council member is assigned the Police Bureau -- typically the Mayor. That's why Vera was able to apply for that clearance.
But the important part is as you said: They indicated Portland's uniqueness in this regard, and that does seem to undercut the argument that this would automaticaly establish some sort of runaway precedent.
Good call.
The One True b!X on 25 Mar 2005
Going back to my post from 2003's hearing, it seems that the criteria Jordan gave for who gets to apply for clearance is that they be a ""recognized law enforcement officer" -- meaning either a police chief or police commissioner.
allehseya on 25 Mar 2005
(humming to a count-down)
.....which leaves one - 'the law'
myrln on 25 Mar 2005
The Oregonian and the Feds both seem also to disregard another very important matter: the mayor and the commissioners are elected representatives of the people and the police department is not. It suggests to me that the Feds (read: FBI), an also unelected body, have little regard for oversight by elected officials, which is way of saying they have little regard for the electorate. Their interest, it seems, is only to do what they want in any way they want, an attitude appropriately described as dictatorial. It's left over, sort of, from J. Edgar's days and his distaste for the Kennedys. (Ooo...ancient history.)
Jack Peek on 26 Mar 2005
I think what we need to do is have a massive population exchange with Canada. Give us all the robust, sane, realistic people in Canada -- of which there are many -- and we'll give Canada all the New Age, terrorist-coddling, granola-munching, peacenik, multicultural relativists.
Since Canada has hopelessly lost its fighting spirit, its legendary virility, let's just help it along the path to becoming a gelding nation and we'll take the real men and women here, in the country that takes most responsibility for defending freedom and civilization.
A friend of mine couldn't have said it better.
I STAND BY THIS ONE: Pretty soon the new school "super" will follow the Salem school that told the sister of a combat Marine in Iraq, that she could not show a picture of her brother in Iraq because it showed him holding a gun (yes, a picture of a gun) and you wonder why some sane business leaders are going "please bring Vera back!"
GOD....THE NATIONAL NEWS, YOU (FILL IN THE BLANK) MUST BE SO PROUD!