April 28, 2005
It's Official: Portland Leaving JTTF
City Is First In The Nation To Do So
At the close of a Thursday evening session which lasted a mere ninety or so minutes, members of City Council cast the expected 4 to 1 vote in favor of a resolution to remove Portland police officers from the Joint Terrorism Task Force rather than let them continue to operate without proper oversight.
By way of starting off the public testimony, City Hall fixture Irwin Mandel expressed some gratitude that Commissioner Dan Saltzman had expressed his "advanced explanation" for his imminent vote against the resolution in the pages of The Oreognian, because it allowed Mandel to speak to Saltzman's opinion rather than having to wait until the end of the session to hear it.
In the main, Mandel, savaged Saltzman's op-ed piece in much the same ways we did earlier today, including taking the Commissioner to task for trying to invoke the spirit of 9/11 as some sort of trump card against demands for proper local oversight of the City's police officers.
Lilly Mandel, in turn, savaged today's Oregonian editorial, wondering how the paper could even know that in the weeks since the original March hearing "there has been no flood of civil rights abuses involving the JTTF". She quipped that if there has been, those abuses would just have been Top Secret anyway.
But mainly, she questioned why the City should have to wait until after a "flood" of abuses before it acted to ensure proper oversight of its police officers. And in response to the paper's bizarre assertion that withdrawal was tantamount to "giving up a large amount of oversight and ability to hold the JTTF accountable", Mandel asked, "How can you give up something you never had?"
She also challenged those critics who assert that the withdrawal is wrong because the Federal government might punish the City by refusing to provide funds for combatting terrorism -- critics she dubbed those "who are willing to sell our precious civil rights".
Beyond that, we're going to move quickly through the other public testimony, hitting somehighlights, so we can go on to the statements of the Council members prioer to the actual vote. Much of what was said during public testimony was essentially as expected, with little new. But there are a few items worth noting.
Andrea Meyer of the ACLU of Oregon revealed an additional tidbit about the nine clients on whom the FBI has said there are documents which are "responsive" to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act request regarding possibly-improper monitoring of local organizations and individuals: The responsive files related to one of those clients apparently are "missing" somewhere in the local FBI office.
Dan Handelman of Portland Copwatch said that the resolution amoutned to "pretty much what we've been asking for all along" but urged that there be an annual public review which included the number of times the Federal government requested the cooperation of the Portland Police Bureau on the "case-by-case" basis allowed under the new protocol.
He also wondered about the FBI's assertions about elected officials not serving on the JTTF Executive Committee, since it's possible that some elected sherrifs might be allowed to sit on that body. In addition, Handelman argued that it was important to do everything possible to prevent potential abuses of civil liberties now, rather than have to offer "reparations and apologies forty years done the line".
Cliff Goldman, one of the very few people to testify against the resolution, stated that while he has never really felt a fear of terrorism, "with this coming up I began to think of my own personal safety". He also conjured the old chestnut in response to protecting our civil liberties that the victims of terrorism lose all of that and more.
(The unstated and dangerous premise in that argument is that we therefore have some sort of responsibility to give up our civil liberties in their name.)
Robert King, head of the local police union, argued that the concerns with oversight "have caused us to lose out sight on this important matter altogether". He also raised the spectre not only of the victims of 9/11 but of all of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bonnie Tinker said to Commissioner Erik Sten: "I'm glad you have now got good leadersiph to follow." In the past, Sten has frustrated local civil liberties activists by expressing deep concerns and reserations about the JTTF but nonetheless voting to remain a participant. And to Saltzman, she said in response to his op-ed piece that it was not enough to have "concern" about matters such as the USA PATRIOT Act, but that there needed to be action as well. "I believe it is not possible to protect civil liberties," she said, "without insisting upon civilian oversight".
In the end, it came down to the much-postponed vote itself, and the closing comments on the issue by each member of City Council.
"This is a very serious issue, and one that I've spent a lot of tiem researching," said Commissioner Sam Adams, adding that he was convinced "that we can prevent terrorism" under the terms of the resolution. "And I think that we will and we can while protecting the basic rights of all people." He reiterated the litany of controversial provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act which he listed during the March hearing.
Saying that his view of his responsibility as an elected official is to not ignore such concerns, Adams said that "the additional very common sense accountability required by the Mayor and by the Commissioner I think is very reasonable".
Commissioner Randy Leonard placed his support for the resolution in the context of a demand for accountability in City government, which he said he's pressed consistently since first running for his office. "I think its unreasonable," he said, "to ask the Commissioner-in-Charge not to have full access and accountability of all the employees under that Commissioner's responsibility."
He called the proper civilian oversight of law enforcement officials a "timetested principles of governance" and a "cornerstone of our form of government" -- and one for which men and women have fought and died.
Leonard also reminded people that it was he who cast a vote against a resolution opposing the war in Iraq, largely on the basis of believing the government's stated rationales for that war. "As it turned out," he said, "my trust in what I was told was betrayed." As a result, he said he had adopted another guiding principle: "Trust, but verify."
And then came the moment for which some of us were waiting so eagerly: Saltzman's public defense of his solitary vote against the resolution.
"I respect very much the work of the Mayor, the FBI, and the U.S. Attorney over the last three weeks," he said, "and I am disappointed that those talks did not succeed." He said that his ideal outcome would have been for the talks to continue (convenient, since endless talks would simply mean continued participation without oversight), and therefore he would not support the resolution.
"With all due respect to the Mayor and my colleagues on the City Council," Saltzman said, "I think the resolution is a step backwards." He argued that restricting Portland's participation to "imminent" threats "does not equal prevention".
(Again, Saltzman conveniently leaves out facts which are inconvenient to his position. In this case, the fact that Portland's cooperation is not limited only to "imminent" threats, but can also move forward on a "case-by-case" basis. It's one thing when ones newspaper of record omits critical facts in order to distort public impression of an issue, but it's really rather ugly when an elected official does it as well.)
He then re-raised his argument from last month, which is all of the bad publicity this will bring as it puts Portland in the national spotlight.
"Terrorism is real," Saltzman said, insinuating by even uttering the sentence that proponents of proper local oversight over Portland officers have somehow forgotten this fact. "We live in a place that is a haven for hatecrimes," he added. "We ought to recognize that."
Saltzman reminded everyone that it was he who sponsored the Council resolution expressing concerns over provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. But: "We can't juxapose our concerns over the PATRIOT Act on this debate here and now."
(See our earlier item on JTTF coverage in The Oregonian for how dishonest and deceptive that statement is in terms of whether or not it actually reflects what's been going on.)
In response to the several people (including, we suspect, ourselves) who chastized him for trying, in his op-ed piece, to call upon 9/11 for his own purposes, he said this: "I wont pretend to speak for all New Yotkers". He then, nonetheless, said: "We would be letting New Yorkers down."
"To somehow discount that and to say we are using cheap political theater to invoke the spirit of 9/11," he chided, "I totally object to that."
Sten tried to place the evening's vote -- and his own vote in favor of the resolution -- in the context of the longer history of the JTTF issues as its come before Council in the past. "It is a completely false argument running through the other side of this argument that Portland is unilaterally withdrawing from this Task Force," he said.
He explained that the first time the issue came before him on the Council, he had felt like the FBI was presenting the City with a "false choice", simply between participating or not participating, entirely on the grounds the FBI presented and none other. "I did not like that choice," Sten said, but he went along with it in part because in the near-immediate aftermath of 9/11 "we erred on the side of getting on the Task Force" at a moment "where we were all trying to figure out what is the best response to this situation".
Sten said that the resolution before Coucil was an "entirely different approach that the false choice" offered by the FBI over the years. "This is a totally different choice, and it's the right one."
Over the years, Sten insisted, the Feds had taken no real steps to try to solve "these pressing problems" of local oversight. "Portland did not pull out, we waited three years," he said. "There is a completely false notion that Portland is just pullingout of this," Sten said. "Portland has worked very, very hard to remain in this."
"It's been an interesting few weeks," said Potter. During that time, he said, he listened to the public, the police, lawyers, and "to my heart".
"in this country," he said, "there's an old-fashioned principle that the police or the military have to be answerable to civilian oversight." He argued that looking back on history, it's clear that some people, when blindly given power, "sometimes that power is misused".
He stressed that such abuses have happened "within our lifetimes" and that "we're not talking ancient history, we're tlaking about recent history". He also made clear that the resolution impugns neither Portland's police officers nor the Federal government.
"I don't thjink Portland is a strange city," Potter said. "I think, though, that we are concerned about ensuring that we have a proper balance between protecting people physical security, the property they own, and balancing that against their rights."
"This is going to be in the best interests of our community in the long run," he said. "We will see that this will work for us to ensure the safety of our people".
And so, after much delay, many votes over the years in the other direction, and a seemingly limitless supply of distortion of the issues by the other side, the City Council of Portland, Oregon, voted 4 to 1 in favor of a resolution which will withdraw local police officers from the Joint Terrorism Task Force within ninety days.
In doing so, on April 28, 2005, Portland becames the first city in the nation to withdraw from a JTTF.
Posted at 10:01 PM | PermalinkComments (27) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Joint Terrorism Task Force, Law Enforcement & Legal Issues, Metro-Area Politics
Trackbacks (1)
-
Portland's OUT of the JTFF! on 29 Apr 2005
New Mayor Tom Potter did the right thing and led his city to become the first in the U.S. to pull out of the federal Joint Terrorism Task Farce. On
Comments (27)
Kendall Auel on 28 Apr 2005
I would make one correction to Mayor Potter's remark that 'some people, when blindly given power, "sometimes that power is misused".'
My view is that when law enforcement is given power without civilian oversight, then it is by definition misuse. I am so proud of Portland today, and grateful to have a true leader in the Mayor's office.
Sid on 28 Apr 2005
Great coverage, b!X
Dave on 28 Apr 2005
I'm not commenting from a political standpoint. I would merely like to say that I quit reading this article long before it's end. The quality of writing in this publication is far below what I would expect for professional journalism. Grammar; it's important guys. Painful run-ons were in excess here, please take note of this.
justin on 29 Apr 2005
Dave: I'm sure B!x will refund the money you spent on this article.
Jack Peek on 29 Apr 2005
The quality of writing in this publication is far below what I would expect for professional journalism...."Daveon said" Yes, my GOD, IT'S IMPORTANT.....So was 911 Dave!
"I don't thjink Portland is a strange city," Potter said ......thjink ????? YES, and weird, too!
"investigating someone "because he was a Muslim, used a computer, transferred large sums of money".POSTED ON PDXCOMMUNIQUE
Follow the money:
An Internet web site frequented by Islamic terrorists and terrorist sympathizers is asking for donations to further the cause of jihad - after all, it takes money to fund terrorists' activities. Laura Mansfield, associate Director of the Northeast Intelligence Network and founder of Strategic Arabic Translations (link below), found the call for funds yesterday. The post requests that funds be sent to the Arab Bank in Gaza for use in jihad efforts throughout the "Islamic Ummah".
The Northeast Intelligence Network has notified federal authorities that donations are reportedly being accepted at:
The Arab Bank
Palestine, Gaza
Under Account number: 045821
The message asks all good Muslims to contribute what they can from their salaries to assist the efforts of the Mujahjideen in "Palestine" for armed struggle. "For Allah above said: 'fight hard in Allah's name with your money and your work." Citing the Qu'ran, Surah: The Repentence, Verse 41. "Each of us must exert ourselves to give what we can so that we can encourage our brothers to give what they do." Those who can donate anything from their money, and who can sacrifice anything for this cause, will be recorded in the account of Allah, the Exalted, the Majestic.
"Your support is the support of Islam and of Muslims"
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!
Then there's the moment at which Saltzman comes dangerously close to pulling a Jack Peek and claiming rhetorical ownership of the spectre of 9/11. "It's difficult to imagine looking a New Yorker in the eye and explaining our rationale for withdrawing from the terror task force," he says. "It would feel disrespectful to even attempt to do so."
Your all so cowardly it "sucks!"
Ask a NYC FIREMEN , not a cardcaring member of "Moveon.org!"
Ask a relative of anyone who worked on the 99th floor and doesn't know if they burned to death or jumped.
I dispise Saltzman as I do Leonard for the same reason...both flat lied when they said "if elected ...yada yada yada..and the "criminally insane grouphome is still parked next to a SE PDX grade school with as many as 200 plus more,"ALL DRESSED UP, AN NO PLACE TO GO", as Caldwell's paper writes.
I called Dans office today, ...I THANKED HIM!
In this town, he maybe playing a role, but maybe Dan is sick of the BS, when lives really are on the line.
Follow the money...bank accounts, right here, were tracked overseas to the "badguys", B!x never mentions a convicted an sentenced terror cell member in the mayors office, he never mentions the planning by the "six" or seven, to pull a school or church shooting. As long as his place wasn't targeted..."WHATEVER" ....WHO CARES!
Bogdanski.....well what can I say, He wants someone other then he to do his fighting for him, maybe that's why he left Buckman. The "neighbohood" was getting a little rough,(AND IT WILL GET WORSE!
Dan stood up...he, as Sen Smith will get publically nailed, as when Smith said what was, and is getting known, about a place of "higher learning" right in our own backyard.
Since B!X will not run for office, nor Bog,(really easy to comment behind a computor screen),some of us have at least tried to change the dead end street we are on.
A lady I know who worked in Lisa Naito's office warned me years ago..that the "numbers" were stacked against what I have fought for...DAMMIT,I wish I had listened. So, it will not be 3000 dead, it maybe 30,000 or more, it maybe like Florida and dead kids, before idiot lawmakers listen to the real people impacted, and not the ACLU, before we fix once an for all what is killing us, as for sure as we are being lined up against a wall.
Boy, the first city to leave the JTTF,someday B!x can tell his grandkids that he "covered" the story like a blanket....and "smothered" it until it died!
Kendall Auel on 29 Apr 2005
Jack, you scare the crap out of me. I've never met you but you come across as being a bit fanatical about your beliefs. Maybe the task force should open up a file on you, and for all you know they already have. I'm kidding of course, but history has shown that the danger from abuse of power is far more damaging than the threat of violence from those seeking power. I don't want to diminish the Pentagon and Trade Center attacks, but consider that the government in Sudan is actively promoting genocide, according to the US State Department. That is just one current example of a long and deadly history. By demanding the checks and balances remain in place, we are protecting ourselves far more than any task force ever could.
lisa on 29 Apr 2005
I think I'm starting to like the Peekster. He's kinda David Reinhard-like. Typos and all, B!X's observations are easy to grasp and pretty darn insightful. I'd rather read B!X's unspellchecked copy than some of the drivel I've already seen in the big O (no offense to all the hard working folks over there---you are some very talented people, so why is the final result so anaemic? What do O staffers think about that?).
I say, B!X: Life Well Lived.
myrln on 29 Apr 2005
Jack, read or seen on tv anything about Aryan Nation lately? Howzcum you don't take their terrorist leanings/actions to task? Couldn't be you're unaware of them. By the way, the term racist doesn't refer to a track meet.
wally on 29 Apr 2005
Never fear, Jack - the terrorist funding site has been suspended. I tried to follow the money provided by the Northeast Intelligence Network and got a "this account has been closed" message.
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the red scare and the systematic deporting of "bad elements". It seems at least as applicable as interning Japanese Americans during WWII, maybe even more so.
The communists and anarchists were seen as an immediate threat. They were spied on, infiltrated, and deported by the army. Seems a closer paralell to the current scare about mujadeen.
paul gronke on 29 Apr 2005
Of course, the irony of Brandon Mayfield, so often deployed in this debate, is that the FBI has what is considered credible evidence linking him to the Madrid bombing. Yes, evidence that turned out to be wrong after the fact.
But there was no violation of Oregon statute in the investigation of Mayfield.
b!x, Saltzman may invoke 9/11, but is that any worse that Leonard invoking Japanese internment?
Enough posturing on all sides of this issue for me to be disenchanted long ago. Time to move on, folks.
The One True b!X on 29 Apr 2005
Of course, the irony of Brandon Mayfield, so often deployed in this debate, is that the FBI has what is considered credible evidence linking him to the Madrid bombing. Yes, evidence that turned out to be wrong after the fact.
But there was no violation of Oregon statute in the investigation of Mayfield.
Anyone who reads me regularly already knows that this isn't how I, at least, have referenced the Mayfield case, so I don't really need to repeat myself, but I will anyway.
The relevance of the Mayfield case is to provide one example (among others) to people who believe there's nothing to worry about in terms of abuse. And the Mayfield case was not merely about the FBI having "what is considered credible evidence" because the Spanish authorities were telling the FBI over and over again that the FBI was very much wrong on the fingerprint, and the FBI ignored them because they had foud their nice Muslim boogeyman living in Portland and that's all they needed to know.
That's why Mayfield is relevant -- because some critics of the push for oversight simply like to ignore abuses or try to pretend they were something else.
It's not about whether or not Oregon law was broken in the Mayfield case. It's about reminding people of the existence of Federal abuses of power when they try to pretend no such abuse is likely to be happening.
Bob R. on 29 Apr 2005
This analogy occurred to me today... It's a bit of a stretch, but I think it works:
We depend on the police for a great many things, and they are mostly deserving of great respect. However, a police force working without checks and balances is like a car with bad brakes... you can only go on so long before something terrible happens. Power, properly channelled and controlled, benefits and protects society. Unchecked power is simply dangerous.
All the City was asking for was for the Mayor to have security clearance so that, when necessary, the brakes could be applied and the course corrected.
- Bob R.
The Man Behind The Curtain on 29 Apr 2005
The Mayfield case is an example of the government's desire to be seen doing something -- anything -- to solve a perceived problem, regardless of the effectiveness or basis in reality for the actions.
Take the Transportation Security Administration (please!) Is there anyone with a brain in his or her head who believes the TSA is doing an effective job? They recently banned lighters, ostensibly because of the "Shoe Bomber". However, the TSA didn't ban matches, which is what that idiot Shoe Bomber was using to try to ignite whatever he had in his shoes. Let me get this straight: by banning only one of several methods of creating a flame, we are safer? Huh? But lighters are much more ubiquitous than matches, so by banning lighters, there is a perception that the TSA is doing something to protect the public.
The Mayfield case is of the same variety. The FBI gets to be seen doing something about terrorism. The fact that Mayfield had nothing to do with the case is irrelevant. It's all about appearances, baby. If you look like you are doing something, you don't actually have to produce tangible benefits. Like real terrorists. 'Cause that's hard work.
There are thousands (millions?) of actions that the government has undertaken over the last hundred years. These actions were in response to someone screaming "Do something!" Hell, this was half of FDR's original formulation of the New Deal. (The second half, "If it doesn't work, we'll try something else" was quickly forgotten.) Sometimes, the action resulting from the cry "Do something!" helped. But even then, no one ever seems to ask if the action was the best possible. At best, the action is tinkered with on the edges. It's akin to prescribing a car to solve your freight transportation problem, and later upgrading the car to a full-size pickup, when the problem is best solved by using an 18-wheeler. Sure, you can move freight with a car and a pickup, but not nearly as effectively as with an 18-wheeler. But once we settle on using 4 wheels, everyone screams bloody hell if you try to suggest something else.
Of course, many government actions are completely ineffective, if not outright counter-productive. End results are irrelevant because the people who screamed "Do something!" are placated as soon as something is done. They don't care about results, they just want to feel good that they pointed out something they thought was a problem and got someone to pay attention. The actual effectiveness of the government action is irrelevant. Again, it's all about appearances, baby!
In the War on Terror (or Drugs), it gets worse: actual guilt is irrelevant. Just lock 'em up and throw away the key. Point to incarceration rates and claim to be "serious" about public safety.
Yoram on 29 Apr 2005
Just to second the emotion, thanks for the serious and thoughtful reporting, b!X.
Jack Peek on 29 Apr 2005
DEAR MYRIN...if I ever decide to shave my head, and go "goth", I'd just fit right in with the "KEEP PORTLAND WEIRD" bumper stickers, SO, what's your problem?
Really folks, Lars is correct on one point, PORTLAND OREGON'S attention span is short at best, the JTTF deal is dead...(you know like, dead as a headless infidel), but enough of this crap, you guys have been right along, ask Leonard, there are no sleeper cells in Portland, he's paid to know these things with or without the FBI, just ask him.
Jack Peek on 29 Apr 2005
but consider that the government in Sudan is actively promoting genocide, according to the US State Department. That is just one current example of a long and deadly history. By demanding the checks and balances remain in place, we are protecting ourselves far more than any task force ever could.
So..you think we could have a "Sudan deal" here, and you fear your own goverment over the radical Muslims that swear to remove you from the planet, and are documented to have killed in the thousands.
And it's me you fear?
Lets ask this question, IS TREY ARROW GOOD OR BAD? I think I know your answer already.
And this one, Bush and all should get some points for no attacks here, and you say what?
This city seems to not focus a bit on the reality of what 911 was,IT WAS AN ACT OF WAR!
Like the attention span of PDXERS, 911 is a triva question at best, DAMN SICK!
Kendall Auel on 30 Apr 2005
Hey Jack, I'm sure you have me all figured out. Scarpitti, alias Arrow, started out as an animal rights guy. That doesn't strike me as the most optimal use of one's time. Now he's looking at prison time for burning up tractors or what-not. Also not very helpful for the cause of protecting Northwest's forests. In my book, being destructive is "bad". But I don't think the guy deserves more than two or three years in the klink.
Calling the criminal acts of Al-Qaida an "act of war" is stupid. They are not a state, they hold no territory and have no laws. Thus the use of the term "war" is a syntax error. Our attempts to fight them have been a public relations nightmare, and have increased popular support for Bin Laden. In the words of General Tony McPeak, the Bush approach is "amateur hour".
Jack, I don't even know you. But you do appear to suffer from some kind of anxiety disorder probably exacerbated by the trauma of 9-11. A study in the American Journal of Health Education reports 5 to 8 percent of Americans having post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, so you're in good company I'm sure. I just don't want to see our hard-fought civil rights taken away as part of your (collective) treatment.
Jack Peek on 30 Apr 2005
Dear Kendall, Jihad...jihad,Another meaning of jihad, called the lesser jihad, is an armed struggle against those perceived as enemies of Islam. Hey, that could mean war. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Running two really nice jets,into two buildings loaded with people, loaded with fuel, might be thought of as a "really big BOMB!
You peaceniks love to avoid the thought of war, it ruins your Tofu lunch I know...but it's war never the less.
" Our attempts to fight them have been a public relations nightmare" "YOU PIECE OF ----
We should have nuked the place..then told Syria, "SEE THAT!" That could have been you!
You haven't the guts to tell the people(my kid included) that what they did was a public relation nightmare......public relations be dammed!
The only people who got pissed were those of you who supported Kerry and his sennnnsetive war BS.
CIVIL RIGHTS???????/ WHOSE? "THE SHOE BOMBER?"
PTSD...OK you got me, I live only to see another day like a bunch of us do, but at the rate this fing city is going...living may be a tougher deal thanks to LEONARD AND THE MAYOR.
myrln on 30 Apr 2005
Jack, one thing I'm grateful for about you is that you're alive now and not when the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were being formulated. If you had been, I'm sure you'd have opposed all three cuz it took foresight, principal, and REAL guts (not run-off mouth kind) to make them. You'd have proposed tossing all them damned yankee rabble rebel terrorists in the ocean to protect what the good King George had created here in the New World. The point? You simply can't differentiate between real threats and phantoms.
Ken on 30 Apr 2005
Since B!X will not run for office, nor Bog,(really easy to comment behind a computor screen),some of us have at least tried to change the dead end street we are on
Lars is correct on one point, PORTLAND OREGON'S attention span is short at best, the JTTF deal is dead
And it is so easy for lars to speak of Portland and not live here, the analogy above with lars is very relevant and they are one in the same. Jack if you don’t like the people that made the decision, you vote them out (that’s taking into consideration you live here) and if you have that ability you are more creditable than lars you speaks of the evils of Oregon and portland from the comforts across the border (a good upstanding citizen)
Kendall Auel on 30 Apr 2005
A couple of thoughts here. First off, Jack, if you do actually suffer PTSD, then I hope you are getting along okay and getting the support you deserve. Secondly, if your son is serving our country then my hat is off to him, and to you for standing with him. So maybe you're not such a bad guy after all.
Peaceniks? General McPeak is no peacenik, he's responsible for more bombs being dropped on Iraq than anybody else in history. So when he calls Bush and Rumsfeld amateurs, I take notice. That is no slight to your son, Jack.
Now to the subject of nukes. I understand your anger and I've felt the same need to hit back hard against the 9-11 attacks. The reason this fight against Al-Qaida is not a "war" but instead a criminal prosecution is that the perpetrators don't have any place for us to bomb. They have no nation, nor citizens, nor laws. They have sympathizers and perpetrators. That's about it.
The absolute worst response to the attacks is to suspend civil liberty and then march off to kill people not involved. But that is more or less what was done. History books will record this as a great lesson on what not to do in the face of terror attacks on a free society.
Jack Peek on 30 Apr 2005
"And it is so easy for lars to speak of Portland and not live here, the analogy above with lars is very relevant and they are one in the same. Jack if you don’t like the people that made the decision, you vote them out (that’s taking into consideration you live here) and if you have that ability you are more creditable than lars you speaks of the evils of Oregon and portland from the comforts across the border (a good upstanding citizen)" said KEN
Oh come on Ken, Lars has lived here for years, then people like you support,gave out his home number one night at a rally for "radical Islamist supporters/ left leaning Progressives, and his wife got death threats at home...most of you laughed your heads off at the threats, but as usual, as long as it wasn't you or your loved ones...hey, as B!X would say, "whatever!"
So,lets give Lars his do...if you move to protect your family, and this is a problem then Savage's new book title fits like a glove.
16 plus years here Ken, AND YOU?
Ken on 30 Apr 2005
Whatever
Jack Peek on 01 May 2005
Whatever!!!!!!!
HELL! Ken,I could have written your response.
But,here is mine.
In the near future, on the subject of this city, and this forum's lack of responsibility towards public safety on two areas.."I told you so!"
Ken on 01 May 2005
Are you going to break out in your “I told you dance” like Grace does everytime she gets will?
Jack Peek on 01 May 2005
You bet KENNY..as long as it goes down in my neighborhood and not yours..RIGHT? So fing typical!
Scott on 01 May 2005
This thread has gone back and forth so all I'll say is I feel bad for the people of PDX, you won a great victory, you stopped the government!! oh wait no you didn't, there are just a few less people on the JTTF to protect you. That said my real point of this is the comical headline, "Portland first city to withdraw from FBI task force" I believe it should read "Portland the ONLY city to withdraw from FBI task Force". I haven't heard of any real cities pulling out or even thinking of pulling out, but maybe that’s just because I read news accounts from cities that have a legitimate fear of terrorist cells in their city.