May 18, 2005
New Evidence That JTTFs Used To Spy On Political Groups
Poll Shows Majority Of Portlanders Support Portland's Withdrawal
During the often-distorted debate over Portland's withdrawl from the Joint Terrorism Task Force, opponents of the move often asked where the evidence was that the the Federal government was abusing its authority through those intergovernmental units.
Here and elsewhere, supporters of the withdrawl commonly pointed to abuses in Denver as evidence that the JTTF structure was being abused elsewhere, and therefore needed greater oversight here in Portland. The mantra was that we needed to ensure a lack of such abuses, not simply assume there would be none.
Carried by today's Oregonian is a Washington Post article which reports that more evidence has surfaced that the JTTF in Denver was used to conduct "pretext interviews" with antiwar activists.
The new information came as a result of a series of Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and its regional affiliates.
Here in Oregon, the ACLU of Oregon has been awaiting further response to its own FOIA request, which earlier this year resulted in the organization being told that there were documents "responsive" to their request, which sought information on possible FBI spying on political and religious groups.
For more information on the latest developments regarding the JTTF in Denver and the ongoing FOIA processes, see the statement from the national ACLU as well as the statement from their Colorado affiliate.
Meanwhile, an Oregonian report on a new poll indicates the split in local support for Portland's withdrawl from the JTTF: "Fifty-one percent agreed with the City Council's decision to pull Portland out of the federal anti-terrorism effort after Potter and federal officials could not find a way to balance their need for secrecy with his desire for more civilian oversight."
According to the article, 27% strongly supported the withdrawl, 24% somewhat supported it, 20% somewhat opposed it, 22% strongly opposed it, and 8% didn't know.
Comments (2)
paul gronke on 18 May 2005
B!x,
Since it's the spirit of the month to provide constructive criticisms, I'll point out that neither the Post nor the "O" describes "pretext" interviews as "spying." Using that word is tendentious and misleading.
The pretext interviews were conducted openly. There was no covert action or spying.
There are many bases upon which you can criticize the interviews. If they were not conducted without specific threats then the FBI was overstepping its mandate.
But if the FBI can point to specific threats, than the interviews were within the mandate of the FBI, nor would the interviews have violated Oregon law.
The One True b!X on 18 May 2005
There's a good Rocky Mountain News piece on all of this.