Thank you Commissioner Leonard.

Commissioner,

Do not be sorry for your stance on this issue or issues with individuals, groups of individuals or the Police department. Thank you for spending time over the holidays reflecting this critical issue and letting "us" citizens read your reasoning for the way that you will vote on this issue.

It is welcome whenever an elected official takes a stand in favor of civil liberties and due process. Right now it is especially important, given our creep toward a police state. Of course, it is also expecially politically risky right now, because of all the fear whipped up by the Shrubbery and their toadies.

National security should be taken seriously. That is not what is happening with gang now running the US. These neocons have adopted 1984 as their utopia, and they're pushing as if the police state is 20 years behind schedule.

Bravo, Commissioner Leonard.

Mr. Leonard,

So now it's the Patriot Act? I went back and looked at your earlier reasoniong which I re-posted below. At that time you were concerned about the cost, chain of command and a wasteful investigation of the selling of Rubik Cubes at Pufferbelly Toys in St. Helen's. Something which the Patriot Act had nothing to do with.

If you are concerned about the Patriot Act and our losing our civil rights can you please detail some specific examples of which rights we lose (and how) due to the Patriot Act?

Randy earlier post "My concerns with the JTTF pact are three.

First, the Feds are spending hundreds of billions of dollars fighting “terror”. I don’t consider it unreasonable, given the city’s financially strapped condition, to ask the Feds to reimburse the city for the cost of the two full time officers assigned to the JTTF. Were I negotiating the agreement, and I’m not, I would make that a condition of our participation.

I consider that fiscally prudent policy.

Second, in the vote that I made a year ago renewing our participation in the JTTF I said my yes vote was contingent upon the Mayor and Police Chief receiving the necessary security clearance to adequately supervise our officers assigned to the JTTF. According to Chief Foxworth, he and the Mayor have "secret" security clearances while the officers assigned to the JTTF have "top secret" security clearances. In other words, we have two Portland Police Officers who are involved in activities that neither the Police Chief nor the Mayor to be briefed on.

Why Chief Foxworth and the Mayor are OK with that will be the subject of another post at some time in the future. For now, let me just say that I consider that irresponsible management.

Third, we all read that the Feds who were identified as agents from the Department of Homeland Security conducted an investigation of the selling of Rubik Cubes at Pufferbelly Toys in St. Helen's."""

Kari, I did read the post. My point was that Randy did not mention the Patriot Act previously.

And B!x What is the overview? Where did it come from? Who wrote it? OK so it was published by the AP. The link I doesn't tell the sourse. What is it? List or worries by the ACLU?

Steve- In fact, I linked to the comments in this post that you quoted in your comment. What I wrote in my post here was complimentary to and in addition to earlier concerns I have posted relative to the JTTF.

When the FBI had credible information generated from it's own agents before Sept. 11, 2001 that there were men taking suspicious flying lessons that caused an Arizona FBI agent to believe something sinister may be brewing, he was ignored. Mind you, that was pre-Patriot Act. Had the FBI in Washington listened to it's own agents in the field, we probably would have stopped Sept 11, 2001 from happening. The so called "Patriot Act" would not have been shoved through Congress and George Bush would be back on the ranch in Texas clearing brush.

Now, the Office of Homeland Security is sending Agents to St. Helens, Oregon to investigate the sale of Rubik Cubes at a Toy Store? And you think we ought to join in the hysteria which includes the right to monitor which books we read at the library instead of telling some FBI administrators in Washington to pull their collective heads out of their asses and pay attention to their able agents in the field?

If there is an intelligence gathering problem that needs to be corrected it is within the ranks of the leaders of intelligence gathering organizations....not "skirting" or "ignoring" rights the founders of this country and soldiers in all wars fought and died for. The Patriot Act was passed in an attempt to make the American People the scape goat to diffuse attention from the incompetence of our national intelligence gathering community. Period.

If you can't at least concede that point, we really have no basis for any kind of a meaningful discussion on this topic.

As far as I can tell, If George Bush would have read his briefing book while vacationing in Texas the entire month of August, 2001 and/or if his command structure at the FBI were reading the reports of their agents out in the field, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Thank you, Commissioner Leonard! I am impressed.

Commissioner Leonard,

I wrote about this on my blog last week and posted a link to your website, urging readers to support your position on this matter.

I hope you can convince Erik Sten.

Thanks.

As Sid stated "I hope you can convince Erik Sten.

I would push further--I hope you will be able to convince Cmmr Adams and Saltzman and Myr Potter on this very critical issue.

I say to John--what other positions are there available for Cmmr Leonard too go for..County Cmmr(yes in 4 yrs Cmmr Roberts is termed out) or Chair(that would be most intereting); Labor Cmmr.(what Dan going somewhere?; SecSt.(this post doesnt fit Randy), Mayor(lets see about Potter), Congressman(what Earl going somewhere?) Federal Senator(that would be a solid challange) and the Governor(oh please Randy say that you would take a stab at it).

Randy opines, """The Patriot Act was passed in an attempt to make the American People the scape goat to diffuse attention from the incompetence of our national intelligence gathering community. Period. If you can't at least concede that point, we really have no basis for any kind of a meaningful discussion on this topic."""

Is this progressive? If I can't agree with you then we can't have any meaningful discussion????

What if you are wrong?

Who told you that was the motive behind the Patriot Act?

Describe how you came to conclude such a notion?

Mr. Leonard, your view of the Patriot Act is off base. Perhaps if you boned up a bit with someone familiar with the Act like former FBI Special Agent Charles Mathews you might discover a fresh and more accurate perspective.

If you need his contact info let me know. I'll pass on to him your comments. I can tell you that having heard a presentation by Mr. Mathews, covering all of the misinformation out there, what you are preaching is flat out inaccurate.

I think it is in your best interests and certainly the public's best interests for you to broaden your comprehension on this very important issue.

Regardless of how many Bluebloggers love what you are currently doing.

As a life-long registered Republican and a Son of the American Revolution, I'm proud that Randy has the opportunity to express his views.

I also fear that the soi-disant 'Patriot Act' and other deceptively named legislation are abusing the social contract between the citizens of these United States and our government which is enumerated in the Constitution.

The 'Patriot Act' has not aided any anti-terror prosecution, as per its proponents. However, it has been documented (see the Politech list) to have been used for purposes other than anti-terror.

Randy's right, folks; it's bad legislation and deserves opposition.

B!X posted, """Allow me to jump in. Let's take a look at the September 5, 2002, overview published by the Associated Press.

Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation. Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests. Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation. Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes. Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation. Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial. Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.""

B!X AP AP AP May May May Who wrote that overview? Where's the beef? Where is the claim against library lurking feds? Where is the case where no search warrant was ever obtained?
And "encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests". That's a hoot. Oregon bureaucrats wrote the book on that one. Oh there I go again suggesting you look in your own back yard. Really folks, given the lengthy chatter on this topic you would think one could find many specific cases of of traqmpled rights mentioned. But I can't even get a source for B!X overview of mays.

It seems that some people appreciate the demise of the Bill of Rights and overall the US Constitution based on some of the "powers and the interpretations of these powers" that the Patriot Act allows the government and its agencies. If so, what is this coming too—to live and endure in an autocratic authoritarian country? Did not the predecessors of these Republicans defeat the autocratic authoritarian evil empire-USSR-in the 1980’s; too now justify their own 20 years later?

Steve Schopp, You're tilting at windmills. I won't get into all the fine points b!x makes, but I will point out that the sarcasm about the "may" language is misguided. "May" is being used as a term of legal art (meaning the activity is allowed but optional), in contradistinction to "shall" (where the activity is not optional).

In this case, "may" is not as innocuous as you wish it to be.

And if I may indulge a personal jab, you've shown up to an intellectual gunfight armed only with blanks. Please do research.

Jud,

Tilting at windmills? The "may" thing is petty and nearly irrelevant.

For the 3rd or 4th time, who did the list of "mays" come from.

And you say,
"And if I may indulge a personal jab, you've shown up to an intellectual gunfight armed only with blanks. Please do research."

That's why I want the source of the list.

Do I need to higlight my central question so you can pick up on it?

I swear, I have asked a number of key questions here on several topics, and it seems every time the central question is avoided with comments on some minor generality or insignificant word.

Tell me what State or local agency/program/project/ service you have researched?

"Gun Groups May Not Be Bush Campaign Weapon," Los Angeles Times, 4/13/04

There's that "may" thing again.

"Conservative Voices Against the USA PATRIOT Act"

Nice headline.

"the majority of people prosecuted under new antiterrorism security measures were being pursued for reasons unrelated to terrorism"

So what. Nothing new here. It's like getting american ganster murderers for tax evasion.

The ACLU? Who's that.

The author of your posted list of "mays"?

Still no answer. Who's list is that?

b!x,

Steve is blinker about this topic and you should not try to exercise any more time on an individual that is not going to get the ideas and resources that have be developed and discoursed here on this thread.

Yes Aaron and by all means b!x don't answer a simple question either. I've devoured enough ACLU fan club web site posts although I still visit. I'll ask again though, who wrote this b!x post? The original link no longer works. Granted I could likely search the news archive and find it but what petty reason do you have for not providing the original with your post? And now ehen someone asks for it, why play games?
You posted this. Where's the Original piece it appeared in and who wrote it?

b!x post September 5, 2002, overview published by the Associated Press.

Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation. Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests. Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation. Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes. Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation. Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial. Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

Kari says, "Steve, I'll ask my question again... If your sworn, mortal enemy suddenly became the Special Agent In Charge of the Portland FBI, would you trust him to use the Patriot Act wisely and judiciously?"

No I would not trust Vera Katz to do so. That's why she should not have top secret clearance as Randy believes.

That shot aside, your collective distribution of stuff just does not make the claims true.

The Rubik's Cube story, which you've milked for all it's worth is as meaningless as it was when originally reported and debunked.

The library pandamonium is just that.

And too bad so many progressives are more concerned about our own law enforcment fightin terrorism that children visiting porn sites in our libraries.

The holding of americans indefinetly without charge is the deliberate stretching of circumstances involving the detaining of enemy combatants.

The Brandon Mayfield story has also been milked to death.

I have listened to a number of progressives tout that all of our enemny combatants should have the full luxury of our entire judicial system. Each with a Johnny Cockran with all the trimmings.

No, I don't see the Patriot Act as the ACLU does.

But I don't see the Boy Scouts, the Pledge of Allegiance, Christmas or much else as they do either.

To answer your question. If I did see the Patriot Act as you and the ACLU do, no I would not trust my mortal enemy to implement it.

Would I see it your way if only I "researched" with ACLU web site links to discover what the networks are concealing from us? No. becasue just as I visit BlueOregon I do visit other progressive sources.

I am convinced you are simply wrong headed, way to sensitive, hate to be challenged, condemn those who critiize you, hypocritical and refuse to answer straight questions.

I still like chatting though.

I just wish you would spend more time on Oregon agencies, programs and services.

Kari Kari Kari, I said I would not trust Vera Katz. Just as I did not trust her with education.

What is God's green earth do you think can be done to the Patriot Act to make it politician proof? If your imagined tweaking, (abolishing is what you really want) of the Patriot Act can do so then why hasn't many of out other laws covering a broad range of societal issues been politico proofed?

Get real.

The Patriot Act is a solid tool or weapon. Just as is a simple gun. In the wrong hands it can do more harm than good.

That's why Randy Leonard is so out of his mind with his demand that "top secret" clearance be given to those who do not need to have it for any reason.

B!X and Aaron, You may want to consider today's editorial and send Mr. Caldwell a message to do some reasearch. Apparently the editorial board doesn't go where you go. Or maybe you don't make sense.

Nice to see the O on the side of common sense.

Especially when in this case it is so abundantly obvious.

Unfortunately some of you have gleaned more from the Rubiks Cude story than the Portland Seven.

Peace

Kari wrote:

"So, you must agree with me and Bix: Trust the law, not the man. If you can't trust the people who would use the law, the law is a bad law."

I wholeheartedly agree. Can we all begin applying this across the board from now on?

I'll march in the streets to protest the JTTF just as soon as a majority of "progressive voters" suddenly demand that we get rid of the PDC, Dept. of Economic Dev., the OLCC, the Oregon Health Plan, METRO, CIM/CAM, the Lottery Commission, the State Narcotics Division, etc.

There is evidence of the laws powering those programs/institutions falling into the hands of untrustworthy people, so they must be bad laws. Let's get rid of them.

For the record, I'm leery of the Patriot Act too.

My reluctance has less to do with the Bush Administration than the overall growth of the police industry at all levels. Too many people are employed to protect us from ourselves and they are now an interest group. Unions representing police and corrections workers fight against anything that will decrease their ranks (e.g., drug decriminalization, reducing mandatory minimum sentences, etc.)

When the threat of terrorism subsides (we can hope can't we), the influence of this interest group may become very unhealthy.

In the meantime, terrorist threats are just too big a risk to turn a blind eye and hope everything turns out alright.

So give us an effective "progressive" proposal for preventing terrorist attacks from insular groups of religious extremists already living within our borders that does not compromise your view of civil liberties.

I'll listen (as long as it doesn't involve UN intervention).

Good post Pancho. I too am realist and know the Patriot Act to be less than perfect. Fortunatley it can be abolished as easily as it was created "when the threat of terrorism subsides".

Or, if and when, as Kari says "Eventually (someday, someday) we crazy liberal pinko hippies will get hold of the government - and use the Patriot Act in ways that sicken you"

The "you" would be the majority of Americans who support today's efforts and use of the Patriot Act but would not if Kari's dream comes true.

Steve,

I do belief in the need for co-operation on the security of the country by all levels of law enforcement; but not at the expense of the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. Yes, I think that the potential actions of the “Portland Seven” were justifiable use of the full extent of the co-operation. However, I am dismayed at the lack of responsibility of the federal government and its agents why they FUCKED UP MR Mayfield’s life. The local US DA and several other law enforcement officers in Portland and around the country should be fired for the crimes that the leveled against him falsely. This shot 1st and ask question last approach is not the way that the government should take actions against its own citizenry. Now with the case in NYC, a gang member is being charged for murder with stipulation of acts of a terrorist,Gang member as terrorist, it shows desperation on the DA’s office and the police to encompass the classification of gang related activities as activities of terrorists.

b!x says, "Um, exactly when will that be?"

Do some research. It will be when the American People, through their elected representatives, decide it should go.

Just as the left leans on this here in Oregon when demeaing the initiative process the sames goes for our country. We elect representatives to do our will, right?

If you don't like that perhaps you should try some sort of national initiative.

Of course you would have to be far more pursuasive. Right now you can't even pursuade your head cheerleaders at the O.

In all of this it if much better that you folks, the minority, are beefing about all of this than the majority who elected our President, House and Senate leadership.

"You don't understand very much about The Oregonian, do you?"

That's a hoot.

Perhaps Steve is too young to remember the Nixon enemies list (with IRS audits of those on it).

Or J Edgar Hoover and his secret files on MLK and others.

I will never trust a government agent to "do the right thing" when it comes to individual freedoms and liberties. Whether they are D or R.

Call me a lefty or card-carrying member (which I am -- and more of you should be) -- but I would rather risk one freed "terrorist" than have all of us open to sneak and peek.

Can anyone point to any foiled "terrorist plot" as a result of Patriot Act? More importantly, can anyone point to ANY credible and valuable evidence @ terrorism that has come from the -- what is it now -- 2.8 years incarcerations at Gitmo from the so-called enemy combatants?

Steve can minimize the "unfortunate Brandon Mayfield" incident, but the documented bumbling of the FBI in that case did more to cement my "don't trust the government" feelings about the Patriot Act than any of the dozens of well-reasoned arguments against it.

Who was it that said "Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty in exchange for security will soon have neither"?

re: research and such

From Bartlett's quotations:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." [2]

-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

Note 1. This sentence was much used in the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto of Franklin's “Historical Review,” 1759, appearing also in the body of the work.—Frothingham: Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413.

The Oregonian's editorial today "United we (should) stand" just about did me in. I wasn't sure what I was going to blog about after I was done with my work today, but when I read the editorial I had my material, for sure!

Randy S """Perhaps Steve is too young to remember the Nixon enemies list (with IRS audits of those on it)""" And """Steve can minimize the "unfortunate Brandon Mayfield" incident, but the documented bumbling of the FBI in that case did more to cement my "don't trust the government" feelings about the Patriot Act than any of the dozens of well-reasoned arguments against it"""

Randy, I am 50.

On these issues, I think you have a percetion problem. The Nixon case was deliberate abuse of power and the FBI Mayfiled case was human error. Yet you apparently give the same weight to both. To me that signals something else at work here. If you can't differentiate btween the two then perhaps it is your own judgment you should question. The Mayfield case and rubiks cube story have inflated to the monsterous level they are not. And to then use them to negate "dozens of well reasoned arguements" demonstrates a desire to have them represent more evil than they actually do.

Morphing things out of context and perspectivemay serve your bias well but it don't pass the smell test. Not even at the O.

Kari,

Read this three or four times and figure out for yourself if the Rubiks Cube story is really what BlueOregon seemingly wants it to be.

It is certainly easy to criticize the agents and feds on some wasting time or isn't there something better to do angle. But to inflate it and use it as evidence that the Patriot Act and Homeland Security should be feared is preposterous.

On a side note,

Should we have abolished the IRS because Nixon really did abuse it?

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/109896512934940.xml

Homeland Security, which includes Customs, routinely blocks shipments of products from overseas that violate intellectual property rights, such as patents, copyrights and trademarks.

Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said agents went to Pufferbelly based on a trademark infringement complaint filed in the agency's intellectual property rights center in Washington, D.C.

Kice also said Homeland Security officials routinely investigate such complaints and follow up if they determine they are valid.

"One of the things that our agency's responsible for doing is protecting the integrity of the economy and our nation's financial systems and obviously trademark infringement does have significant economic implications," she said.

b!x,

Hard core facts. Plus the Spanish Government tried to convey this issue of the potential wrongful case against Mr Mayfield.