I was not referring to news outlets when I referred to pressure on the national scale.

I can't help but wonder what Randy and Tom are really hoping to gain from this?

I don't buy their stated need for the Top secret clearance.

They haven't made any case. All they have done is claim they need it "in order to provide appropriate supervision".

That's pretty weak.

This just doesn't look good and I think it puts Portland once again on the fringe.

If the city leadership is going to do something like this they need at least try and make a case and explain the practical circumstances and scenarios which prevent them from "providing appropriate supervision" if they don't get what no other city has.

The plainest of questions here is how are all of the other cities "providing appropriate supervision" of their police forces without the Top Secret clearance.

It just looks way too political, nothing to gain with more image and credibility to lose.

Randy and Tom are acting as if no clearance or sharing of anything occurs. If that were the case they would be justified.

Don't forget they don't want to let judges see stuff either.

read some dissent about the scope of claimed authority via executive order

There are two possible options for Potter 1) cave or 2) stalemate.

The feds will look for creative, even wholly unrelated, punitive measures to convince Potter to cave. The Oregonain knows that there will be a price to pay, even if no one yet knows what that will be.

That's likely the essence of this. Potter and Leonard are staunch partisans and they do not trust the Bush/Republican FBI. Randy despises Republicans period.

They ought to just tell it like it is and what they are up to. That they want to keep an eye on the Bush FBI. The methods they are choosing I'm sure appear pretty spineless to the other side. And to some of their own as well.

b!x, It appears to many that it is Leonard and Potter who demagogue the issue.

Potter and Leonard have not even outlined the encumbering differences between security clearance and the top secret clearance they want. It's just yet another empty claim. One that is centered on a point that is so subjective that it can be true and false at the same time. Depending on one's politics.
Obviously because you are a big Leonard fan he says it you buy it.

So there's no debate for you, right? Just hand over the Top Secret clearance. If only John Kerry were President there would not be a problem.

Richard et al:

Kari mentioned cointelpro.

As one whose brother was targeted by the FBI's cointelpro operation in the '60s (for anti-war protests), it's safe to say I share the concerns of Messrs. Potter & Leonard.

Of course, that was over 35 yrs. ago but we all have a more recent reminder of FBI abuse...the case of Brandon Mayfield.

Personally, I am far more concerned about an act of terrorism (like that against Mr. Mayfield) by our FBI than by members of Al Quaida infiltrating the NW. I certainly hope our elected officials will continue to work as hard as possible to maintain some control over any local resources being given to Federal authorities.

Demagogue? no. Memory jog? yes.

One true Blue b1x, Look genius, get over yourself. You haven't the slightest idea what the extent of information is learned with Top Secret. You don't have any clearance. Your surmising is only wrapping this up into a neat little narrow minded bundle so you can pretend you have it figured out. So you think the Portland City Council is the only thing preventing a whole bunch of Oregonians from being victimized by the FBI. Well, good for you. Put yourself in the fringe category.
Did it not occur to you that Top Secret reveals far more than the simple,

Whether or not the information which led to someone being a target was collected in violation either of ORS 181.575 or ORS 181.850.<<<

That there are abundant reasons why there is a need to know firewall between clearance and top secret?

There are decades of intelligence matters and operations behind the need to keep secret many things.

No other city officials in the country have Top Secret clearance and it's for good reasons. They never had it during the Clinton years and Potter and company won't now. The good reasons, which you can't even imagine, don't included the rampant victimizing of US citizens. IMO.

Does it bug anybody else that Randy Leonard is functionally illiterate? He writes like George W. sounds:

"The filing of the JTTF resolution by the Mayor and I has initiated heretofore non existence discussions ..."

For you public school grads, it's "by the Mayor and me" - as in "by us". I won't bother with the rest of his post.

If the FBI really wants this deal, they should come back with a counter-offer of two secret decoder rings and honorary titles of "Special Super Duper Agent" - that'll appease Potter and Leonard, and make 'em feel all grown up and included and important, which is what this is all about.

This nonsense about being kept in the loop is hooey. Neither of them needs Top Secret (or any other) clearance in order to know what their officers are doing, as the reports can be redacted to remove classified details. It's one thing to know that Officer X spent last night tailing suspect Y, and quite another to know suspect Y's identity, or how the tailing is being done, or who the informer is, or where the bug is planted, etc.

Giving out Top Secret clearances like candy would be a mistake, and spending the 9 months per person per clearance needed (with at least one agent if not more working on each clearance application) - if multiplied by 100 cities - would be a significant drain on FBI resources.

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. (Potter I haven't formed an opinion on, yet.)

If the real goal is police staff oversight, no such clearance is necessary. If the real goal is FBI oversight, then let Potter/Leonard propose that a third person, say an Oregon judge or retired judge, should get the Top Secret clearance (or better, find one who has it already) and periodically review the FBI's work for infringement on civil rights.

-Federalist1

b!x asks,

Do you support officers of the Portland Police Bureau having the authority to self-certify that they are in compliance with Oregon law?<<

How can I be sarcastic enough?

Ya and all of our cops must prove/certify themselves innocent of violating all Oregon laws because they are guilty until proven/certified innocent.

b!x you're a partisan paranoid making excuses for the Portland fringe of which you are a member. Plenty of Democrats know extremism when they see it as well.

You think you got it all figured out but there is no chance of the Top Secret clearance, none.

I can't even imagine what would motivate the FBI to bend to the ridiculous lefty fringe in Portland. It's just another embarrassment. At the end of the day Potter and Leonard will have nothing but guys like you telling them how marvelous they are. Big deal. Big fish swimming around in their little pond.

They won't have the Top Secret access. They won't have more support. They will have less credibility and a steeper hill to climb with critical issues before the public.

They gain nothing. So tell me b!xy, what is the point of them embarrassing themselves and Portland?

In considering what the Denver JTTF was involved in and the Mayfield case in pdx, I'd feel a little more assured about the security of our constitutional liberties if the police chief, the Mayor, and Commissioner in Charge of the Portland Police Bureau had the top secret clearance to review information on the JTTF.

If some of our elected officials were to get such clearance, the FBI agents and police officers involved will be more cognizant of any Oregon laws that pertain to our civil liberties. Right now, they can just brush it off and don't even need to remind themselves to think twice about whether or not they might be violating such laws. Simply put, it doesn't matter if no one is watching.

It's the check we need to keep the balance.

Federalist1 says:

"Does it bug anybody else that Randy Leonard is functionally illiterate?"

I prefer earnest illiteracy over erudite pomposity.

Personally, I am far more concerned about an act of terrorism (like that against Mr. Mayfield) by our FBI than by members of Al Quaida infiltrating the NW.

That is one truly telling statement. What happend to Mr Mayfield was sad, but hardly terrorism. I suppose you think the Portland Seven (or Six if you take out the dead one) were railroaded right? And I assume if Kerry was elected, this would be a moot point? That the threat of terrorism would just fade away like a bad fart?

I really dont see a need for them to have Top Secret clearance, and I would be worried about what they would do with certain information if they had said clearance...can they be trusted with it? Would something leak that could threaten the PPB officers or members of the FBI?

And do Leonard and Potter maybe have something in their past that they would not get the clearance at all? Maybe thats why they are making an issue of it in the first place.

If they keep pushing this, the FBI may well pull its Oregon office altogether. Would that make us safer?

I have news for Leonard and Potter...if something happens here because of their (in)actions with the JTTF, I will hold them personally responsible for not protecting my family.

Oh Richard ! Oh Jon ! You both are trying to spread the trumped up fear that we need the FBI to keep us safe and only they have the proper clearance to watch over us Ha ha ha these are the same ones that are lying/spying and have arresting hundreds of suspects of terror since the 911 and so far have charged only one (just one) with terrorism.... What is that all about? Where are all these sleeper cells? Is this some of the same groups who told us about phoney WMD? Check out this to help explain the terror scare TERROR NIGHTMARE

Calm down nobody is coming to Portland to get us and you should be watching your own Federal Government. The CIA and FBI have probably caused more problems in this whole mess then have done any good. From botched arrests to illegal spying to violating constitutional laws to over seas torturing. So they are certainly not to run unchecked with our city officers. Thank god some people out here are doing their homework instead of falling down helpless to the Fear Mongers claim that nobody needs to watch over them and 'they' are going to save us. Ha I fear this Secret Government of Ours we now all of a sudden have, way more than anything they can help us with!Lots of mistakes from these guys. So 'read up'as B!X suggested on this Resolution that Tom & Randy have presented and you will see that the Safety and Constitution and Oversight process will serve everybody Honestly. Which probably will scare the secret scammers that are trolling out there pushing fear as they take freedom away. By the way, is this same group of guys who are talking about all this Terror, the same one’s who years ago used to say that "the Russians are coming?" ha!

Kari Chisholm asks; "Do you believe Mayor Potter, a former police chief, and Chief Foxworth to be a security risk? If so, why?"

Of course they are a security risk, they went down and talked to the godless protestors at Terry Shrunk Plaza on inauguration day. What could they have been thinking to dare to even speak with the enemies of "Dear Leader"?

-snark off-

Thanks, Sam...I think.

why not allow them to apply for clearance?

Have they even tried to apply? I dont think they have. I think their whole bitch is making an issue that they were not offered said clearance up front. (No mayor or police chief in any city was.)

As for those asking about "sleeper cells"....we have already had one. Do you think there is a slight possibility there could be more?

As for the FBI, I never said they were our "saviors". But I think I trust them a bit more than the dopes running Portland.

Oh, and the Oregonian said the Feds have offered to let Foxworth apply for Top Secret clearance.

Of course, this "cell" was a small set of idiots who thought going to Afghanistan to fight with the Taliban would be a good idea. Which is stupid and wrong, to be sure, but it's not like they were sitting around trying to plot exploding a dirty bomb in downtown Portland.

If I remember correctly, there was also evidence they were planning on shooting up a local school.

By the way, my point in saying the above is that our case may pssibly be somewhat unique, because we have these two provisions of Oregon law which our officers must follow, and which the FBI doesn't pay attention to.

I would hope the two officers involved would know the laws enough to know if they were breaking one.

Please accept this as my public testimony.

At the risk of being redundant, there is only one question left and I hereby go on record that the PJTTF must allow for legal oversight (aka: City Attorney) to ensure that officers assigned to JTTF cases comply with state law.

The question of Potter being considered for clearance is a non-issue. According to the Reuters article, The FBI has already gone on record stating that they would consider giving the clearance to the current Chief of Police. This being the case, logic would dictate that they should consider making the ‘unprecedented move’ to extend the same consideration to Mayor Tom Potter due to his former experience as Chief of Police himself. This consideration would be based on the fact that Potter has the same training to clear whatever credentials the current Chief would have to meet.

So lets assume that the FBI will consider the above. The only question left is whether or not clearance should be assigned to the City Attorney as well.

Please correct me if I'm wrong in any of the following, but my understanding is as follows:

As confirmed by Commissioner Leonard, the entirety of this issue is centered around the fact that the MoU agreement is set up in such a way that has ”JTTF-assigned officers self-certifying that they are in compliance with Oregon law” This is a valid concern in light of the statement from Special Agent-in-Charge Robert Jordan that "the FBI does not supervise their investigations to see if they comply with state law." Mayor Potter and Commissioner Leonard merely seek to revisit the MoU to adjust for this lack of oversight.

The state laws referred to (OR 181 laws) ensure the civil liberty rights of Oregon citizens. They represent the process of accountability that serves to ensure our civil liberties and protects them from potential violation.

The concern of protecting civil liberties in the midst of local (police) and national (federal) investigations is not unique to Oregon. As b!X has stated, “the FBI, through at least one JTTF in another city (Denver), in fact has investigated people solely because of their religious or political affiliations. Such investigations that are undertaken in Denver would violate the civil liberties that our 181 laws are designed to ensure here in Oregon.

It’s interesting to note that the situation in Denver is such that they have looked to Portland’s own model ordinance that led to the creation of the Independent Police Review Committee (IPR) and the Citizen Review Council (CRC) here to such a degree that they have hired our (soon to be former) director, Richard Rosenthal to manage their police oversight system. This indicates that the concern for oversight in the way investigations are conducted -- especially as they relate to how they may or may not compromise our civil liberties -- is not a concern unique to Portland and it further indicates what b!X rightly states elsewhere regarding our 181 laws “Oregon, rightly and with forethought, got ahead of the curve and passed a firm state statute with this prohibition.”

The question is, if the FBI doesn’t ensure the civil liberties that our state laws are designed to protect, who will? As it currently stands – the officers themselves do. In Denver, it is becoming apparent that isn’t enough and in Portland – it isn’t either. Furthermore, the clearance granted to Mayor Potter (correct me if I’m wrong here) wouldn’t, alone, ensure it. Law is what ensures law – as such <bold>the clearance would need to be extended to the City Attorney” as well.</bold> As this is part of the proposal in revisiting the JTTF, I fully support our councilmen in the "unprecedented move" of Portland being the first to lead the way in protecting our civil liberties in these times -- and act as a model for other cities, such as Denver, to follow.

Randy I cannot speak for my fellow Libertarians on this, but we have discussed this issue and the general feeling is not to give an inch. Our civil liberties have been eroding slowly and this trend needs to be reversed. If the FBI cannot operate within the guidelines established by City Council then perhaps they need to look at how they do things. "TOP SECRET" is too often slapped on documents and having been in the service I do know that often it has no special meaning. Hell Presidents of the United States have even ignored the label when it was politically expedient. Never given an inch.

Thank you, Commisioner Leonard, for taking the heat on this. Stand firm!

Tangent question: Should the feds consider top secret clearance for some one who would attribute what I believe (but may be mistaken) is a Franklin quote to Jefferson twice in one month? :) :)

Apparently, Franklin wrote:

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

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,”

also appropriate Franklinism: "It is hard for an empty bag to stand upright."

Internet. As Jane Addams said: "Good for misquotations, but also good for research."

This sentence was much used in the Revolutionary period. As such, many people said it. Its origin matters less than the context in which it is / was used. In this case, the context applies.

This sentence was much used in the Revolutionary period -- many people said it. It's origin is of less importance than the context in which it survives its origin. The context applies.

There are a number of sources that attribute the quote to Thomas Jefferson and a slightly different version to Benjamin Franklin.

The quote attributed to Franklin is

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

"This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served.

The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document. Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson to be the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it could well have been Franklin."

Source: http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605

This link identifies the source of the quote as coming from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison. Therefore, I attribute the quote to Jefferson instead of Franklin.

http://home.epix.net/~jlferri/bork.html

Obviously, Jefferson and Franklin were contemporaries and it is not inconceivable that both of the great statesmen used the same message in various but related forms.

(i need tea and a new computer) apologies for the double post -- i blame my explorer browser on this one.

Nerd: Thank you for the laugh.

Commissioner: Thank you for the education.

Still, me thinks he doth protest too much. :) :)

"Still, me thinks he doth protest too much. :) :)"

The right to protest is exactly what I am fighting for, Mike.

The danger, I believe Commissioner, is in the assumption of evil lurking around each corner beyond your personal ability to see. We (Feds/you/me) are all Americans. I believe we are all interested in our mutual security. I respect your desire to safeguard our "collective liberties". But, I think it wiser not to stand athwart the road of those whose mission is to protect all Americans. I trust them. (And perhaps this makes me unwise.) I am also concerned with the precident as it applies to all cities across the country.

I am a Federalist. So much so, that I sent Lars several scathing e-mails about the rampant stupidity practiced by our Congress in the Shaivo case. Limited federal government means something to me as does individual liberty.

That said, I believe it is the proper role of the federal government to protect us from terrorists who wish us ill. Those federal agents involved are accountable to the federally elected office holders by whom such agencies are over-seen. I do not believe local over-sight is proper. I am sorry to say that I am unfamiliar with the ORS you cite. But again, this would seem proper for state over-site, not local.

I have a couple of good friends who are federal prosecutors. I have heard things that make me nervous.

A Wahabbi man in Ashland (ASHLAND!) was recently investigated as he was the largest single recipient of Saudi government funding in the United States. What was he doing with these millions? Recruting in the Oregon penitentary!

People who wish us harm are here, in Oregon. I would like to make it as hard as possible for them to hurt my small children, me, you, your kids, etc., etc.

I certainly believe in protecting our liberties. But, I believe the Mayor's and the Commissioner's efforts slow the process, create ill will and put us in greater danger.

Mike,

As a Federalist, I'm assuming that you are pro a strong central government as well as Federal protection? Do correct me if I'm wrong, but as you state that civil liberties "mean something to you" how do you propose to ensure that the Federal protection doesnt compromise them if not through a checks and balances that ensure accountability? Is your trust such that state laws that ensure national laws become irrelevant?

I think Mike meant he is a confederalist, or a supporter of states rights. Of course, under our federalist system, the Constitution reserves many rights to the states, or used to before the Shrubbery came to power.

allehseya: From your posts, I would assume you a more well read person than I, as it pertains to the law. That said, I believe that the term "checks and balances" has been badly basterdized by many. I don't believe it means what you intend in your last post. I believe it best refers to the branches of the federal government and thier respective roles, not to the province of what is a federal / state / or local matter. The proper check and balance to the actions of the federal agent is our Congressperson or Senator or a federal court.

b!X: The federal officers are "our" officers too. They live here. They are Oregonians just like you and me. I suspect they aren't in a hurry to put local police officers in a position to act in conflict to thier central mission. And, I don't think giving Mayors and City Councilors all across our country access to top secret information is going to be a good thing. It will create more problems than it solves. I do think it's kind of funny that in effect, you are making a state's rights argument though.

Not to open a whole 'nother can of worms, but does local "oversite" of federal efforts apply to other issues as well? Can rural counties decide that federal logging restrictions are in conflict with local directives? :) :)

Of course, under our federalist system, the Constitution reserves many rights to the states

Which is why I'm confused regarding Mike's stance if he is, in fact, a "federalist".

Tom: I meant what I wrote.

allehseya: As I said, I am a Federalist. I don't believe there is a conflict in saying that I also believe that national defence is and ought to be a federal reaponsibility.

Mike,

To clarify my use of the phrase “checks and balances.”

A government is said to have an effective system of checks and balances if no one branch of government holds total power, and can be overridden by another.

Checking requires access to information and the right to question.

Balancing requires a mechanism of control to prevent the branches from overstepping their constitutional limits of power.

A government is said to have an effective system of checks and balances if no one branch of government holds total power, and can be overidden by another.

As Tom stated, under our federalist system, the Constitution reserves many rights to the states. I extend the notion of checks and balances within the context of this issue to imply that those reserved rights on the local level are designed to ensure that our civil liberties are not compromised by the Federal level.

More food for thought, Mike:

Our founding fathers had several goals, foremost among those goals was to avoid tyranny. In order to do this several different systems were set up to prevent the abuse of power. Federalism was one of these systems. Federalism was designed to balance the power of the national and State governments and thus limit the powers of the national government. Jefferson and others were convinced that state government was closer to the people and thus more democratic.

Re-reading previous posts, it seems I can neither type nor spell. :) :)

allehseya: Thank you for the thoughts. I am something of a student of American History and appreciate your effort. I am also often amused when Jefferson, Madison, et al, are quoted about the importance of individual liberties. Usually, people who do so don't really mean it. (Not that I imply this of you.)

My recollection is that the Jeffersonian Republicans were insistant on the Bill of Rights precisely to guard the individual against the potential harm of a too powerful federal government. I usually smile at the intellectual dishonesty of those who would claim these men didn't mean that the second amendment was an individual right meant to be a bullwork against tyranny. But, that's another thread, isn't it?

The protection of our civil liberties against "compromise by the federal level" is properly from our federal Congressperson or Senator or the federal courts.

My reading of history is that the assertion of a "more democratic" local official that they ought to be able to have some contoll of what is properly a federal issue has not always led to the best outcomes.

Mike,

My argument is, indeed based in the larger context of one (as you state) that is "insistant on the Bill of Rights precisely to guard the individual against the potential harm of a too powerful federal government." However, that being said, and without further debating the merit or lack of merit in this stance -- the real issue at hand is precisely as b!X has laid out.

All rhetoric of civil liberties aside, our local officers have to be accountable to local laws. That means Portland, being a city in the state of Oregon, must ensure that Portland officers comply with Oregon laws while conducting local investigations of other Oregon citizens. The MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) in the PJTTF doesnt allow for the possibility of such assurance. So, regardless of my broader stance on the issue, there must be a provision that allows our city to meet Oregon laws.

It just so happens, that with said provisions, my greater concerns as aforementioned regarding our civil liberties are not only addressed -- but ensured through a legal process of accountability.

b!X: You and I both know that the question of supervision of local police is a straw man, right? You seem a very smart person. So, I'm sure we can agree that this is nothing more than a political pissin' match. Right?

The Federal officers aren't bound by the state law. Only state and local officers are. And the head of the FBI in Oregon already stated publicly tha the FBI doesn't examine their JTTF investigations for compliance with the Oregon laws in question.

(1) Demanding that we have processes in place to ensure proper compliance with the law rather than simply assuming proper compliance with the law is not an "assumption of evil lurking around each corner".

(2) Do you view the actual laws in question -- ORS 181.575 and ORS 181.850 -- as an "assumption of evil lurking around each corner"? Or is it just trying to ensure compliance with those laws which you see that way?

This isn't about the Mayor's or the Commissioner's desire to police the federal police. This is (imho) political chest puffing that I believe makes us less safe.

I appreciate all the discussion. Very educational for me. I only wayed in initially because the commissioner asked for constructive feedback and I thought he would read it. Thanks!

This is (imho) political chest puffing that I believe makes us less safe.

I am compelled to remind you that you are speaking of two men who have (and I cannot stress and be grateful for this enough) placed their very lives at risk in defending the wellfare of ordinary citizens: Tom Potter as Chief of Police and Randy Leonard as Firefighter. While I can certainly appreciate the concern surrounding political posturing, one should consider the nature of their work history to inform such opinions.

With my easy comment, I did not wish to demean their service in any way. I too am grateful and hope they will forgive and not mis-interpret my point. It is the posturing that bothers me. And, the lack of what I think would be good judgement in this case.

Additional food for thought on record:

When he was Chief of Police, Potter said, he had sworn to protect not only the welfare of the people of Portland, but the individual rights of each and every Portlander as well. ...and the part to note, Mike is his following statement: "My duty as Mayor is not different."

So, to take the liberty to combine your and b!X's points and form a question: It's the Mayor's job now to protect the people of Portland from the Portland police because they will be working with the feds to protect the same people of Portland and to stop terrorists from blowing up parts of Portland?

From whom are we at greater risk, terrorists or the Portland police? I think the Mayor's and the Commissioner's priorities are a little mixed up.

a question: It's the Mayor's job now to protect the people of Portland from the Portland police because they will be working with the feds to protect the same people of Portland and to stop terrorists from blowing up parts of Portland?

While I'm sure b!X will be much more eloquent and objective in his response (if he hasnt already beat me to it as I type this) -- to address your question:

No. It's the Mayor's job to protect the people of Portland by ensuring Portland police comply with state law. The feds arent doing it and it needs to be done. Now remember that Federalist scenario I mentioned where there are rights reserved to the states? -- this is among them. You, as a Federalist know this.

Alley: this is a red herring

Paul,

You are correct. However, as b!X clarified: Back before the Chief and Mayor were told they could apply for the current "secret" clearance, Robert Jordan said that the FBI only extends clearance to people deemed "legitimate law enforcement officials". By which he meant police chiefs and police commissioners.

In Portland, the police commissioner happens to be an elected member of the City Council, traditionally the Mayor. Hence, Vera Katz was permitted to apply for the "secret" clearance.

So, now that Jordan has said that Chief Foxworth can apply for (although not necessarily get) "top secret" clearance, the question goes back to why our "police commissioner" wont be granted the same thing.

So in the event that Potter could apply for the clearance, my stance regarding the question of his approval can then be applied "due to his former experience as Chief of Police himself."

When you ask "Do you really think the typical elected Mayor would have the same law enforcement training and background as a Commissioner of Police?" Nope. It is however, the potential that this Mayor has in revisiting that MoU (due to his experience and credentials) along with the City Attorney that may allow for revisions that address the same concerns regarding oversight in the future and for future Mayors.

And its my understanding that only the Mayor, Chief of Police and City Attorney would be those applying for the clearance in question -- not the other commissioners.

b!X: Respectfully, it is very much an either/or proposition. The Mayor and Commissioner have set it up that way. And this is most of my problem with their judgement here. Either these two gentlemen will get their way or we will withdraw from the JTTF. (There by making us all a great deal less safe.)

Mike,

The question is centered around the MoU. the proposal defines the grounds for not accepting the MoU as it is currently written. The proposal states why we will not continue with that particular Memorandum of Understanding, specifies the reasons and proposes solutions. One could just as easily interpret that the Feds are the ones with the ultimatum of -- either ignore your state laws or dont get our protection.

-- and given the two scenarios -- the one where we ignore our federalist system is the scariest.

allehseya: Bravo. Nicely put.

Question: When Eisenhower nationlized the state National Guard to protect those who would enter a school house, was there local over-site of this state "militia"? Should there have been?

Mike,

Aren’t you tricky. More pertinent to the era you raise is the 1956 Southern Manifesto. The Manifesto represented the pronouncement of 19 U.S. Senators, including Fulbright and McClellan, and 81 Congressmen from former Confederate states. The Manifesto, if you recall, essentially demanded using any and all force necessary to bar the entry of nine black students to a Little Rock Central High School.

I raise this point because in your argument, this would over-ride the law applied to Little Rock that black students be admitted to a desegregated school by the sheer fact that elected representatives and congressmen be “trusted” regardless of the state laws (no matter how controversial at the time).

However, in response to your question, I personally believe that Eisenhower should’ve listened to McMath’s council and avoided the whole notion of a ‘militia’ period. McMath opposed the Manifesto as I would’ve at the time based on civil liberties and he counseled President Eisenhower against the use of regular U.S. Army troops. He suggested that the oldest federal law enforcement agency in the United States be used instead.

The agency in question was formed in 1789 and have historically been recognized as the instruments of civil authority. In short, I would have rather seen that the U.S. Marshall's service and their Deputies be used to enforce the state law instead.

Paul,

I believe that what you're calling for is a concept called "dialogue" when you state For example, they may argue that Chief Foxworth is sworn to uphold state laws, so by allowing Foxworth top secret clearance, from their perspective, they are allowing us to abide

For whatever it is worth -- I agree that they may argue this point or that point to justify their stance -- but to date, there have been no such arguments. I'll defer to b!X in recounting the lack of such discourse more in-depth but in the meantime refer to Kari's earlier comment in this thread regarding this same concern.

Maybe its just me, but I googled "Jefferson liberty security lose", and the only hits I got for that quote were Mr. Leonard's. I googled it because it sounded similar to a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both" or the way i'm used to hearing it "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security". It's espcially funny that Mr. Leonard uses this quote because its attribution to Franklin is disputed.

I'm all for politicians using historical statements to spice up their language, but if they're going to to do it, they should at least get the commonly used attribution correct.

For reference: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

(Again, if i'm wrong about all this, I apologize) -Chris

I should also say, I'm a little disappointed with all the people who read this thread, that no one else brought this up. Maybe its just us insular academics that notice little historical inaccuracies like this. -Chris

Chris- Actually it has been brought up here earlier in the comments.

If you look further up in the thread you will see a comment by me that cites one of the sources I used for the quote including a link that will take you to just one site (there are many if you dig...I did before using the quote originally some weeks back) I reference to support Jefferson being the source of the quote over Franklin.

I should also say, I'm a little disappointed with all the people who read this thread, that no one else brought this up.

You may also be disappointed to note that you are not the only person to raise this -- the origin of the quote has already been addressed including the fact that your source states quite clearly that the phrase was much used during the Revolutionary period .

I apologize to the other readers of this thread, a quick google search for the word security did not turn up any other mentions of franklin or such (I probably should have searched for Franklin). I'm amazed at how quick Mr. Leonard got back to me, thank you muchly for that, however, I am a little surprised he would use a source like the one he cited, especially when popular belief is that it is Franklin. What really surprised me though was that he talked about in his comment that no one was really sure who the quote was attributed to, and yet he used it anyway. Again, nothing against using historical quotations, but making an attribution to jefferson on the grounds that:

"Obviously, Jefferson and Franklin were contemporaries and it is not inconceivable that both of the great statesmen used the same message in various but related forms."

is to me a bit weak. The whole point of attributing a quote like this is that people who first make inspiring statements deserve to get credit for them. A good example of this. On a west wing episode a few years ago, the character of President Bartlet (when waxing poetic about a lost satellite) used the line,

"Surely we can do again, as we did in a time when our eyes looked toward the heavens, and with outstretched fingers, we touched the face of God"

This is a ripoff, as sorkin is prone to do, from a speech by President Reagan, (also space related) where he said:

"We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them -- this morning, as they prepared for their jouney, and waved goodbye and slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of god."

Everyone who was over 10 at the time remembers this speech, but what most people dont know is that the language actually comes from a poem, from world war II.

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings; Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth Of sun-split clouds - and done a hundred things You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung My eager craft through footless halls of air. Up, up the long delirious, burning blue, I've topped the windswept heights with easy grace Where never lark, or even eagle flew - And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod The high untresspassed sanctity of space, Put out my hand and touched the face of God.

Pilot Officer Gillespie Magee No 412 squadron, RCAF Killed 11 December 1941 at the age of 19

I don't have a problem with Commissioner Leonard using great quotes. But kids in the 1980s didn't know who Gillespie Magee was, and some kids today who heard the phrase on the West Wing don't even know that Reagan used it. One sketchy website that attributes the quote to jefferson doesn't make up for the fact that we actually don't know who the quote is attributed to. I learned in high school not to use what the internet tells me unless it comes from at least 3 reliable sources. I expect the same from elected officials. I would be okay with someone attributing the quote to Franklin, because almost everyone attributes it to Franklin because that's what everyone learns in school.

But think about how many people read blueoregon, and how many just glanced at your piece and thought, oh, its a jefferson quote. Most of those people will never hear the name Richard Jackson, and will never know that the quote is most likely not even Jefferson's nor Franklin's.

And just, in the future, think about Gillespie Magee every time you hear someone attributing "slipped the surly bonds of earth" or "touched the face of god" to President Reagan.

-Chris

Chris- You may want to re-read the comment I made citing my source.

You took out of context my statement of Jefferson and Franklin being contemporaries.

In trying to be generous, I attempted to make the point that those who attributed the quote to Franklin may be able make such an argument given he and Jefferson were contemporaries. However, though you may have thought the quote was from Franklin, as do many others, there is no direct documentation of that claim.

I would hope you would agree that just thinking a quote is from a particular person does not justify an attribution without some source to support it.

However, the source I cited for the Jefferson attribution, amongst a number of various sources easily available on the internet, make it clear the source attributing that particular quote to him is from a letter to James Madison from Jefferson.

When I first chose the quote to use in a speech a few weeks back, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to determine who the most likely source for the quote was, Jefferson or Franklin. After reading a number of different sites, I concluded that I could probably use either Jefferson or Franklin as the source. However, the exact quote I used is different from the quote commonly attributed to Franklin and is, in the form I used the quote, most often attributed to Jefferson.

That was my best judgment then and I stand by it now.

I don't take lightly quotes or their sources. You certainly may question the sources I rely on, but that is a far cry from suggesting that I had no basis for citing Jefferson as you implied in your original comment.

I would appreciate you checking your facts, as I have, before disputing mine.

In my opinion, neither Franklin nor Jefferson would have approved of JTTF as the feds run it.

Anyone? Out of the 100 comments -- whats the ratio pro / against this proposal on this thread?

allenhseya & b!X: Did really enjoy yesterday's exchange. I learned a good bit. Thanks.

Had some further thoughts: There may be other costs to these gentlemen's efforts. As you may know, Portland and Phoenix were recently named as cities where the department of Homeland Security will hold what they call TopOff 4 in 2007.

Arizona has already won about $41 million in grants for hosting the exercise.

I think telling the feds to take a leap will be expensive in many ways. Must we really pay such a cost for the innability of the proper folks to get in a room and make a deal that benefits all?

And another thing that conflict with the feds could bring.... "The Seminal Moment" for Portland could be the execution moment for a lot of rural counties. The 2006 rural schools re-authorization act is "off" 'til next year. If it isn't re-authorized, we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars (mostly to schools and public safety) that will have to be made up at the state level (read: more money from PDX migrating to rural schools). Or, see County budgets cut in half.

I'd just as soon These guys play nice with the feds. The cliff we are talking about for rural counties is a mighty tall one.

Mike,

The threat of losing money is a hypothetical one. This conversation isnt, nor should it be an either/or scenario. It should be viewed for what it is: a revisitation to the MoU to ensure that local officers are in compliance with state laws. The proposal by the Mayor and Commissioner Leonard states why they are not accepting participation in the PJTTF with the MoU that does not ensure that. That's it. They have proposed a way to ensure it and continue participation. So let's not make mountains out of moehills with so many 'what if's' and 'may be's'.

In any event, I'd be more concerned with the other implication of your fear -- the one that implies that states are being 'bribed' to render their state laws irrelevant.

Look, I'm usually the one on the side of "the law is the law". But in this case (if the Commissioner is still reading this), I want to really advise caution and puting off a decision.

Did you see the quote from Wyden's office in Tribune? (bottom of the page about funding) I respect standing on principle, but I have greater respect for those who can iron out differences so everyone wins.

I just have to comment that it was truly inspiring to watch Democracy in action tonight.

Ya the F men sure were prepared ! haha We need more time they cried! They came their with a smug attitude unprepared and dumbfounded

nice work Randy, on explaining to over-obsessed-not-following-the-posts-Chris who missed the point of the whole concept use of the quote. glad that ended ! And excellent push for the resolution last night. Keep up the excellent fortitude.

In all of the USA only ONE solid terrorist arrest to date. A lot of hype no truth or proof. And that’s after hundreds of innocent people were arrested. Which is more proof we need for oversight on the F men.

which reminds me.... Gotta love that Portland Registered Gulf Stream Plane we are using for federal rendition. Torture Plane Has A Portland Address I wonder if the JTTF works with these characters. Oh that probably is a TOP SECRET question sorry !

at this point i want what is best for both but Jordan wont comprimize

It's all fun and games 'til some building blows up. I would love to hear all the anti-Federalists and ACLU types explaining how cooperation with the JTTF wouldn't have stopped THIS particular terrorist act.

I wish all the "Free Mike Hawash" supporters spent as much time talking about him PLEADING GUILTY as they did whining about Brandon Mayfield.

Lest we forget (quoting the AP):

Hawash pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide services to the Taliban. Prosecutors agreed to drop charges of conspiring to levy war against the United States and conspiring to provide material support for terrorism.

"You and the others in the group were prepared to take up arms, and die as martyrs if necessary, to defend the Taliban. Is this true?" U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones asked Hawash during the hearing.

"Yes, your honor," Hawash replied.

I wonder if there are any other terrorists lurking in our midst, hiding behind our Bill of Rights, and using our democratic institutions against us like a modern Trojan Horse? I guess Randy Leonard is more concerned about the FBI wiretapping the wrong guy.

And you were calling me paranoid?

Frankly, I believe the Bill of Rights and the Democractic Institutions are greater then me and not mine, as you refer to them as ours. So they are not theirs?!? I expect those documents to hold fast when I am weak and would rather ignore them out of fear and for expediency. But we cannot throw out the baby with the bath water. If we aspire to a higher standard, there are no moments of compromise, and we have a nation with 'liberty and justice for all". In the end, Mr. Hawash got his day in court and where is he now?

It's all fun and games 'til some building blows up. I would love to hear all the anti-Federalists and ACLU types explaining how cooperation with the JTTF wouldn't have stopped THIS particular terrorist act.

I wish all the "Free Mike Hawash" supporters spent as much time talking about him PLEADING GUILTY as they did whining about Brandon Mayfield.

Lest we forget (quoting the AP):

Hawash pleaded guilty to conspiring to provide services to the Taliban. Prosecutors agreed to drop charges of conspiring to levy war against the United States and conspiring to provide material support for terrorism.

"You and the others in the group were prepared to take up arms, and die as martyrs if necessary, to defend the Taliban. Is this true?" U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones asked Hawash during the hearing.

"Yes, your honor," Hawash replied.

I wonder if there are any other terrorists lurking in our midst, hiding behind our Bill of Rights, and using our democratic institutions against us like a modern Trojan Horse? I guess Randy Leonard is more concerned about the FBI wiretapping the wrong guy.