Posted on 11/21/2001 7:03:42 AM PST by Psalm 73
PORTLAND, Ore. Homeland defense may have a serious kink in its West Coast armor.
Portland police refuse to cooperate with the U.S. Justice Department's request for help interviewing men who entered the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2000 from countries that have been linked to the Sept. 11 hijackers or were waystations for the Al Qaeda terror network.
Portland's police department claims this part of the Justice Department's sweeping terrorism investigation would violate state law, making Portland the first city to refuse to cooperate with the anti-terrorism effort.
The Justice Department had distributed a list of 5,000 men ages 18 to 33 it wanted to interview about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced earlier this month.
Acting Police Chief Andrew Kirkland said Tuesday the U.S. Attorneys Office in Portland asked for city police cooperation last week. He said police denied the request, citing an Oregon law that says no one can be questioned by police unless they are suspected of being involved in a crime.
"The law says, generally, we can interview people that we may suspect have committed a crime," Kirkland said. "But the law does not allow us to go out and arbitrarily interview people whose only offense is immigration or citizenship, and it doesn't give them authority to arbitrarily gather information on them."
Portland FBI spokeswoman Beth Anne Steele said Tuesday she couldn't comment on the investigation. Justice Department officials were unavailable for comment Tuesday night.
Charles Gorder, an assistant U.S. attorney in Portland, told The New York Times that the interviews would be completed, with or without help from local police
Arabs and Muslims have criticized the Justice Department's plan to interview the men on the list. Civil rights activists say the action constitutes racial profiling. The Justice Department acknowledges the men are likely to be Arab and Muslim, but says the list wasn't based on ethnic origin.
Kirkland, who is black, said profiling is an issue that hits home for him, but that's not why the Justice Department's request was rejected. "I am sympathetic to that issue from a perspective of growing up African American," he said. "That doesn't factor into any decision to do this or not. We made that decision regarding racial profiling long before Sept. 11. That decision was made for us when the Legislature wrote the law."
OK, say it is December 1941, and the Justice Dept. asks west-coast cities to interview people of Japanese origin.
You are being patriotic by saying NO? I don't know if it's guts, but it IS a lot of something.
This lack of cooperation will look very wise and brave, until there is a terrorist attack in Portland! Then the finger-pointing will begin in earnest...
Since when do the police need to suspect you of a crime to be able to "interview" you? Extending that logic fully would prevent them from being able to talk to anyone, at any time, about anything, unless there is a suspicion of criminal involvement. There is no substantive difference between just talking to someone and "interviewing" them.
Point 2: Police can interview people if they believe that person has mere KNOWLEDGE of crimes, not active involvement.
And finally, suspicion of offenses relating to "immigration or citizenship" ARE crimes, and are justification enough ON THEIR OWN for "interviews" to take place.
From the article:
Acting Police Chief Andrew Kirkland said Tuesday the U.S. Attorneys Office in Portland asked for city police cooperation last week. He said police denied the request, citing an Oregon law that says no one can be questioned by police unless they are suspected of being involved in a crime.
Actually, what they did was round them up and out them in iternment camps even though many of them had done nothing wrong.
Personally, I support Oregon in upholding there state laws.
You have to at least acknowledge that the police can "interview" people who can reasonably expected to have "knowledge" of a crime, even if they have no involvement.
You also have to acknowledge that immigration and citizenship violations ARE crimes. So the chief's position is indefensible even by his own BS standard.
LOL, welcome to the FreeRepublican forum. Guess who will win this one? Imagine the screeches if Reno tried to pull this off. Still LOL!
Thats exactly what the article says, try rereading for comprehension. Just being arabic doesn't mean you are involved in a crime or have knowledge of a crime.
I'm not sure if th local police have jurisdiction in immigration affairs.
It is true that our Portland politicians and city workers have their heads up their asses though.
He's a little vague, but is this guy saying that ILLEGAL immigration is NOT a crime?
This is a universal truth (government work), it is not only limited to Portland.
---max
But isn't the primary purpose of the Federal Gov. to provide for a common defense?
What if Oregon decides it does not want any military bases on it's soil? Should that be left up to the ststes? Of course not.
We are talking national security here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.