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. Attorney’s 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."
No, you don't say. Tell me more Mr. History lesson, because I'm an idiot.
We are not talking about internment, we are INTERVIEWING them!
Jeez, did I stutter, or do you just read what you want to read?
Oh, cute - did you make that up all by yourself?
What about "to provide for a common defense"?
The rights of the state do not supercede the US Constitution.
Perhaps you think that a memeber of the US armed forces on a military base in your state are also either "liberal" or " socialists"
Do you prefer anarchy?
We're not talking about motorcycle helmets here, we are talking about the integrity of our nation, which just happens to be under attack from these terrorists, or is that all part of the New World Order conspiracy?
Man, lighten up - as long as we have 80 million American citizens under arms, we have our liberty (as long as you don't live in New Jersey).
Oregon (Portland and Eugene) is the world headquarters for environmental terrorism, the Earth Liberation Front...
Liberal Oregon jealously protects these environmental terrorists. Why should they treat other America-haters differently?
If that's not what I said, it's what I meant.
A state must respect the US constitution, I know that.
Oregon is playing with secession. This terrorism business ain't over and is getting ugly. Hope the Prez and Ashkroft are strong enough to withstand the PC that breaks the country appart. We have already problems with Mexico allowing killers to go into the US, we do not need Oregon to breed them on US soil.
Ouch, ya' mean these environmental terrorists and Libertarians have something in common?
Several posters seem to think they're talking about illegal immigrants. That's not what was stated. In effect, the Feds wanted anyone who was a male, within a certain age range and from the middle east to be "interviewed." Kinda like interviewing everybody who posts on FR 'cause they might be subversive.
This is semantics. The states cannot make laws that run contrary to those in the Constitution.
They cannot make treaties with other nations, cannot mint thier own currency, etc.
They cannot allow the owning of slaves, and must be allowed defend the (Constitutional) rights of the very young (pre-birth babies).
If I'm wrong, I'll gladly share my ammo clips and rations with you, because it will be partly my fault.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Interviewing Japanese in 1941 didn't do any good.
Somehow, I have the feeling if this artocle was about Janet Reno instead of Ashcroft we would have a Freeper stampede condeming the actions of the Fed gov't.
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.