Posted on 11/28/2001 8:09:21 AM PST by Grampa Dave
Police insist interviews illegal! (Portland, Or. Police Chief)
11/28/01, MAXINE BERNSTEIN and MARK LARABEE
The Portland Police Bureau, thrust into the national spotlight for its refusal to assist in a federal anti-terrorism investigation, relied on a city attorney's opinion issued before the city ever reviewed the U.S. Department of Justice's interview questions.
Portland City Attorney Jeffrey Rogers said he only obtained the questions Monday, after the state attorney general's office faxed them to him. They were made available to members of Oregon's Anti-Terrorism Task Force a week ago.
And despite a ruling Tuesday by the state's top lawyer, Attorney General Hardy Myers, that Oregon law does not prohibit law enforcement agencies from conducting the interviews, Portland is sticking to its attorney's advice and not participating.
"The city attorney stands by his opinion that some of the questions violate Oregon state law," Portland Police Chief Mark Kroeker said Tuesday evening after conferring with the mayor and city attorney. "We're not doing this to make a point. We're doing it to follow the law. I have an attorney, and it's the city attorney."
Meanwhile, Oregon State Police and investigators in the Oregon Department of Justice were gearing up to help with about 200 interviews statewide.
Rogers' assertions Tuesday morning that the federal government had "modified" and narrowed its list of questions in the past few days continued to confound federal, state and county law enforcement in Portland who said nothing had been altered and that the city attorney was misinformed.
In fact, the city attorney's office last week failed to review the list of questions, titled "Anti-Terrorism Task Force Suggested Topics for Interview," instead basing its opinion solely on a narrative set of interview guidelines distributed by the U.S. Department of Justice.
In Myers' ruling Tuesday, he reviewed the questions and included a footnote to indicate that Portland's legal advice was not based on the "actual interview questions" but the narrative description. And, in a terse statement, U.S. Attorney for Oregon Michael Mosman said, "Contrary to recent reports, that questionnaire has not been changed."
Authorities tried to downplay the legal confusion and miscommunication but acknowledged their surprise about the immense attention the matter has garnered.
"This one little slice of the investigation has become a tempest in a teapot," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Kent Robinson.
Kroeker later quipped, "It's a rather big teapot."
In the end, Mayor Vera Katz, Kroeker and Rogers continued to assert that the city thoroughly analyzed both the federal questions and the guidelines, in light of the differing opinions.
"The fact that there's not a consensus among them has pushed us to check and recheck our analysis," Katz said.
But the city found that the questions still conflicted with state law and would not alter its position.
The issue arose after U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a directive Nov. 9 to have state and local law enforcement assist federal authorities in interviewing 5,000 foreign visitors to the United States about their knowledge of potential terrorist attacks.
Visitors not considered suspects The U.S. attorney's office in Portland received a list of 200 people to be interviewed in the state, 23 in Portland. Police and city officials initially said 200 people in the Portland area were to be questioned.
The people on the list hold student, work or tourist visas and have come to the United States in the past two years from countries known to harbor terrorists. Federal authorities have said the interviews are voluntary and the people identified are not criminal suspects.
On Nov. 15, the U.S. attorney's office faxed Portland police copies of Ashcroft's directive and an eight-page memo from Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson.
The memo included guidelines outlining 24 topics to cover during the interview. For example, the guidelines direct interviewers to get telephone numbers of individuals, their family members or close associates and the dates they visited foreign countries and why, and ask whether they had ever traveled to Afghanistan or whether they shared the sympathies of the Sept. 11 hijackers.
Kroeker and his assistant chiefs were troubled by some of the recommended areas of questioning. Kroeker suggested that Lt. Randy Kane, head of the bureau's criminal intelligence division and assigned to the anti-terrorism task force, seek the city attorney's advice.
After reviewing the guidelines, Deputy City Attorney David Lesh advised the Police Bureau on Nov. 19 that state law restricts police from asking people about some of the broad topics outlined.
In his opinion, Lesh cited state law that prevents law enforcement from collecting or maintaining information on any individual or group unless the information relates to criminal activity and there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the subject is or might be involved in criminal conduct. The names on the Portland list were not those of criminal suspects, and therefore some of the questions were illegal, he deduced.
Task force gets questions Kroeker said the bureau did not have the actual questions when it sought the city attorney's legal advice, saying they "were still in flux."
The next day, Nov. 20, the U.S. attorney's office in Portland distributed a federal questionnaire to members of the Oregon Anti-Terrorism Task Force. It listed specific interview questions for local, state and federal authorities. Portland police were present at the meeting. Why police or others did not share those questions with the city attorney's office is unclear.
Rogers said he did not see the questionnaire until nearly a week later, the following Monday, when Myers' office faxed it to him. Rogers characterized it as a "new" and "modified" narrower list of questions that seemed more acceptable.
Yet Kroeker said the questions "were in tandem" with the guidelines. "There's not a big difference between the two," he said.
The U.S. attorney's office has refused to release the questions to the public, saying it never releases questions in a criminal investigation before they're asked.
Mosman on Tuesday praised Myers for "quickly and appropriately addressing all potential legal concerns" and advising state police and the criminal investigators in the Oregon Department of Justice to assist federal authorities.
Three state statutes scrutinized In his ruling, Myers said he tested the federal questions against three state statutes that deal with detention, immigration and data collection on criminal suspects.
The state detention statute, ORS 131.615, requires investigators to have suspicion that a crime was committed or that the person to be detained committed the offense. Because the people identified for questions are not suspects, they can end the interviews voluntarily and no detention is involved, Myers determined.
The immigration statute, ORS 181.850, prohibits law enforcement from using its resources to detect or apprehend people whose only violation of law is that they are foreign citizens in the United States in violation of immigration law. But because the apprehension of such people is not the purpose of the federal questioning, Myers ruled that the interviews are permitted.
The data collection statute, ORS 181.575, prohibits law enforcement from collecting or maintaining information about the "political, religious or social views, associations or activities" of any person or group unless that information directly relates to a criminal investigation, and there are grounds to suspect the subject might be involved in criminal conduct.
Myers identified the criminal investigation as the federal government's ongoing investigation of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and conspiracies to commit future crimes. And, he said, the limitation on collecting information restricts only information about "political, religious, or social" views.
By day's end, Portland officials found themselves struggling to explain Portland's legal analysis, which stood out starkly from those of Myers, Mosman and Multnomah County District Attorney Michael Schrunk.
"The point is, our reliance has to be on our local city attorney," Kroeker said. "He's our lawyer. I'm his client. I listen, he advises. The other opinions are advisory."
But, he added, "I have a feeling if all the attorneys got together in the same room and talked about it, they would come closer in their opinions."
Read the gray and the red.
Then read the gray and the blue.
Thank you very much for wasting our taking the time to write. Oregon State Law prohibits local police from questioning poor innocent immigrants when there is no information at all on their background even at the INS evidence they are connected to a crime and criminality foreign citizenship is the only grave concern issue, therefore if local police took part in this, we would be totally un-PC breaking the law. We do not want to cooperate with the US Attorney's Office should they be willing to modify some of the questions that pose a problem under the state law. Again, I appreciate you wasting our taking the time to write me.
No, this would be like a mass murder being commited by someone with long hair and a beard riding a Harley and all guys with long hair and beards who own Harleys in that neighborhood being voluntarily asked to provide information.
Put your thinking cap on and try a more effective argument.
We were on vacation on the coast of Oregon when the 9/11 mass murders occured. We drove from Shalisan to Brookings, Oregon after checking out. We spent the night in Brookings. Things got a little exciting around Portland the next day!
The next day, the Portland Airport was closed due to some situation. Apparently one or more person was apprehended, and that has been kept quiet. F15's flew up the coast to circle the greater Portland Area/Airport. There were some Feds staying at the motel in Brookings, on 9/11. They got a phone call via the motel operator, to immediately throw their stuff into their Suburbans and drive to the Portland area while wearing their guns with their cell phones on to receive calls. The motel operator said that they were some concerned guys.
Without going into the targets of opportunity for Islamic Terrorists, the Portland area has some strategic targets. What ever happened to that one or two or ? people arrested at the Portland Airport on 9/12? Are they being shielded/protected by these left wing extremists in Portland?
During the Reagan years when we were cracking down on the communists trying to take over governments in Central and South America to kill people like Mao, Fidel and Uncle Joseph. San Francisco and Berkeley made their cities sancturies for these communists. They came up raised funds and sent the funds back down to kill people. They were totally protected by the mayors and police chiefs of San Francisco and Berkeley!
The left wing maggots who control Portland, Or. have sent the same signal to all Islamic Terrorists and in fact any terrorists, including their homegrown enviral terrorists living in Oregon! Come to Portland and plan your terrorist acts, and we will protect you!
Do you think they would repond then?
The first thing these left wing socialists would do is simple. Katz and her fellow maggots would fly to DC to beg GW for loans and grants to save the maggots in Portland from starvation! Then, if Katz got any money, they would spend 20 Billion$'s to rebuild a bridge that you and I could rebuild for $5 billion! Every affirmative action group of maggots and enviral group of maggots would be standing in line with gunny sacks to take their take!
Prior to the rewrite...
Read the gray and the red.
Then read the gray and the blue.
Please quit Thank you very much for wasting our taking the time to write. We have a real problem with Oregon State Law prohibits local police from questioning the our very intelligent, poor innocent, salt of the earth and very productive immigrants when there is no information at all on their background even at the INS evidence they are connected to a crime and terrorism foreign citizenship is the only grave concern issue, therefore if our socialist bastion of a city local police took part in this, we would be totally un-PC breaking the law. We do will not want to cooperate with the US Attorney's Office should they be willing to modify some of the questions that pose a problem under the state law. Again, please quit I appreciate you wasting our taking the time to write me, you jerk.
Except you said it better than I would have.
Except you said it better than I would have."
Thanks for your kind words. However, your way with words is excellent! Glad to be on your side in this issue!
Programmed Mantra: "So this would be like grabbing and interrogating everyone on a Harley, every chance they got because some Bikers sell drugs."
Your response: "No, this would be like a mass murder being commited by someone with long hair and a beard riding a Harley and all guys with long hair and beards who own Harleys in that neighborhood being voluntarily asked to provide information.
Put your thinking cap on and try a more effective argument."
It is amazing what happens when common sense confronts a mantra!
Now after reading this latest article with the real lawyers reading what John Ashcroft wants, it is evident that the left wing maggots in Portland did not read what he wanted.
Instead they acted like the left wingers are acting throughout the country from Sen. Leahy/DASSHOLE to these maggots in Portland.
They deliberately lied to you and others who took time to write to them!
Thanks for being AnAmerican in this issue!
That is a non sequitur. It is a convenient catch phrase that has absolutely nothing to do with your statement supporting the use of military tribunals to try political enemies of a president, as opposed to actual enemies of the state.
Your nonanswer affirms your support for America being like Argentina or Chile or Panama -- a Banana Republic, not a Free Republic.
It was a question, maroon, not an inference. Don't use terms you don't understand; you'll look even more foolish than you really are.
Look . . . Jimmy Carter, I'd love to stick around and give you a lesson in logic, but I don't have the luxury to waste my time on someone who is so obviously incapable of learning the subject. But the important thing for you to understand here -- namely, your support for our enemies, and those who would give them aid and comfort -- is noted.
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.