Posted on 11/21/2001 7:55:19 AM PST by Grampa Dave
Portland police refuse to cooperate with federal questioning, citing state law!
By CHRISTY KARRAS The Associated Press 11/21/01 1:43 AM
PORTLAND (AP) -- The Portland Police Bureau, citing Oregon state law, won't be helping the U.S. Justice department with its quest to interview immigrants who might have information about terrorism.
Oregon law says no one can be questioned by police unless suspected of being involved in a crime.
Attorney General John Ashcroft announced earlier this month that the Justice Department has distributed a list of 5,000 men it wanted to interview about the Sept. 11 attacks.
The list comprises men ages 18 to 33 who entered the United States since Jan. 1, 2000, from countries that have been linked to the hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks or were waystations for the terrorist organization, al-Qaida.
"Our law is more restrictive than federal law, which it can be," acting police chief Andrew Kirkland said Tuesday. "The law says, generally, we can interview people that we may suspect have committed a crime. 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 police chief Mark Kroeker was out of town this week. Kirkland said the decision not to help the Justice Department was made last week.
"Our law is fairly clear cut. We've also had an interpretation by the city attorney. It's clear as it's written," Kirkland said. "Under the law, we just couldn't participate in the activities they wanted us to."
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 United States attorney in Portland, told the New York Times that the interviews will get done, with or without help from the city police.
Arabs and Muslims have expressed outrage at the U.S. Justice Department's plan to interview the young men, who are not suspected of any crimes, as part of the terrorism investigation.
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.
Racial profiling is also against state law, Kirkland said.
Kirkland, who is black, said it's an issue that hits home for him, but that's not why he's not going along with the Justice Department's questioning.
"I am sympathetic to that issue from a perspective of growing up African American and to the issue itself. That doesn't factor into any decision to do this or not. The law is just crystal clear," Kirkland said.
"We made that decision regarding racial profiling long before Sept. 11. That decision was made for us when the legislature wrote the law."
Kirkland said he has heard many police departments haven't decided what to do about the Justice Department's request.
Many of those cities, like Portland, have large immigrant populations. But "even if the large number of immigrants was a factor, you have this law staring you in the face saying, 'You can't do that."
Of course this appeals to the libertarians who hate all cops and feel there is no such thing as a crime. It appeals to the left wingers and of course the Islamic terrorists and their America hate GW 24/7 buddies.
This comes as no surprise. The Portland police never investigate enviral terrorist acts commited by Alf/Elf/Anarchists/?! I will provide a couple of links on this below!
I started a personal boycott of all Portland businesses two years ago due to their enviral stands. Who would want to go to Portland in today's world!
If I don't respond, I not ignoring you. I have to get ready for Thanksgiving.
Happy Thanksgiving and avoid Portland, Or for your own safety!
Watermelon is not a racist term. It describes enviralists, "Green on the outside and very red inside!"
Avoid Portland, Or. for your family's safety!
So if a bullet-riddled body shows up on the street, the police can't ask neighbors if they heard or saw anything suspicious?
You obviously know less than nothing about libertarians!!!
I am a conservative-libertarian, and I believe that a crime is any act that infringes on another's Rights -- including their property rights as understood under the Constitution and the Common Law that underlies it. It just so happens, the biggest offender of property rights is our government. It is the only entity that has ever STOLEN anything of significance from me.
You should try learning something about libertarians lest you continue to betray your ignorance of what conservative-libertarians believe.
Turkey!
LOL Happy Thanksgiving Grampa...
No libertarian thinks such a thing. Stop being such an a**hole.
I know all that I need to know about the phoney libertarians who wrap the flag and their version of the constitution to honor all types illegal individual behavior regardless of the consequences to society!
As Zadokite posted, you are either with or against us. Where do you fall?
As posted above, I will be cutting out soon! Not ignoring your answer. I wish that the Libertarian Party was really strong at local levels to force more conservatism at the local level and on up. I have zero patience with the criminals who hide as Libertarians. It is time that you real L's go after those people instead of shielding them!
If they are here illegally, they have committed a crime. This guy is an imbecile. If the feds know the identity of someone, and determine the status of their visa to be expired, and they think they found that someone, they are obligated by their oath as law enforcement officials to question the guy. If they find out its not who they're looking for, but that person ends up also being here illegally, then what, you let him go? Thats like questioning a rape suspect, and finding out he wasn't the rapist but he did kill someone. You don't let his sorry arse go.
As plain as the nose on my face. PC trumps common sense, or, he is simply not enforcing laws he disagrees with.
As usual, Fedgov desires trump federalism and laws.
"Our law is fairly clear cut. We've also had an interpretation by the city attorney. It's clear as it's written," Kirkland said. "Under the law, we just couldn't participate in the activities they wanted us to."
Well, this is odd. But if Mark Kroeker says he's following the law, I believe him. In that case, your beef is with the legislature. Chief Kroeker is a good guy, a Christian who was very nearly run out of town by the PC crowd, because he opposes homosexuality.
Aw, c'mon Gramps. Don't let your emotions overwhelm your intellect.
Now at the same time I agree with the federal law because it is attempting to protect America from coast to coast.
If the colleges had been dong their job as they are supposed to in reporting students that do not show up for class, we wouldn't be in this situation.
If the INS was doing their job in arresting illegal aliens, we never would have had the 9/11 tragedy, would we?
Yeah, state laws should always be ignored when someone in the FedGov says it's to "help protect the country."
Hey gramps, does your 'on and on' include rounding up people for questioning (against the law as written)?
If your gonna be a law and order guy, great, be one, but you don't get to pick and choose.
The loyal nationalist intent of your comment is both understood and appreciated. But do you understand that the overall expansion of Federalism is a part of the process of global socialism? Excessive taxation and punitive spending tactics are very much part of the growth of the oppressive New World Order.
Portland is to be congradulated for resisting the tenacles of the CFR/UN/Rockefeller/Rothchild/masonic conspiracy. If the U.S. intelligence agencies wish to question person's with potential connections to the Islamic terrorist cabal they should do so without attempting to expand their intrusive powers regarding Constitutionally protected American citizens.
I cannot answer for anyone else, but here are my answers: NO, and NO. Furthermore, I firmly support a state's right to reserve powers that have not been placed into the realm of Federal control by constitutional means.
OK, now it's your turn: Do you have a problem with the questioning of illegal immigrants? Wouldn't the authority to do so fall under the jurisdiction of the INS? Wouldn't that jurisdiction also include the questioning of a legal immigrant if the legal immigrant was a material witness to immigration crimes?
Finally, I'm not certain the INS was formed within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution. If not, I do believe it should be. I loathe big government as much as anyone, but I believe immigration control is definitely a 'common defense' function.
While I'm for the current military action in Central Asia (and favor its expansion to Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc), I view with a jaundiced eye the too easily agreed to decline of civil liberties at home. We need to remember what our cherished principles are and strive to maintain them. That's what the police in this instance are doing. They should be lauded for it.
I like cops - they protect me.
Child porographers should be shot.
Drunk drivers should have license revoked forever.
If drugs were legal, sold at say, a liquor store where ID age is required, then kids would get far less of the junk. Also, the violent crime surrounding drugs would be virtually eliminated.
Strange to say, but legal means lower cost (eliminating the profit motive); legal means age regulation; legal means a lessening of violent crime.
Of course if you don't believe any of this will happen, then you're obviously against legalization.
If you believe any of this will happen (as I do), then your eyes open to the possibility that legalization could actually lessen our drug problems.
Of course I'll be flamed and name called, but none of that refutes my position. I'd like a rational discussion on the topic- if that's possible.
As usual, Fedgov desires trump federalism and laws.
I generally agree with the sentiment behind your statement, but I think you are wrong in this case. The Federal government asked the local cops for help with interviewing suspects. The local cops say "Sorry, but Oregon law prevents us from doing that." Federal Government says that they don't like that, but will interview the individuals anyway, because Oregon law only prohibits Oregon police officers from doing so.
Where is the trumping of Oregon law? If Oregon had passed a law saying that Federal law enforcement officers could not interview people based on race, religion, etc., then we would have a problem.
You didn't get the memo about the name change to "Free Republican?" This place is so-o-o-oo party line sometimes it's scary... comrade!
----------------------------------------------
This remark in #1 , and his remarks in 'defending' himself at #16 & 17, are outright baiting.
They have no legitimate purpose in relationship to the subject of the thread. -- This guy needs a time out.
Either enforce the 'baiting' rules impartially, or take the gloves off. - I could care less, as I would really enjoy responding in kind to his crap. --- Which you have warned would get me [& others], banned permanently.
It's past time to resolve this issue.
"But if Mark Kroeker says he's following the law..."
Kirkland (who is black and says this offends him) said they are following the law. We haven't heard from Kroeker yet. I'll bet he's a tad upset at this decision.
BTW, I'm more than a tad upset at this decision.
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.