Richard Bennett

Portland city commissioner Dan Saltzman hasn’t lost his mind. He’s going to vote against Mayor Tom Potter’s welcome mat for terrorists at tonight’s city council meeting:

One can be concerned about the far reach of the USA Patriot Act and still support the Joint Terrorism Task Force. I authored last year’s City Council resolution expressing concern about the Patriot Act and calling on Congress to fix its most disturbing provisions. We must continue to work to ensure that the Patriot Act and the rest of our homeland security laws adequately safeguard the civil liberties that are at the core of our American values. But that effort should not sidetrack critical cooperation among our law enforcement agencies.

A recent trip I took to New York City included paying respect to the innocent victims of 9/11. It was an awkward silence at the 16-acre hole that was the World Trade Center. Among New Yorkers there is a silent, palpable sense of apprehension, a post-traumatic stress for many who were there. It’s difficult to imagine looking a New Yorker in the eye and explaining our rationale for withdrawing from the terror task force. It would feel disrespectful to even attempt to do so. They, more than anyone, understand that barriers to cooperation among law enforcement agencies anywhere place all of us at risk.

President Kennedy spoke in West Berlin during the Cold War and proudly boasted, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” Meaning all free people, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin. Wherever we may live, in our resolve to prevent terrorism, all Americans are citizens of New York. As such, we owe ourselves nothing less than to confront terrorism seriously and in collaboration with our partners.

That is what the Joint Terrorism Task Force is all about.

Unfortunately, Saltzman will be the only “no” vote on the mayor’s ill-considered move.

Potter’s opposition to the JTTF has little to do with the Patriot Act, and lots to do with his need to micro-manage every aspect of the police department. The man needs medical attention.

Outside Portland, Oregonians are worried about what Potter’s terrorist magnet will do to them:

But what a symbol this will be: If the vote goes as expected, Portland would become the first U.S. city to pull out of one of the FBI’s 100 or so task forces. The discussions have already drawn national attention, including a story in The New York Times and a recent editorial — opposing the city’s decision — in the Wall Street Journal.

“It sends a terrible message to federal officials, but also to the rest of the state,” said U.S. Rep. Greg Walden, a Republican who represents Eastern Oregon. “And what message does it send to groups who might want to do us harm? Does it put out a welcome mat?”

“Welcome mat” Potter has a nice ring to it.

What kind of a mayor would include the ACLU in discussions of terrorism but exclude his chief of police? Why Portland mayor Tom Potter, of course:

When Portland Mayor Tom Potter, federal law enforcement leaders and representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union sat down earlier this month to try to find a way to keep Portland in the Joint Terrorism Task Force, one person was noticeably absent: Police Chief Derrick Foxworth.

He wasn’t invited.

Even for a haven of silliness like Portland this is too much. Some folks need to give this fool a piece of their minds at the council meeting Thursday night.

In the interest of enlightened discourse, we offer two views of the war in Iraq. First, a letter of gratitude from Iraqi president Jalal Talibani to prime minister Tony Blair:

Let nobody mislead you, the Iraq that we inherited in April 2003, following the British and American-led liberation, was a tragedy.

The Ba’athist criminals had starved the country of an infrastructure and the people of their freedom.

Apart from the Kurdish safe haven, Iraq was a playground for thugs and a prison for the innocent.

Saddam’s war against the Iraqi people was on-going; we have evidence which demonstrates that the regime was executing its challengers until the last days of its rule.

It was that war, lasting almost forty years, which was the true war of Iraq.

We have all heard of the genocide, gassing, ethnic cleansing, mass murder and the environmental vandalism of the territory of Iraq’s historic Marsh Arabs.

We understand that there is no turning the clock back. Instead, we press ahead with democratisation and justice.

And counter-point, an article by Brown University student Liz Sperber supporting the resistance:

Rather, if we support the Iraqis right to self-determination, it must be because we identify a common, equal humanity between us; because we recognize that US occupation of Iraqi land and the US-sanctioned torture, rape, murder, and theft are unjust. That, in addition to the plight of our soldiers, which many of them argue is worsening every day, is why we must demand troops out now. For no other reason. Accordingly, since the Iraqi resistance is the force working to regain Iraqi sovereignty, we support them-unconditionally.

We must bring American troops home simply because it is not their place to stop the insurgents. Granted, even the most inspiring national liberation movements had their crimes and their tragedies. Many liberation struggles, fought under the watchful eyes of the Cold War superpowers, even failed, in the end, to achieve their objectives (Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Algeria, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, the list goes on). Yet, suffice it to say here that the limits or failures of a movement do not nullify its purpose, although they may hamper it. Past failures cannot justify the abandonment of our commitment to the right of people everywhere to self-determination.

Just to make things a little easier, we’ll note that Talibani fought and struggled against Saddam for forty years, and Ms. Sperber criticizes the US from within its circle of protection. Why isn’t she putting her life where her mouth is instead of opining from an enclave of progressive thought in Rhode Island?