Byron York supplements Scott’s observations on, and questions about, the attempted terrorist attack on Portland immediately below by pointing out that “Politically correct Portland rejected feds who saved city from terrorist attack”:
What is ironic is that the operation that found and stopped Mohamud is precisely the kind of law enforcement work that Portland’s leaders, working with the American Civil Liberties Union, rejected during the Bush years. In April 2005, the Portland city council voted 4 to 1 to withdraw Portland city police officers from participating in the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force. Mayor Tom Potter said the FBI refused to give him a top-secret security clearance so he could make sure the officers weren’t violating state anti-discrimination laws that bar law enforcement from targeting suspects on the basis of their religious or political beliefs.
Other city leaders agreed. “Here in Portland, we are not willing to give up individual liberties in order to have a perception of safety,” said city commissioner Randy Leonard. “It’s important for cities to know how their police officers are being used.”
Following Mohamed Mohamud’s attempted murder of thousands of Portland’s citizens–including at least one city Commissioner, who took his family to the tree lighting ceremony–current Mayor Sam Adams says he “might ask the city council to reconsider the decision to pull out of the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Has Mohamud’s attempt convinced Adams that Portland was wrong to disdain cooperating with the feds? Of course not!
Because he now realizes the city was wrong? Not at all. “[Adams] stressed that he has much more faith in the Obama administration and the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s office now than he did in 2005,” the paper reported.
Portland’s city fathers are testing the limits of partisanship. Whether they are willing to help save their own inhabitants (and themselves) from mass murder depends on the partisan affiliation of the occupant of the White House. Portland’s voters might want to have a say in that judgment.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.