Senator: Book shows NYC is prime target

[Sean]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060618/...bway_plot_book

A reported plot by al-Qaida terrorists to kill thousands of New Yorkers by spreading cyanide gas in the subway underscores the folly of a Homeland Security Department cutback of funds for major cities, a Democratic lawmaker said Sunday. "This is just more evidence that what Homeland Security did to us was terribly misguided and just wrong," Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record) said. "It shows that New York is the prime target, and shows the importance of prior intelligence and of manpower." New York lawmakers, and state and municipal officials, have pledged efforts to reverse a recent decision by the federal agency to cut New York's federal anti-terror allocations by 40 percent, some $83 million less than the $207 million it received in 2005. The cyanide plot is described in a new book, "The One Percent Doctrine," by author Ron Suskind and excerpted in the current issue of Time magazine. According to the book, U.S. intelligence agencies learned the scheme involved the use of a crude but effective device made of Mason jars that would release the deadly gas through several subway cars, but was called off, 45 days before it was set to occur, by Osama bin Laden's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Schumer, a leading proponent in Congress of tighter security measures for the nation's ports and transportation systems, quoted security authorities, "both federal and local," as saying the al-Qaida plan to spread deadly gas in the subways in 2003 was considered a valid threat.

[tivodan1116]

Wow... The Department of Bureaucratic Redundency goes from a revolutionary new government landmark to just another pork project ... which actually happened right upon it's beginning.

All the security and we still get an F from the taskforces that actually investigate our security.

Only two things will eliminate ourselves as a terrorist target:

1) The soft handed approach - stop pursuing policies that make us a target, like supporting Israel and forcing democracies on countries that don't have the will to get one themselves.

2) The heavy handed approach - irradicate all people that threaten us, starting with all arabs. Whoever complains about us eliminating all arabs is next on the list to be wiped out.

[Jack]

Only two things will eliminate ourselves as a terrorist target:

I like your summery. Now, can we envision any administration that would follow either course of action? I suspect no matter which party is in charge, we'll just carry on as we have, ruining our image in the eyes of the world and putting our citizens at needless risk here and abroad.

[dreamer]

Have they been doing emergence drills in new york,

[RickSp]

Quote by: dreamer Have they been doing emergence drills in new york, just like they where before 9/11. If they are "there" must be something coming, if i lived in new york i would vist a relative for a while.

The attack didn't happen 3 years ago. "Visiting a relative" isn't much of an option.

[dreamer]

Quote by: RickSp The attack didn't happen 3 years ago. "Visiting a relative" isn't much of an option.

your right posted rong tread. dreamer

[bishop]

god... the grammar and spelling... my eyes are bleeding.

the public emergency crews do drills every now and then, but joe public is never a part of them.

having lived 30 minutes south of nyc, and travelling there all the time (now i commute every day into boston/cambridge by way of subway), i can say i wouldn't take the pussy route and get out of town on some hysterical rush of paranoia.. hell, when i lived in jersey, i used to work at the prudential plaza..


anyways... i never see any of that going on here in boston/cambridge.. in fact, security here is still a total joke. you go into ridiculously crowded subway stations where there are no cops, and usually just 1 person working the token booth. they could successfully attack at will from what i can see. the only preventative measure that i can see is that the government actively monitors communications.

[dreamer]

IF its the spelling that spell check, "the grammer all mine" bleeding i have that sometimes,it seems there are security checks then.

[bishop]

huh?

*blink*

[Osborn F Enready]

Topic: Senator: Book shows NYC is prime target

I say:
Boogidy Boogidy, 9-11 9-11, terrorists terrorists!!!!

Scare mongering media, strikes again. Is there an election coming up???

[brien]

Quote by: Sean http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060618/...bway_plot_book

Quote by Schumer:

Schumer, a leading proponent in Congress of tighter security measures for the nation's ports and transportation systems, quoted security authorities, "both federal and local," as saying the al-Qaida plan to spread deadly gas in the subways in 2003 was considered a valid threat


Senator's Schumer's use of the adjective "tighter" presupposes that the "security measures" were "tight" to begin with in the US. Not so, apparently.

The US is too busy spending billions of dollars abroad to extend its tenuous hold upon an imperialistic policy which is doomed to failure. Spend merely 25% of that amount domestically, and one may witness "tighter security."

It seems another vicious attack is coming and when thousands are dead from the consequences of failed domestic "security measures", the finger pointing and hand wringing will certainly be greater than we have witnessed since 911.

The worst consequences of all will be another massive erosion of freedom here in the US. Think the Patriot Act was bad, well you better think again, because after the next attack, the Patriot Act will resemble the Bill of Rights when compared to the reactionary politicains and their political idiocy after another successful attack upon the US.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think the whole problem comes from misconception of what a "police force" is supposed to do.

A police force is a "reactionary force", that is sometimes used to curb blatant crime by making a visible presence.

Some people think police are supposed to "PROTECT" everyone, which they are not. Protection is YOUR job, reporting a crime is YOUR JOB, and then the police come in to REACT to the crime once reported.

National Security should be focused at ports of entry, not roaming around public areas. National Security should be enforcing the border against ALL illegal immigrants, and ensuring that all "reactionary forces" are adequately supplied with people, material and goods to deal with the most likely possibilities of weakness in the regional areas being viewed individually.

I agree also Brien when you say:

The worst consequences of all will be another massive erosion of freedom here in the US. Think the Patriot Act was bad, well you better think again, because after the next attack, the Patriot Act will resemble the Bill of Rights when compared to the reationary politicains and their political idiocy after another successful attack upon the US.

It is almost obvious this is clearly what is coming.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: Boogidy Boogidy, 9-11 9-11, terrorists terrorists!!!! Scare mongering media, strikes again. Is there an election coming up???

Having lived up close and personal to the WTC during 9/11 and having a family memeber who travels daily by NYC mass transit, I will not communicate my initial reaction to this childish and uniformed rant.

[RickSp]

I agree Brien. Rational security has absolutely nothing to do with invading countries who never attacked us or threating war to whichever nation will not bend to our will. We now spend more on weaponry that the entire rest of the word combined and it makes us less safe, not more.

We can secure our country without monitoring millions of phone calls and without throwing people in jail without charge. Good police work doesn't require torture or abuse. Regrettably the Department of Homeland Security has been run by buffoons, crooks, and cronies. King George obviously cares more about invading the countries of others than in protecting ours.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: RickSp Having lived up close and personal to the WTC during 9/11 and having a family memeber who travels daily by NYC mass transit, I will not communicate my initial reaction to this childish and uniformed rant.

Well, the tone of it aside, I'm surprised you don't agree... Don't you feel used by politicians when they parade out 9-11 and "terrorism" to justify any old thing they want to do? It's like when a governor signs a law requiring DNA samples from everyone sitting in a garden at the governor's mansion surrounded by rape victims.

The people behind this type of legislation are using YOU and victims of 9-11 to justify spending ridiculous amounts of money on pet projects staffed by cronies that do nothing to protect us against another attack.

And, sorry to say, but as horrifying as that was, there are about a million ways to die that are much more likely in this country then "foreign terrorist attack". Assuming i'd like government money spent on anything, why don't we start with those?

[RickSp]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Well, the tone of it aside, I'm surprised you don't agree... Don't you feel used by politicians when they parade out 9-11 and "terrorism" to justify any old thing they want to do? It's like when a governor signs a law requiring DNA samples from everyone sitting in a garden at the governor's mansion surrounded by rape victims. The people behind this type of legislation are using YOU and victims of 9-11 to justify spending ridiculous amounts of money on pet projects staffed by cronies that do nothing to protect us against another attack. And, sorry to say, but as horrifying as that was, there are about a million ways to die that are much more likely in this country then "foreign terrorist attack". Assuming i'd like government money spent on anything, why don't we start with those?

The news account is about a planned gas attack on NYC subways. Do you have any information that the report is false? Anything at all? Chuck Schumer did point out that the NYC Homeland Defense budget had been cut by 40% so that Omaha and other similar hotspots might get more money. In this one case I agree with Schumer, as surprising as that may be, at least to me anyway.

And what in bloody hell are you talking about - "a governor signs a law requiring DNA samples from everyone sitting in a garden at the governor's mansion surrounded by rape victims?" Does that translate into something intelligable?

Of course I am angry about politicans using 9/11 to justify assaults on our freedom and to commit murder in our names around the world. That doesn't mean however that there are not those out there who are trying very hard to kill as many of us as possible.

And as New York City has been the target more than once and as my family lives and works in and around the city I tend to take it seriously. So I tend not to have patience with "Boogidy Boogidy" blathering or those who claim that Osama works for Bush and everything bad that happens is due to some vast conspiracy.

[brien]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think the whole problem comes from misconception of what a "police force" is supposed to do. A police force is a "reactionary force", that is sometimes used to curb blatant crime by making a visible presence. Some people think police are supposed to "PROTECT" everyone, which they are not. Protection is YOUR job, reporting a crime is YOUR JOB, and then the police come in to REACT to the crime once reported. National Security should be focused at ports of entry, not roaming around public areas. National Security should be enforcing the border against ALL illegal immigrants, and ensuring that all "reactionary forces" are adequately supplied with people, material and goods to deal with the most likely possibilities of weakness in the regional areas being viewed individually. I agree also Brien when you say: It is almost obvious this is clearly what is coming.

Clearly the police are a reactionary force in society. Yet there are times when they are much more pervasive. The delicate balance is what is being upset by such over reactions like in the Patriot Act.

The American government needs to be proactive when it comes to domestic defense. These plans must be tempered by the Constitution and the BOR.

As for cyanide in the subways, since we don't know what the delivery system(s) would have been, how can we devise a prophylactic device or system(s to prevent such an attack. Do the police search everyone who enters the turnstile of the subway? Hardly. Cyanide sniffing dogs, perhaps?

The US government, as it now stands, is incapable of defending its citizens from such an impending attack. The people who use the subways system of NYC are sitting ducks just like the ones I used to knock down in the shooting Galleries with a .22 caliber rifle along the boardwalk in Asbury Park NJ. Easy pickins, as we used to say. Imagine that, using live ammo along the boardwalk in the early 60's. My my, where were the anti-gun lobbyists back then? :rolleyes:

I certainly don't have the answers on how to protect the American citizens from the certain attack that is sure to come, but I do know two things; it can't come at the expense of the BOR, and it is the duty and responsibility of the US government to devise Constitutional ways to protect its citizens from attack by foreign invasions. See Article 1 Section 8.

NB. Sorry for the typo in my original post that was copied and pasted by Os. I really do know how to spell "reactionary".

[brien]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: Boogidy Boogidy, 9-11 9-11, terrorists terrorists!!!! Scare mongering media, strikes again. Is there an election coming up???

Os; We all realize that 911 was a horrific event. I believe, as I think you do, it should not be exploited, nor should any politician, for any reason born in self promotion or self aggrandizement, parade it around for re - election. I don't care if one subscribes to the conspiricy theory or the terrorist attack explanation. 3000 innocent men women and children perished that day who were no more responsible for US policy than either you or I.

I understand what you are attempting to write here, and atribute it more to politicians than the media.

[Osborn F Enready]

Brien said: Clearly the police are a reactionary force in society.

I say:
I know that, you know that, but how many U.S. citizens really DO know that anymore? I would love to see a poll, a really fair poll with many choices done on the role of the police in society.

Great post by the way.

[brien]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: I know that, you know that, but how many U.S. citizens really DO know that anymore? I would love to see a poll, a really fair poll with many choices done on the role of the police in society. Great post by the way.

Thanks Os. I think most people are too busy trying to make the mortgage, raise the kids, pay their ever rising taxes, or even afford perscriptions to think about the role of the police in American society today. Many people are one or two paychecks away from bankruptcy, even with both spouses working to bring home two paychecks. Many retired and elderly are on fixed incomes and think more about the monetary ramifications of getting sick than about the ever increasing police state. Add to that, nightly reports on the local news of homicides, Hollywood's hypocritical obsession with violence, and silly TV police shows, and we have the reasons for illusion and an almost disdain due to more immediate personal concerns and obligations. Philosophy is nearly always eclipsed by reality.

Even 50 years ago, none of the above was true. American society has changed for the better technologically but perhaps at the expense of its original intended sociologic philosophy.