Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Anti terror funds cut for DC and NY???

True Peach





Posts: 14590
(14590 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/12/2010 at 05:47 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR200605310 1364.html


This is shortsighted and stupid IMO. How about a little common sense?????? Washington DC and New York are the two most obvious terrorist targets!!! Huge mistake by the Obama administration on this decision IMO!!!

[Edited on 5/12/2010 by sixty8]

 

____________________
Pete

 
Replies:

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16605
(16605 all sites)
Registered: 6/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/12/2010 at 06:15 PM
I guess the money was need somewhere else huh?

 

____________________


R.I.P. Hugh Duty


 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11252
(11270 all sites)
Registered: 3/8/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/12/2010 at 06:32 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Congress the only governmental entity with the ability to authorize the expenditure of taxpayer money?

 

____________________
"Love Like You've Never Been Hurt"-Satchel Paige

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19751
(20217 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Online

  posted on 5/12/2010 at 07:30 PM
quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/31/AR200 6053101364.html


This is shortsighted and stupid IMO. How about a little common sense?????? Washington DC and New York are the two most obvious terrorist targets!!! Huge mistake by the Obama administration on this decision IMO!!!

[Edited on 5/12/2010 by sixty8]


If they don't stop terror and there is an attack, there is justification to continue the wars in the Middle East and South Central Asia. If we continue those wars, we can take down the current leaders and put in US friendly regimes and make nice deals to broker their oil for them.

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19751
(20217 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Online

  posted on 5/12/2010 at 07:30 PM
quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Congress the only governmental entity with the ability to authorize the expenditure of taxpayer money?


They also have to vote for or against wars, that doesn't seem to matter either.

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/12/2010 at 08:52 PM
I thought Schumer was supposed to be so powerful. Why does New York always get the damned shaft?

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/12/2010 at 09:06 PM
Just a small point...these are grant funds. In otherwords, they have to be 'asked for'. Many, many, millions of dollars goes unused because many departments and agencies simply do not ask for the money. Additionally, I know that budgets and grant amounts and availability depend quite a bit on how much has been used or asked for in the past. Additionally, quite a bit of this money gets steered into projects that have zero to do with homeland security.

Also, from the article:

quote:
In addition to Washington and New York, the grant decisions included a 46 percent drop for San Diego, where several of the Sept. 11 hijackers lived; a 61 percent decrease for Phoenix, where an FBI agent suspected that terrorists were taking flight training; and a 30 percent reduction for Boston, the point of origin of the two jetliners that crashed into the World Trade Center.


Now, Im no expert, but maybe someone can answer how more money would have done anything to stop the above? So San Diego having more funding would have caused the 9/11 hijackers to live somewhere else? Phoenix having more funding would have caused the suspicion of the 9/11 hijackers in getting flight training to take it somewhere else? Cmon.

Also, from the article:

quote:
Homeland Security's grant programs have drawn criticism from cities both large and small; many have felt slighted by what they maintained was a haphazard and unfair distribution plan. This year's round of grants was supposed to ensure that enough money goes to areas at highest risk of terrorist attack by employing risk scores, effectiveness tests and 17 "peer review" panels consisting of homeland security professionals from 47 states.

But department officials struggled yesterday to defend the latest outcome even as lawmakers in both parties denounced them. Most experts and many government officials had expected that the new review process would lead to more money, rather than less, for major terrorist targets such as Washington and New York.

Tracy A. Henke, assistant secretary for grants and training, told reporters that the new funding distribution was the result of a better review process and does not indicate lesser risk for cities such as Washington or New York. Officials noted that Congress had cut the program by about $125 million in 2006, to $711 million, and that New York, Washington and other major cities still would receive the largest shares.

"We have to understand that there is risk throughout the nation," Henke said. "We worked very hard to make sure that there was fairness in the process."

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 25201
(25201 all sites)
Registered: 9/7/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/12/2010 at 09:28 PM
quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Congress the only governmental entity with the ability to authorize the expenditure of taxpayer money?


they fund the Gov't Departments, The Departments then allocate those funds.

They have to then justify those expenditures to the congressional oversight committees.


I can see cutting DC. they spent a lot of money on infrastructure and that is mostly completed.



[Edited on 5/13/2010 by spacemonkey]

 

____________________
Keep on Smiling


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/12/2010 at 10:00 PM
quote:
Just a small point...these are grant funds. In otherwords, they have to be 'asked for'. Many, many, millions of dollars goes unused because many departments and agencies simply do not ask for the money. Additionally, I know that budgets and grant amounts and availability depend quite a bit on how much has been used or asked for in the past. Additionally, quite a bit of this money gets steered into projects that have zero to do with homeland security.

Also, from the article:

quote:
In addition to Washington and New York, the grant decisions included a 46 percent drop for San Diego, where several of the Sept. 11 hijackers lived; a 61 percent decrease for Phoenix, where an FBI agent suspected that terrorists were taking flight training; and a 30 percent reduction for Boston, the point of origin of the two jetliners that crashed into the World Trade Center.


Now, Im no expert, but maybe someone can answer how more money would have done anything to stop the above? So San Diego having more funding would have caused the 9/11 hijackers to live somewhere else? Phoenix having more funding would have caused the suspicion of the 9/11 hijackers in getting flight training to take it somewhere else? Cmon.

Also, from the article:

quote:
Homeland Security's grant programs have drawn criticism from cities both large and small; many have felt slighted by what they maintained was a haphazard and unfair distribution plan. This year's round of grants was supposed to ensure that enough money goes to areas at highest risk of terrorist attack by employing risk scores, effectiveness tests and 17 "peer review" panels consisting of homeland security professionals from 47 states.

But department officials struggled yesterday to defend the latest outcome even as lawmakers in both parties denounced them. Most experts and many government officials had expected that the new review process would lead to more money, rather than less, for major terrorist targets such as Washington and New York.

Tracy A. Henke, assistant secretary for grants and training, told reporters that the new funding distribution was the result of a better review process and does not indicate lesser risk for cities such as Washington or New York. Officials noted that Congress had cut the program by about $125 million in 2006, to $711 million, and that New York, Washington and other major cities still would receive the largest shares.

"We have to understand that there is risk throughout the nation," Henke said. "We worked very hard to make sure that there was fairness in the process."



New York needs the money. We have a counter terror unit within the police force that is probably better than the FBI and costs New York a lot of money. New York should be reimbursed for that.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/12/2010 at 11:05 PM
Use the FBI if it's too expensive to maintain a separate organization.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6495
(6494 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/13/2010 at 07:59 AM
A total of $711 million for the entire country per year and we're spending $12-15 Billion a month in Iraq alone. We have a nearly completely exposed electrical grid (including Nuclear power plants, hydro, Natural gas, etc.) our ports and borders are as porous as shale stone, and our transportation system isn't much safer. And we have to fight via a competitive grant process with other states for what amounts to pennies compared with what DOD gets every year to maintain "securtiy" in other countries? The Marine Corps alone is spending nearly $10 Billion on one new base on Guam. What the f*ck is wrong with this picture?
 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9082
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 2/25/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/13/2010 at 09:34 AM
quote:
I thought Schumer was supposed to be so powerful. Why does New York always get the damned shaft?


He's working behind the scenes, isn't that what he claims all the time?

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/13/2010 at 11:31 AM
quote:
Use the FBI if it's too expensive to maintain a separate organization.


Bad idea. Bad suggestion. You see we in New York actually would like to PREVENT attacks. The FBI doesn't do too good a job of that and no New York mayor or police commissioner will ever farm counter-terrorism out to the feds again.

 

____________________

 

Peach Pro



Karma:
Posts: 490
(490 all sites)
Registered: 12/12/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/13/2010 at 11:59 AM
"Additionally, quite a bit of this money gets steered into projects that have zero to do with homeland security."

This quote describes my position perfectly! NY doesn't need more money, they need to use the money that has already been granted to them for what it was originally intended.

Why should I (i.e. a taxpayer) give more $$$ to NY when they have been irresponsible with the $$$ I have already given them? If they didn't waste the $$$ already given, they could do some of the things they are crying about not having money for now - and that should also have been done yeqars ago!

A few examples I could find quickly:

- an audit of $978,000 in grants awarded to the city of Buffalo through the Urban Area Security Initiative. The report questioned nearly $934,000 in personnel charges that covered routine patrols during an “orange” heightened alert period. Regular salaries for a police chief, captain and local fire department employees were also charged to the grant. These costs would have been incurred by the city regardless of the terror alert level.

- The New York Harbor’s Waterfront Commission used $619,000 in port security grants to purchase laptops and other equipment so its police force could remotely access photo ID, licensing and registration databases “to help combat terrorism.” But investigators disclosed in an August 2009 report years after the funds were awarded that the system was not operational or otherwise used for its intended purpose, in part due to a “lack of proper training.” The commission spent another $170,000 on a boat for patrolling the harbor telling the federal government it would help detect “a waterborne attack” and “deter an attack by a small craft with an IED.” Officials instead deployed it only “sparingly and irregularly” using it to escort guests and VIPs during a fleet-week event, a probe found.

- Clear explanations weren’t available for $161,000 worth of “landlord administrative fees” and an advanced system for maintaining public-health records that cost $3 million, according to a March 2008 report from the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general. School administrators in New York City had claimed in grant applications that automating health records would enable them to identify bioterrorism threats as soon as possible. But employees who used the system told the inspector general that it had no such readiness application.

Basicially, for me it all comes back to the Wall Street mentality - that is, why do you (Wall Street, DC, NY, etc...) think I should keep bailing you out? If firms/states are fiscally irresponsible, why should tax payers keep throwing good money after bad?

My 2 cents!

 

____________________
Many into one!

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/13/2010 at 01:02 PM
quote:
quote:
Use the FBI if it's too expensive to maintain a separate organization.


Bad idea. Bad suggestion. You see we in New York actually would like to PREVENT attacks. The FBI doesn't do too good a job of that and no New York mayor or police commissioner will ever farm counter-terrorism out to the feds again.


What in the world can the city of New York do to prevent an attack from somewhere outside the country? Do you have an Army now? Wouldn't the money be better spent building a huge wall around the city?

 

____________________


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/13/2010 at 01:43 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
Use the FBI if it's too expensive to maintain a separate organization.


Bad idea. Bad suggestion. You see we in New York actually would like to PREVENT attacks. The FBI doesn't do too good a job of that and no New York mayor or police commissioner will ever farm counter-terrorism out to the feds again.


What in the world can the city of New York do to prevent an attack from somewhere outside the country? Do you have an Army now? Wouldn't the money be better spent building a huge wall around the city?


To answer your question the NYPD now has a counter-terrorism force that rivals that of the federal government. NYPD are abroad in every country where this kind of terrorism takes place and regularly confers with the counter terror organizations of foreign countries. The key, of course, is to infiltrate and break up the plots before they happen and the NYPD has done that a lot of times since 9/11 and, in fact, there is evidence that because of the city's dilligence in protecting, at least the harder targets, a number of cells have thought better of carrying out attacks in the city. That is deterrence. As for a wall, well I assume you were joking since the terrorists infiltrate by stealth and no wall would stop them.

The bottom line is that we New Yorkers (I think) are very happy with the job our City government has done to keep the City safe (I can't speak for Buffalo but federal money should NEVER be given to the State but directly to NYC) and the money is going to be spent either way. It seems unfair that as New York is a target for international terrorism we here at ground zero should be forced to pay disproportionately for this protection.

 

____________________

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6495
(6494 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/13/2010 at 01:50 PM
I stand corrected on my figures of cost for Iraq. Note the below article from USA today. However, note in the article that it's projected to cost $163 Billion in fiscal year 2011 alone for both Iraq and Afghanistan. All borrowed money. How, exactly, is occupying these **** **** holes making us safer when a guy can drive car bomb into Times Square? It's insane.

Afghan war costs now outpace Iraq's

By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The monthly cost of the war in Afghanistan, driven by troop increases and fighting on difficult terrain, has topped Iraq costs for the first time since 2003 and shows no sign of letting up.

Pentagon spending in February, the most recent month available, was $6.7 billion in Afghanistan compared with $5.5 billion in Iraq. As recently as fiscal year 2008, Iraq was three times as expensive; in 2009, it was twice as costly.

The shift is occurring because the Pentagon is adding troops in Afghanistan and withdrawing them from Iraq. And it's happening as the cumulative cost of the two wars surpasses $1 trillion, including spending for veterans and foreign aid. Those costs could put increased pressure on President Obama and Congress, given the nation's $12.9 trillion debt.

"The overall costs are a function, in part, of the number of troops," says Linda Bilmes, an expert on wartime spending at Harvard University. "The costs are also a result of the intensity of operations, and the number of different places that we have our troops deployed."

Obama made clear Wednesday that the U.S. role in Afghanistan would remain long after troops are withdrawn, a process planned to begin in July 2011. "This is a long-term partnership," he said during a news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Continued American support will be crucial as U.S. troop levels and costs in Afghanistan escalate:

•The number of U.S. servicemembers in Afghanistan has risen to 87,000, on top of 47,000 from 44 other countries. At the same time, the number of U.S. servicemembers in Iraq has dropped to 94,000. By next year, Afghanistan is to have 102,000 U.S. servicemembers, Iraq 43,000.

•Afghanistan will cost nearly $105 billion in the 2010 fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, including most of $33 billion in additional spending requested by Obama and pending before Congress. Iraq will cost about $66 billion. In fiscal 2011, Afghanistan is projected to cost $117 billion, Iraq $46 billion. To date, Pentagon spending in Iraq has reached $620 billion, compared with $190 billion in Afghanistan.

•Costs per servicemember in Afghanistan have been roughly double what they are in Iraq since 2005. That is due to lower troop levels, Afghanistan's landlocked location, lack of infrastructure, high cost of fuel and less reliable security. "The cost just cascades," says Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "That's always been an issue in Afghanistan."

"Iraq, logistically, is much easier," says Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress. "You get the stuff to Kuwait and just drive it up the road."



 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9082
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 2/25/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/13/2010 at 01:54 PM
quote:
How, exactly, is occupying these **** **** holes making us safer when a guy can drive car bomb into Times Square?


It helps kill them before they make it to Times Square?

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6495
(6494 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/13/2010 at 02:05 PM
quote:
quote:
How, exactly, is occupying these **** **** holes making us safer when a guy can drive car bomb into Times Square?


It helps kill them before they make it to Times Square?


But we don't need to occupy these Sh*t holes with a standing army to do that. As has been proven time and time again. I think Joe Biden and others have it right. FBI, CIA, Drones, special ops, and good old police work can perform this function much more cheaply and better than the strategy we've been pursuing for too long.

[Edited on 5/13/2010 by Chain]

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/13/2010 at 02:08 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Use the FBI if it's too expensive to maintain a separate organization.


Bad idea. Bad suggestion. You see we in New York actually would like to PREVENT attacks. The FBI doesn't do too good a job of that and no New York mayor or police commissioner will ever farm counter-terrorism out to the feds again.


What in the world can the city of New York do to prevent an attack from somewhere outside the country? Do you have an Army now? Wouldn't the money be better spent building a huge wall around the city?


To answer your question the NYPD now has a counter-terrorism force that rivals that of the federal government. NYPD are abroad in every country where this kind of terrorism takes place and regularly confers with the counter terror organizations of foreign countries. The key, of course, is to infiltrate and break up the plots before they happen and the NYPD has done that a lot of times since 9/11 and, in fact, there is evidence that because of the city's dilligence in protecting, at least the harder targets, a number of cells have thought better of carrying out attacks in the city. That is deterrence. As for a wall, well I assume you were joking since the terrorists infiltrate by stealth and no wall would stop them.

The bottom line is that we New Yorkers (I think) are very happy with the job our City government has done to keep the City safe (I can't speak for Buffalo but federal money should NEVER be given to the State but directly to NYC) and the money is going to be spent either way. It seems unfair that as New York is a target for international terrorism we here at ground zero should be forced to pay disproportionately for this protection.


Thanks, dougron. Your post makes a lot of sense, and contains information I was not aware of.

 

____________________


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6495
(6494 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/13/2010 at 02:15 PM
Here's the kind of police work I'm talking about:


Follow the Money! Several FBI Arrests in Times Square Case
Agents in Boston, Long Island, New Jersey, Maine Track 'Possible Cell' Implicated by Bomb Suspect Faisal Shahzad


By RICHARD ESPOSITO and BRIAN ROSS
May 13, 2010

Following leads provided by the interrogation of Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad, FBI agents fanned out across the Northeast today in raids that led to "several people" being taken into custody, according to Attorney General Eric Holder.
FBI leads result in the arrest of a man in Watertown, Massachusetts. (No Audio)

US officials told ABCNews.com that the operation was focusing on people who may have helped move money for Shahzad in his failed bombing plot. Initially, Shahzad had claimed to have "acted alone," according to US officials. He has been talking freely with FBI agents and federal prosecutors since being taken into custody May 3.

The FBI raids began just after dawn in the Boston suburb of Watertown and in residential areas near Shirley, Long Island in New York.

The people taken into custody were detained on immigration violations, according to Attorney General Holder, who discussed the early morning operation at a Congressional hearing today.

"The searches are the product of evidence that has been gathered in the investigation since the attempted Times Square bombing and do not relate to any known immediate threat to the public or active plot against the United States," Holder said.

Two of the arrests were made at a house in Massachusetts and a third person was taken into custody in Maine," according to a US law enforcement official.

"If Shahzad provided names to the FBI, the US has the ability to track their recent phone calls and determine who they have been talking to, to see if there is some kind of terror cell that exists here," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, a former White House counter-terrorism official.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/13/2010 at 03:31 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Use the FBI if it's too expensive to maintain a separate organization.


Bad idea. Bad suggestion. You see we in New York actually would like to PREVENT attacks. The FBI doesn't do too good a job of that and no New York mayor or police commissioner will ever farm counter-terrorism out to the feds again.


What in the world can the city of New York do to prevent an attack from somewhere outside the country? Do you have an Army now? Wouldn't the money be better spent building a huge wall around the city?


To answer your question the NYPD now has a counter-terrorism force that rivals that of the federal government. NYPD are abroad in every country where this kind of terrorism takes place and regularly confers with the counter terror organizations of foreign countries. The key, of course, is to infiltrate and break up the plots before they happen and the NYPD has done that a lot of times since 9/11 and, in fact, there is evidence that because of the city's dilligence in protecting, at least the harder targets, a number of cells have thought better of carrying out attacks in the city. That is deterrence. As for a wall, well I assume you were joking since the terrorists infiltrate by stealth and no wall would stop them.

The bottom line is that we New Yorkers (I think) are very happy with the job our City government has done to keep the City safe (I can't speak for Buffalo but federal money should NEVER be given to the State but directly to NYC) and the money is going to be spent either way. It seems unfair that as New York is a target for international terrorism we here at ground zero should be forced to pay disproportionately for this protection.


Thanks, dougron. Your post makes a lot of sense, and contains information I was not aware of.


You are very welcome.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/13/2010 at 03:33 PM
quote:
A total of $711 million for the entire country per year and we're spending $12-15 Billion a month in Iraq alone. We have a nearly completely exposed electrical grid (including Nuclear power plants, hydro, Natural gas, etc.) our ports and borders are as porous as shale stone, and our transportation system isn't much safer. And we have to fight via a competitive grant process with other states for what amounts to pennies compared with what DOD gets every year to maintain "securtiy" in other countries? The Marine Corps alone is spending nearly $10 Billion on one new base on Guam. What the f*ck is wrong with this picture?


A very good question. I know nobody on the Right wants to hear this, but we had 8 years to start getting things taken care of. I know I biatched about airport security all that time as well as ports. Im hoping that this administration can make some headway. Why its so hard?

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/13/2010 at 03:34 PM
quote:
Here's the kind of police work I'm talking about:


Follow the Money! Several FBI Arrests in Times Square Case
Agents in Boston, Long Island, New Jersey, Maine Track 'Possible Cell' Implicated by Bomb Suspect Faisal Shahzad


By RICHARD ESPOSITO and BRIAN ROSS
May 13, 2010

Following leads provided by the interrogation of Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad, FBI agents fanned out across the Northeast today in raids that led to "several people" being taken into custody, according to Attorney General Eric Holder.
FBI leads result in the arrest of a man in Watertown, Massachusetts. (No Audio)

US officials told ABCNews.com that the operation was focusing on people who may have helped move money for Shahzad in his failed bombing plot. Initially, Shahzad had claimed to have "acted alone," according to US officials. He has been talking freely with FBI agents and federal prosecutors since being taken into custody May 3.

The FBI raids began just after dawn in the Boston suburb of Watertown and in residential areas near Shirley, Long Island in New York.

The people taken into custody were detained on immigration violations, according to Attorney General Holder, who discussed the early morning operation at a Congressional hearing today.

"The searches are the product of evidence that has been gathered in the investigation since the attempted Times Square bombing and do not relate to any known immediate threat to the public or active plot against the United States," Holder said.

Two of the arrests were made at a house in Massachusetts and a third person was taken into custody in Maine," according to a US law enforcement official.

"If Shahzad provided names to the FBI, the US has the ability to track their recent phone calls and determine who they have been talking to, to see if there is some kind of terror cell that exists here," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, a former White House counter-terrorism official.



The best thing the Bush administration did was at least attempt to place the FBI on a counter-terror rather than conviction oriented footing. The bottom line is to have a chance at stopping these attacks we need to gather and utlitize intelligence that may not be admissible in a court of law. I assume that every radical Mosque in the City has an undercover NYPD in it. I can't imagine how else they inflitrate these cells and frankly I don't want to know. I just appreciate the job they are doing keeping us as safe as possible. But as has been said numerous times, we have to get it right every time, they only have to get it right once.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 5/13/2010 at 03:50 PM
quote:
quote:
Use the FBI if it's too expensive to maintain a separate organization.


Bad idea. Bad suggestion. You see we in New York actually would like to PREVENT attacks. The FBI doesn't do too good a job of that and no New York mayor or police commissioner will ever farm counter-terrorism out to the feds again.


Here's the way I see it. The police around here provided a service. If I don't think the service is adequate then I'll get my own protection going. I don't think I should ask anyone else to pay for it. I understand New York wants more than the FBI is offering but I figure the American people pay for the FBI and if the city wants something else then they can pay for it.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 
<<  1    2    3    4  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com