It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Credible Security Threat To NYC Transport

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
Where was I smug? Any more smug than when you said that you "love" it when non-New Yorkers have an opinion about something in NY? I wasn't being smug, I thought it necessary to bring up that searches occur to various extents everywhere. You made comments that about was I searched myself or not regarding this particular search. The topic of searches and terror alerts are not unique to NY.

My point all along has been who "deemed" the whole exercise necessary? Yes it was "deemed" necessary. SOmeone needs to deem it so, but who and based on what? That is not something that needs to be kept from voters and taxpayers.

Anyway, why is the ACLU so important? They barely care about anything that goes on online at all and I disagree with some of the "stands" that they do take. They aren't me and I'm not them and I don't use them as a moral or legal dipstick based on what they fight or don't fight.

I live by roads that close down during some "elevated alerts". I have no idea why or when it will happen. Warranted or not, it is intrusive to my daily routine. Why is a road shut down on say a tuesday and then open on Wednesday? Hardly anyone asks why. Personally, it makes me feel like an ant when someone puts a hand in their path.


why is the ACLU of importance in regards to the NYC subway search issue? seriously? did you not know of their fight to stop this practice? It started shortly after the 7/7 bombings in London. The police started doing searches randomly (yet again I never saw a search station set up anywhere) and the ACLU jumped all over it saying it was a violation of the riders' rights. They went to court to put a stop to the random searches. They took your stand that it wasn't fair.

when this new threat was announced (before we knew some dude in Iraq was punking us) they backed off the fight for the time being, saying the searches were warranted.

so the ACLU has major relevance here.




posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
[...] and the ACLU jumped all over it saying it was a violation of the riders' rights. They went to court to put a stop to the random searches. They took your stand that it wasn't fair.

when this new threat was announced (before we knew some dude in Iraq was punking us) they backed off the fight for the time being, saying the searches were warranted.

so the ACLU has major relevance here.


This is my point. Assume we didn't yet know that the source was bad. The ACLU backed off when they believed the searches were warranted. Now we know the source was bad. So, personally I'm not comforted during instances when the ACLU may be ok with searches. I see the organization felt these searches were more valid and that is ultimately not their fault. At least they are concerned.

Not every source is going to be factual and it is better to be safe than sorry. It seems though that there is something wrong with the system. Too many alerts due to bad sources and there is a risk that the alerts lose their impact.

At the least, this was a good show of readiness following the FEMA/Louisianna/New Orleans debacle.

[edit on 11-10-2005 by 2nd Hand Thoughts]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand ThoughtsNot every source is going to be factual and it is better to be safe than sorry. It seems though that there is something wrong with the system. Too many alerts due to bad sources and there is a risk that the alerts lose their impact.



The alerts do become comical after a while. That is why, when the alert is raised nationwide, we always get the disclaimer on our local news that "we have been at that level since 9/11" so any new threat to the nation is just more of the same. That is also why, when this recent threat was announced, it seemed that much more serious to the locals. Personally, I don't believe the hoax b.s. - if this plot was a hoax, who were the three men arrested in Iraq? Why was the military told that, in the event these three men tried to head to Syria, they were to be detained and, if need be, shot and killed?

nydailynews.com...



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I've gotten a lot out of this exchange of our only-slightly different viewpoints.


Now I'm starting to see media stories that the feds are implying that NY over-reacted. The feds saying someone OVER-REACTED. That's pretty bold. As opposed to under-reacting I suppose, which would appear to be their collective performance standard where terrorist attacts are concerned.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2nd Hand Thoughts
Now I'm starting to see media stories that the feds are implying that NY over-reacted. The feds saying someone OVER-REACTED. That's pretty bold. As opposed to under-reacting I suppose, which would appear to be their collective performance standard where terrorist attacts are concerned.



Bush was originally quoted as saying something to the effect of "you gotta do what you gotta do" The white house downplayed this while the locals took it seriously and ratcheted up the police presence. When asked about it later Bloomberg said pretty much what you said. Should we have not reacted with the concept of protecting our citizens? Better to be safe than sorry and all that.

I'll take safe over loose when it's my butt sitting on the subway.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
[...]
I'll take safe over loose when it's my butt sitting on the subway.


Well it goes without saying that I'm glad things have been safe and I hope that continues to be the case. Keep us posted on any happenings and try not to sit next to the pervs.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Almost as credible as Santa Claus.

Speaking of which, do you think he will be free to visit the US this year delivering presents or do you think he might be considered a threat?

I never did trust that commie "red" suit of his...



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Not sure if it was posted elsewhere but it pertains to the threat so here we go.

Two days in a row, the local papers talk about how the "rich" had advanced knowledge of the threat. The articles talk about Homeland Security leaks that are now being investigated and how a select group of locals knew of the threats 3 days before the press conference and in some cases, 45 minutes before Bloomberg's briefing.

Now, this is disturbing on several levels but it is not a "rich" thing, it is a "connected" thing. The two are often interchangeable but the media headlines here make it seem as the rich knew, the poor did not. When you read the articles it doesn't mention who got these emails or where they came from. The emails were group emails sent from people with knowledge to friends and family warning them . A gov't leak for sure and unfair definitely but the media should not be painting this as a rich live, poor die type of thing.

Rather, the local media should be questioning how the hell Hopmeland Security higher ups could be telling their children (probably grown kids) top secret info that gets spread to friends and family.

The local media should also try and figure out if these leaks were the way the media originally uncovered the threat that was being kept secret.

They should be looking into the hoax a bit deeper. A hoax shouldn't result in the arrest of 3 operatives linked to the hoax. Not unless it was a set up to test our reactions out.

This was reported to be a hoax and then, a couple of days later, Uncle Al )Qaeda) declares the intercepted letter detailing the plans and problems of the organization to be a hoax. I find it odd that Al Qaeda, or some other terror group, paid some guy who has been a semi-successful informant, to punk the US gov't and then lay claim that we are punking them. Something doesn't fit.

Lastly, it was come out, in those emails, that the stations directly mentioned in the terror threat were Grand Central, Herald Square and Times Square.

I enter and exit thru Herald and Times Square every day, at least two times (round trip). Never ever saw a search station. I don't know where the images and videos of these searches were taken but they were not at the stations I was in. I saw no hercules teams, no atlas teams no nada. Very strange for a threat that was taken seriously by the local authorities.

This whole thing seems too strange. Arrests on a hoax (3 men, the 4th possibly made up? I don't buy it) are not normal, unless it is the hoaxers they arrested and they didn't know it was a hoax when they made those arrests.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join