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.

 

DHS to NYC - No Landmarks, No Money

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   
The Department of Homeland Security has decided to cut anti-terror funding to New York City and Washington D.C. citing such reasons as no landmarks and poor anti-terror measures as their reasoning.
 



www.cnn.com
Department officials have changed the criteria used to award money under their programs, saying that instead of looking at population, they are trying to focus more on where risks exist. They are also taking into account how well municipalities have used past grants.

New York and Washington are getting less under that program this year. New York, for example, will receive nearly $125 million, a reduction of about $83 million.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


New York City is the home to The Empire State Building, Wall Street, The Statue of Liberty, The United Nations, Grand Central Station, Yankee Stadium and Madison Square Garden, among other things and yet, according to documents obtained by the NY Daily News, under the section for landmarks, New York City has no number listed.

Every terrorist arrested knows the city of new york. There have been plots against this city before. Just last week we were reading about the trial of one man who plotted to blow up the Herald Square Subway station. NYC and DC are always going to be priority one for terror targets and yet, homeland security thinks Omaha needs an increase in funding.

The only thing that makes sense here is if Homeland Security has knowledge of specific threats to the smaller cities that are seeing increases in funding. If that is the case, they should not divert funds from the bigger, more likely targets. Find the funds elsewhere.

Related News Links:
www.nydailynews.com
www.nydailynews.com
today.reuters.com

Mod edit:
Fixing all caps title

[edit on 1-6-2006 by parrhesia]




posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
new york city is practically known around the world. Its one of the biggest cities. Washington D.C. and Los Angelos I think are probably the other biggest known in our country. When a terrorist hears an announcement of New York being attacked, he will know exactly what that means "terrorist just attacked one of americas biggest cities". when he hears omaha was attacked by terrorist that means ".....whats omaha?" lol. sad but true, attacking washington or new york (maybe LA too) is a big moral booster compared to...omaha.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
It's my understanding that the majority of the big targets in NYC have defence networks in place and there is no need to continue to fund projects that have been completed.

Funds are in place from DHS to man and maintain these high value targets in NYC, DC ect.

It makes sence to back off funding, If a house is built, you don't keep paying the builder for a completed home.

What DHS is doing this year is spreading it's funds throughout the US to beef up port, rail, power, hospitals, and First responders fascilities and equipment.

I can tell you right now, here in St. Louis just after 9-11 concrete barricades went up around the Gateway Arch to prevent a truck bomb from attacking the arch, now perminant anti vehicle devices are in place and the concrete barricades are gone.

So there is no need to fund the project beyond staff, security and maintainance, this is why the funding has decreased in NYC and DC, the defence infrastructure is in place, now it's time to fund the day to day operations.

NYC and DC are upset because they budgeted DHS funds to their respected annual budgets and now they are short on funds and the first thing each city will say is that with out the additional funds from DHS they are going to drop earmarked security programs, mark my word it's coming.

In all reality DHS has funded with this budget the money needed to man and secure it's respected area's in NYC and DC.

It's an election year and Hillary just got screwed by the current administration.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
SIRR1, according to the reports, the funding was altered based on the DHS's list of landmarks in each city as well as the prior use of funds. According to the articles I've read (and linked), the DHS feels that there aren't any landmarks in NYC. Their list of landmarks has a zero for NYC. No landmarks. I can look out my window and spot 3. Landmarks doesn't include major global financial institutions, which we learned a year or so ago, were possibly being targeted in a future plot. NYC is home to at least 20 major financial institutions and I am not talking about your local schwab office. The DHS also feels that NYC is not spending the money they've been allocated efficiently and the the elite anti-terror team here is not up to snuff. What the local politicians are saying is that the DHS is not happy with the city paying overtime in the amounts doled out.

On the bright side, if I am ever in Jacksonville, FL, I will feel comfort knowing that the 35% increase in funding to cover the countries most important landmark, AllTell Stadium (home of America's Team, the Jacksonville Jaguars), is a safe haven.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   
an update on the minds of the Department of Homeland Stupidity


in today's NY Daily News Chertoff is quoted as saying he'd be a bad secretary if he backed down every time someone yelled at him.

he's a bad secretary for even taking a stance that NYC should have a 40% cut in anti terror grants.

Several NY senators have already sent Chertoff postcards featuring several of NY's non-existent landmarks. Each post card has "wish you were here" written on it.


With regards to our non-landmarks, Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty don't count as NY landmarks because they are on federal property. I guess we can cut spending here by no longer protecting those sites and our local police and anti-terror forces should not bother to worry about the UN or the Federal Reserve vault that holds more gold than Fort Knox. Let Chertoff pick stand watch and protect those sites.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
As SIRR1 said, the infrastructure is already there now, which is what most of the money was going toward. With the current amoutn they are going to get they can still do everything they need to do to protect the city, if they use that money for what it is intended to be used for which is defending the city, not padding the poilticians pocketbooks.

Also, everyone seems to be missing the other reason that funding has dropped,


They are also taking into account how well municipalities have used past grants.


If politicians have been using the money for things other than defending the city, they shouldn't get the money and the government should give it to cities that do use it to protect the city.


It is like what goes on here in Tennessee all the time, We have to raise taxes for schools. Once the taxes get increased the first things that get more funding are the politicians pocketbooks and their own special projects, and schools get the scraps.



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SwitchbladeNGC
If politicians have been using the money for things other than defending the city, they shouldn't get the money and the government should give it to cities that do use it to protect the city.


If politicians haven't been using the money correctly, they should get the boot. That's the way it works every where else I've seen--if I take $20 from my company's petty cash to buy a CD, they're going to at least keep me from handling petty cash (if not fire me out right.)

That seems to be one problem with the country--you're spending the money wrong, so we get rid of the money. Not the person, not the source of the problem, but the funding. Whatever funding is still received can still get spent poorly.

I would think that having the infrastructure in place wouldn't necessarily be reason enough to cut funding anyways. I don't care how good an engineering/planning department you have working for you, it can always be better. I couldn't even begin to tell you what kind of system they have set up, so I have no clue what could be done to make it better. I know in the software engineering field though, as soon as you release version 1 of a system, you start work on version 2--if you haven't already.

Anyways, just my two cents...



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   
the money they took away was going to be used to set up high tech surveillance cameras around many of the sites that are not deemed landmarks.

DHS' biggest beef with the prior use of NY money was the amount of overtime being paid out. The unions made a good deal with regards to overtime and the cops (and most of the other municipal employees) take advantage of this good deal by working the overtime angle when they can (rightfully so). I personally think our cops and firemen are underpaid as it is so I am all for them getting more any way they can (within the confines of the law and good taste of course).



posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1
If politicians haven't been using the money correctly, they should get the boot. That's the way it works every where else I've seen--if I take $20 from my company's petty cash to buy a CD, they're going to at least keep me from handling petty cash (if not fire me out right.)


But it doesn't work that way in politics (see the example I gave). All of the money goes into a big pot which they then determine where to spend it, and by the time it is spent there is so much red tape and stuff to hide it in. It is like filling out tax returns, you claim whatever you can, even if it doesn't really apply. They can claim that some of the money can go to their paychecks because without them none of the money could make it to where it is needed, ect.

Only in America do we define the process so well. Poly in latin meaning many and ticks being blood sucking creatures.



posted on Jun, 3 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
They probably don't consider The Statue a landmark because we gave it to you as a present. Wouldn't surprise me after watching your news the past month I've been here, your President and his people do some very weird things or say things that can't be true.

Your President said he had a stable Administration yet he has who, Rice and Rumsfeld left from his original Administration?

He was not friends with Kenneth Lay from Enron yet they had parties together, had family outings together, pictures of them being friends.

Or when they exposed the woman from the CIA, it was on BBC, but here it is considered the democrats attacking the President, how?

How does your President and his people get away with things like this? New York City is known to everyone who hasn't lived in a cave so how can your Homeland Security people say it doesn't need money because it has no targets?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Yumi, reread the posts. Nobody here is saying the Statue isn't a landmark. DHS is claiming it isn't a landmark in NY. It is, technically, on federal soil so it shouldn't be counted in NY's matrix scoring. I haven't been there since I was a kid but I'm assuming the feds expect the NYPD to protect it for free.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Maybe they don't see the need to give NY mone yto protect against terrorists acts, because it has yet to be attacked by a terrorist orgainization apart from the federal government.



new topics




 
4

log in

join