It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


DHS Pork - Evidence That War On Terrorism is a Sham? (Op/Ed)

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 07:06 AM
Despite having been a target of two successful terrorist attacks and one known failed attack, New York City's share of the Department of Homeland Security's anti-terrorism money was slashed an astounding 40% from $207 million to $124 million. Apparently, the Bush administration feels that "terrorist chatter" indicates that new critical terrorism targets are quickly surfacing in places that correspond with close elections in 2006. While an angry outcry can be heard from dozens of New York politicians and officials, we're not yet seeing the disgusted "I told you so" remarks from the ranks of conspiracy theorists. Why is that?

Maybe more importantly, why is this connection being made?

Turning back the clock to the nascent world of online conspiracy theory pre-9/11, there were numerous whispers and rumors of "something" on the horizon that would intensify the long-theorized progression to an eventual police-state. As the new Bush administration took power and selected close advisors of startling controversy (at least in the eyes of conspiracy theorists), the whispers and rumors intensified and we all collectively held onto our seats.

Then -- bam -- the horrific tragedy that defines our era, the attacks of 9/11, fell upon those who watch for conspiratorial connections like an accelerated avalanche of madness. While we watched the news with horror and consoled those we could, we assembled at our online meeting places and commented on our worst fears coming to pass. Here it is, we thought, the beginning of the momentum that will propel ordinary people down the path of allowing intense government law-enforcement oversight in ordinary daily matters... the "police state".

As the years and moths rolled on, our conviction that the "war on terrorism" is a sham designed to shape public opinion intensified. We saw that bizarre tidbits of information from the 9/11 attacks simply didn't make sense. We witnessed disconcerting law enforcement involvement from the Department of Homeland Security on matters that had nothing to do with external terrorist threats. We became angry with frustration as "terror alerts" were used to political advantage leading up to the 2004 presidential election. And when it became clear that the government was engaging in an elaborate and multifaceted program of domestic spying on ordinary citizens, we simply nodded that this too was expected.

And finally, what more evidence do we possibly need to shed a harsh light of reality on this grand scheme to deceive than this recent event of politically motivated anti-terrorism funding distribution? Michael Chertoff would have us believe it's all because New York City officials failed to fill out their application for funding correctly. First, critical thinkers would wonder what level of lunatic madness has invaded our government that would require cities that are high terrorism targets to apply for funding to fight terrorism. Next, those who have extended their critical thinking into the areas of conspiracy theory would stand up and say, here is our proof!

Yes indeed. If there was a real and pressing danger of attack from external terrorist groups, funding to protect the citizens from such attacks would be appropriately distributed to the areas containing likely targets. Instead, anti-terrorism funding is being broadly distributed to build the "police state" infrastructure throughout the land. This, more than any other action by the U.S. federal government, is your "smoking gun" that the war on terrorism is nothing but an elaborate ploy.

Related ATSNN Stories:
DHS to NYC - No Landmarks, No Money

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 07:23 AM

Exactly. This is totally deranged. What can be said that hasnt been said before?
The worst president, the worst administration. How can conspiracies go away when we have such exibitions of total disregard and confusion??

Another plot in the works? More "fake" terrorism?
It boggles the mind.
Nothing like a sham. No wonder George sweats profusely and babbles when he speaks.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 07:40 AM
My problem is why the Department of Homeland Security was created in the first place? What is its actual purpose? Aren't their duties overlapping those in the Department of Defense, CIA and FBI? It is a waste of money and a waste of time. I knew that DHS failed during Katrina. I thought that would be the straw that would break the camel's back.

However, is there not one member of Congress brave enough to speak out and offer a resolution to shut the DHS down?

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 07:57 AM
my thread on this from yesterday:

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Crakeur]

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 08:46 AM
I see a lot of "opinion" but not enough facts. First, in 2004 the terrorist funding for New York was $47 million, it then jumped to $208 million in 2005 and even though it is now less than in 2005, New York is still getting more money than almost any other state.

These are the facts, in 2005 Washington D.C. got $78 million, the Los Angeles area got $61 million, and Chicago got $45 million. The funding for states does change, i don't know exactly how it goes, but my guess is depending on the chatter that the intelligence agencies get.

The San Francisco area -- which includes Marin and San Mateo counties - - will receive $21.4 million, down from $26.3 million. The Oakland area, which covers the rest of Alameda County and Contra Costa County, was cut to $6. 2 million from $7.8 million. The San Jose area grant, which covers all of Santa Clara County, was slashed to $6.6 million from $9.9 million.

In contrast, a few big cities are getting sharp increases in funding for the current fiscal year, which began Oct. 1.

New York's grant under the Urban Area Security Initiative jumped to $208 million from $47 million -- 24.3 percent of the total $854.6 million distributed to 50 areas.

The grant for Washington, D.C., is rising 166 percent, to $78 million, while the Los Angeles area, home to the busiest container port in the country, will get $61 million, a 118 percent increase. Chicago, home to more bridges than any other U.S. city, is getting $45 million, up 33 percent.

How do you know that it is not true that "the chatter is pointing to other areas also being a target"?

And about the United States being a police state... you have got to be kidding, this is "sensationalism" at it's worse. You want to blame the government for sensationalism, yet some people around here are doing worse, and giving a new meaning to "sensationalism".

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Muaddib]

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Muaddib The funding for states does change, i don't know exactly how it goes, but my guess is depending on the chatter that the intelligence agencies get.

according to the DHS, the "matrix" they used to determine funding was based on two factors:

1. the prior use of funds and the anti-terror measures in place
2. The number of landmarks.

According to the matrix wisconsin cheese is more of a target than, say, The Empire State Building. Why? Because the Empire State Building is not a landmark.
Let me mention a few other not landmarks
The brooklyn bridge is not a target
the UN is not a target
Grand Central Station is not a target
the country's largest and most populated subway system is not a landmark
Yankee Stadium is not a landmark, nor is Shea Stadium
Ellis Island is not a landmark in NY
The Statue Of Liberty is not a NY landmark
Penn Station is not a landmark
The Chrysler Building is not a landmark
The GW Bridge, the Manhattan Bridge, the Verazzano and the Williamsburgh? not landmarks
The midtown, lincoln and holland tunnels are not landmarks
the various embassies that are situated around the UN? not landmarks
Wall Street is not a landmark
Madison Square Garden, aka THE WORLD"S MOST FAMOUS ARENA, not a landmark
The Federal and State courthouses are not landmarks
Time's Square, which hosts the world's largest party every new year's eve and which is billed as the center of the world on New Year's Eve is not a landmark
Broadway and it's many theaters? not landmarks

there are no landmarks in NY. That is how they determined that NY should have their funds cut bu 40% while Omaha Nebraska, home of um about a tenth of the number of people in NY (maybe even less) gets a 35% increase in funding.

the fact that the elections are too close to call in Atlanta, Louisville, Omaha, St. Louis etc has nothing to do with this stooge claiming that NY has received enough and doesn't need to get as much as they have in the past.

he's an idiot. When the next attack comes, and it will come, nobody doubts that, I hope Chertoff is here to enjoy it.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:54 AM
And here I was beginning to think you wore a halo above your head. Of all the mundane reasons that have been posted concerning NYC's DHS funding cut, you have to pick a new one that is guaranteed to stir up the emotions of the patrons of ATS. Speculation abounds.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 10:02 AM
astronomer, if you are referring to my comments, allow me to state that, while I think I am an angel and I think I look rather angelic, I am being somewhat selfish here. I live and work in NYC. My daughter, who is 3 1/2, goes to school at a temple that is one block from the citicorp building that was the subject of a possible attack a year or so ago and I live a few blocks from the UN (to the south), Bloomingdales and the Bloomberg building (to the north). I work across the street from Penn Station and Macy's, and I am a couple of blocks away from Madison Square Garden and the Empire State Building. Time's Square is a 5 minute walk and as recently as two weeks ago the papers were filled with the trial of the man who was arrested for plotting to blow up the Herald Square Subway Station which just so happens to be the station I use twice each day.

The election issue is being mentioned all over the place here. How else can this moronic example of beaurocratic ineptitude be explained?

Nothing would make me happier than to have the white house issue an order moving chertoff's office to the Empire State Building or some other non-landmark.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Muaddib
And about the United States being a police state... you have got to be kidding, this is "sensationalism" at it's worse. You want to blame the government for sensationalism, yet some people around here are doing worse, and giving a new meaning to "sensationalism".

If you know my history of opinion pieces on "conspiracy theorists" you'll know I am just as critical of them (maybe more so) as I am of "official sources."

However, let's be clear... ATS is a conspiracy theory centric website, and, conspiracy theorists (as a whole) have been speculating on a slow progression to a "police state" for nearly three decades now. And within 18 months before 9/11, speculation on ATS, RumorMill News, and other related sites did focus on an increased feeling that a "defining moment" that would accelerate the existing momentum was soon on the horizon.

There are certainly far too many "conspiracy theorists" that rely on heavy doses of sensationalism attributed to poor research, or even outright lies for any degree of comfort-level. I've long been highly critical of that. However, we can't ignore a massive body of opinion, research, and analysis that foresaw the events and political pressures we're experiencing today. That is not sensationalism, it's a prudent reflection on what we've been discussing here and elsewhere.

There is simply no good explanation for diverting funding from the nation's #1 "terrorist target" to a broad dispersal among locales that are, for all practical purposes, non-targets. Unless, that explanation is indeed that the "terrorist threat" is not what we're being led to believe it is, and the money is being used to develop an environment we feared has been a long time coming.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:19 PM
as I stated in this thread and will say again,

Originally posted by SwitchbladeNGC
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.

NYC could have been getting $12 trillion from DHS for all I care, but if they don't use it to protect the people then they shouldn't keep getting it, and when they don't need as much money (say because they have made their big purchases, and now only have to maintain things) the funding should drop to what they NEED and send the excess to other cities that need it. As for the list of "Landmarks", maybe the landmarks not on that list are not on there because they get funding from elsewhere in DHS or maybe they already have the defences that the money would be earmarked for.

If what you say is true and NYC has NO landmarks, they shouldn't get any money. And, by the way, there is still a substantial amount you can do with $125 million.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:30 PM
NYC and DC probably have more landmarks than any other city in the US. The DHS claims NY has none, not me. Their ineptitude is being exposed. The funds were not misspent, unless you deem paying your police force overtime as being misspent.

Chertoff is acting like a stubborn child. Claiming that it would be the act of a bad secretary if he backed off his report as a result of being challenged is moronic. He's a bad secretary for standing by it and for not even looking into the concept that this so called scientific matrix were inaccurate.

As I mentioned, the areas getting increases in funding all have very close politcal races and this really does look like nothing more thanan attempt to show the local voters which way to vote.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:51 PM
Crakeur my comment was not directed at you--but your reply was interesting. No, your post seemed reasoned and on the mark. My comment was directed at SO for even starting this thread. What district, region, city or state is not a closely contested election nowdays?

Kind of stupid for DHS to cite no landmarks as one of their reasons for reducing funding though.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 02:02 PM
I suppose these questions are overly-simplistic, but here goes:

i) As has been mentioned, budget awards are somewhat determined by the ability to spend the previous fiscal year's allocation. Has NYC always 'spent up' in previous years?

ii) What deficiencies exist that could be improved upon by a budget increase?

iii) Is there still enough money in the pot to provide sufficient funds for fighting terrorism satisfactorially?

There is an alternative explanaition I guess, namely, that the authorities are getting to grips with the terrorist threat and have got a handle on how much they need to spend in actuality, and have therefore deemed previous levels of expenditure to be inflated.

...or it could all be hype!

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 02:52 PM

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
Has NYC always 'spent up' in previous years?

NY has spent up, as you put it but DHS feels that it wasn't spent wisely. They were bothered by the overtime issue. The NYC terror units were planning on using the funds for high tech cameras and other devices as well as funding for training.

The city planned on installing an $85 million "ring of steel" to protect the citizens as well as the many non-residents who come into the city to work each day. The ring is a system of cameras, license plate readers, barricades and extra cops is already in place in London. That plan is put on hold.

The city spends 200 million on protecting the subways. half that cost was to be recouped from the federal grants. not any more.


It should be noted that an attack on one of the cities getting an increase, such as Omaha, would be an emotional blow to the nation but another attack on NYC could have a devastating impact on the GLOBAL economy. Apparently Chertoff (rhymes with jerkoff) doesn't seem to care much about anything other than not looking like a wimp for backing down or admitting there might be a flaw in his matrix system.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 03:40 PM
DHS has $1.7 billion to split up. $1.3 billion goes out based on risk. Another $400 million goes to states by a formula that guarantees something even to states with tiny populations like Idaho and Wyoming. And New York still got more than any other city - $124 million.

I assume from what I am hearing is that the 1.7 billion should all go to NYC and DC. You realize that if you make the most likely targets more secure, they are no longer the most likely targets, and something else moves in to take their place.

Sure some places like NYC and DC should get a lot of funding (which they did) but if you don't fund other places they become easy targets. Personally I think everyone is blowing this way out of proportion, sure NYC is getting 40% less than it did last year, but it is getting about twice as much as it got the year before.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 03:59 PM
Well . . . because the way the government works when it comes to budget management . . . and . . . the distribution of money to fight terrorism . . . it looks like a lot of money has been alocated to cities that can become prime target to terrorism like NY, money has been misused and abuse . . . the government is becoming very aware of the need of the cities been high to be targeted but so far no attacks that equals more funds allocated that the ones needed per city.

Now in order to avoid money to be use without accountability the government is introducing a new way for cities and state to apply for the money allocated to terrorism.

Yes the whole issue can fall into a big conspiracy but . . . is also making harder for some state to prove that they are prime targets to terrorism and deserve the money.

I see the whole issue more as the government trying to control funds that are becoming shorter than anything else.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:07 PM
switch, I'm not saying we should get all the money just an appropriate portion of it. dropping the funding for NYC with the reason being there aren't any landmarks is really quite dumb. Increasing Omaha Nebraska's funding is even dumber. I'm guessing more than half the population of the US couldn't find Omaha on a map, even if it was labeled. I doubt if the terror plotters have ever even heard of it before this nonsense. They don't need money. Plain and simple.

Jacksonville gets increased funding to protect a football stadium and Milwaukee gets funding based on Beer plants. I love a good brew but lates face it, the best stuff doesn't come from the US and they don't deserve funding to protect their watery beer.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Crakeur
NY has spent up, as you put it but DHS feels that it wasn't spent wisely. They were bothered by the overtime issue.

Interesting point. You would think really, that a thing such as overtime wouldn't be an issue. Is the rate of pay for some of these guys that bad, or is this a union flexing it's muscles and it backfiring?

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:34 PM
the deal the city made with the union gives them a pretty good overtime deal. The cops try to take advantage of the extra pay whenever they can. However, the atlas force is not that large and during those days and weeks when there is a "credible threat" to the city, these guys are forced to work extra time, mainly due to their low numbers. increase the funding, you can provide more training for more men, reducing the amount of overtime.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 10:25 PM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
There is simply no good explanation for diverting funding from the nation's #1 "terrorist target" to a broad dispersal among locales that are, for all practical purposes, non-targets. Unless, that explanation is indeed that the "terrorist threat" is not what we're being led to believe it is, and the money is being used to develop an environment we feared has been a long time coming.

Have you followed up on how much of the money which New York was given in 2004 and 2005 was spent and what they spent it on?... Why is it that in 2004 the amount given to that state was much lower, yet noone whinned about it, than the amount given in 2005? So you think that perhaps New York should have been given $400 million this time around?... They did double, in fact more than doubled the amount given to that state from 2004 to 2005, and even though it is lower in 2006 than the amount that was given in 2005, it is still a lot more than any other state is getting....

This has nothing to do with "there being a police state"...the United States is not a police state. This has to do with some politicians whinning about not getting more money. You are only using speculation to try to prove something which is not real SO.

If you think that "terrorism is a sham"...then you have nothing to worry about, your state still got over $100 million dollars.....

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Muaddib]

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in