Was torture used to foil the latest terror plot?

Parent Cafe
181

<p>Allmusic I need some help understanding your post. </p>

<p>As of 09/10/2001 New York and Washington had NO funding for counterterrorism security from DHS. DHS did not yet exist. Neither did the former concept of terrorism. Funding for same wasn’t allocated, either.</p>

<p>According to your link, New York now gets (net) $124 million; Washington $42 million. </p>

<p>As of 09/10/2001 they each got $0. </p>

<p>I need some help understanding why you interpret this as nothing has been done. </p>

<p>I can assure you with certainty that cargo is scutinized, and most of this takes place before it leaves foreign ports, either with technology, dogs, or people. That’s why DHS has the container security initiative (CSI), and that’s why 70+ persons spend their entire careers flying around to various foreign countries (at the invitation of those countries) to conduct training on port, cargo and container security. It’s to the benefit of those foreign countries to engage, because, vibrant international trade is highly desirable by ALL countries. </p>

<p>If you care to unearth the Dubai ports thread, I posted about this in extreme detail in an effort to try to convince whoever cared that the UAE was not a dangerous, scary business parter. </p>

<p>Bottom line, until and unless you’ve studied CSI and trade matters extensively, until you understand how cargo and container security actually works, you cannot credibly make any statement at all about progress in such security. Similarly, unless you’ve measured him for a hat recently, you probably also have no empirical data with which to make statements about the size of Golani’s head.</p>

182

<p>A year or so ago in Washington, a government exec asked me, “have you ever been through a M&A?”.</p>

<p>I answered that I had; he asked “how did it go? Did everything integrate smoothly?”.</p>

<p>Well, of course it hadn’t. My payroll was messed up; my corporate AMEX didn’t get paid on time for a couple of months; my health insurance coverage got all scrambled and confused; 401K took me months to understand what they did to it; and perhaps worse of all it took several weeks for me to even be able to figure out who was my new boss. And that’s before we even get into the issues of how the cultures of the two companies were very different, therefore causing massive conflict and inefficiencies throughout the new enterprise. But everyone who has worked in private industry and who has been through this probably knows, and has similar stories. And my little company employed only about 200 employees; the acquiring firm, maybe 800. It did eventually get all worked out, but it took the better part of a year.</p>

<p>Imagine, then, 22 separate components of federal government agencies, each employing thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. All with different payroll systems, different technology platforms, different HR offices, different budgets, different procedures, different chains of command, etc. Imagine then pulling them altogether into one very large agency, total employee count 180,000, with offices in 50 states, and several sites in foreign countries. </p>

<p>While DHS still has its Michael Brown moments, overall, they’ve done an incredible job of standing up as an organization, getting budgeted, more or less spending most of that budget usefully, and organizing leadership. They’re going to have a bit more confusion as the organization continues to evolve, but, I cannot think of any parallel in private industry.</p>

<p>That was the point the government exec was trying to make: things do not always execute flawlessly in new enterprises, and this is probably especially so when the environment is uncharted territory.</p>

183

<p>I can’t equal Latetoschool on the specifics of American efforts to combat terrorism but when it comes to civil liberties, things aren’t so bad there either:</p>

<p>

</a></p>

184

<p>Late, my point, if you read the first link I provided, was that the funding was down for NY and DC from the <em>previous</em> year, as opposed to funding for less urban areas, which was up. I wasn’t comparing pre 9/11 and post 9/11 funding, but funding between last year and this year. This is a well documented fact, that urban areas had enormous cuts in DHS funding, although clearly the risk to those areas is at least as great as it was, and I’d venture to guess, greater than the risk in Kansas, for example, or areas that had great increases in DHS funding.</p>

<p>It would seem, just by common sense, that one would allocate security funding to the areas of the country that are most vulnerable. Since that isn;t the case, and in fact, the exact opposite it true, I have to wonder whether protection of citizens is really paramount…</p>

185

<p>We believe you and your articles about funding being cut from one yr to another and we both agree Bush has not done everything right. The question is of safety and you have yet to answer my question. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you misread it again. And let me throw out another question. You are bemoaning the funding cuts to Washington DC and NYC so what do you think is the appropriate amount of money that each city deserves. How would you allocate this money. I am just curious.</p>

186

<p>The question of safety is this: </p>

<p>DHS should fund the most vulnerable areas of the United States first, including public transit systems, LNG tankers, areas of national interest or national security (the Pentagon). You put security of those areas ahead of Amish Popcorn Makers in Indiana, for example, because the New York subway system needs more protection, since it serves more people, than the Amish Popcorn maker or the busline in Omaha.</p>

<p>I have no idea what an appropriate amount of money is. I do know that cutting millions of dollars of federal funding for urban areas, which endure great terrorist risk, while simultaneously increasing millions of dollars in funding to areas with less or little terrorist risk, is not taking the safety of the American people seriously. Thus, we are at greater risk as a nation, since more people are vulnerable. If the safety of the nation was of paramount importance, the most vulnerable areas would be most protected. And they’re not.</p>

<p>Now, if that doens’t answer your question, I am afraid I can’t help you. My response is very clear.</p>

187

<p>Thank you. That was a wonderful response. You have now proved to me, yourself, and to everyone reading this that since you do not know how much money should be allocated to the “hot spots” for terrorism (idk either), you really should not be able to decide that BUsh is underfunding these areas. He may be…he may be not. Most likey he isnt because Bush, believe it or not, is not the only one working on the issue of allocating money. There is some sort of quantitive and qualitive standard for how much they give and to whom they give. </p>

<p>You still missed this question for the third time. There has not been a terror attack in the US since 911 because Bush did a fine job or because the Muslim killers do want to chop our heads off anymore? or maybe there is another option that i am completely missing because it does not fit into my little head.</p>

188

<p>Allmusic, I am not an economic expert, or an architect of budgets, but I am an expert on matters that relate to various types of fraud, including terrorist financing, product counterfeiting, moneylaundering, etc., and so through that lens here is my best opinion (which may not be 100% accurate):</p>

<p>First, let’s start with the premise that there is no argument that funding to these larger cities was reduced. But that becomes meaningless in the context of your assertion that “nothing is being done”. Clearly, something is being done, considering that $0 were budgeted pre-9/11, and, obviously, millions are being budgeted now. </p>

<p>But the question you’re really asking - why were the budgets for these two cities reduced, while simultaneously increased for more rural areas, the most obvious answer is that just because criminal behavior (including, but not limited to terrorism) is driven out of one area, or the environment is made to be very inimical to criminal behavior, it does NOT mean the criminal behavior ceases to exist, but rather, the criminal behavior simply finds an easier avenue to progress. </p>

<p>Terrorists and other criminals won’t stop just because officials in NYC and Washington make it difficult for them to transact their commerce. They’ll simply shift operations to easier, more manipulative ground, where they perceive possibility of detection and arrest to be reduced - Berurah’s house, for example. That is, until Berurah and her friends get tough, demand and leverage more of the DHS budget, more security, and then the criminals have to pack up and move operations yet again. </p>

<p>A security strategy is never a static, fixed policy, but rather a constantly evolving process that if planned and carried out efficiently attempts to see beyond the horizon to the place where the threats to security and attempts at criminal behavior will mostly likely move next. </p>

<p>We see this extensively with moneylaundering. As it gets harder and harder for terrorists to leverage the legitimate banking system, we’re seeing them instead attempt to launder funds through commercial real estate, diamonds and precious gems (in spite of the Kimberley Process), metals, boats, cars, and even, incredibly, gift cards. (As an aside, there’s a hearing on this in Senate Banking tomorrow - it’ll be webcast at 10:00; if you watch it, you will get a first hand view of what is being done to combat terrorism from Treasury officials, in testimony to congress.) But to continue the theory that makes up my explanation, we started with rules that apply to banks; now, the same rules are being extended to casinos, jewelers, auto dealers, real estate enterprises, etc.; however, some of the regulation is loosening for banks. That’s because crime always seeks the path of least resistance, so, in terms of the NYC and Washington budgets, I think you’re always going to see these types of changes, and rightly so.</p>

<p>To really, really make my point, I don’t go to NYC often, but I’m in Washington nearly every other week this time of year, and you cannot walk down any street in Washington without being within 10 feet of security; you cannot visit most office buildings without being cleared; you cannot even crash the ladies room in most Starbucks without permission and a key, if you’re not a customer. Oh, and the airspace is intensely restricted; the Potomac and the other river, whatever it’s called, both are heavily patrolled; - yeah, I think Washington can handle the cut, which is really a net increase since 09/10/2001. I cannot speak for NYC, except to say that - well, it hasn’t been attacked again, has it?</p>

189

<p>Were there not eight years betwee the first and second attacks on the WTC? If we use the five years since 9/11 to support the Bush policies were not Clinton’s policies equally effective? BTW, far more Americans were killed in terrorist attacks during the Reagan administration than Clinton’s.</p>

190

<p>When it comes to DHS funding, I hope some urban funds have been diverted to border and “rural” security. I won’t name specific facilities but there are high-value targets outside of urban areas. Yes, I want urban areas to be protected and they should be our first priority, but they’ve had the bulk of the resources for the past 5 years.</p>

191

<p>

Your point, I take it, is that Clinton’s policies were “equally effective” as Bush’s policies because nothing bad happened on Clinton’s watch? Let’s review what happened on President Clinton’s watch:</p>

<p>

The Reagan comment probably refers to the Beirut barracks bombing. I agree that President Reagan’s response to that terrorist event was weak.</p>

192

<p>GLA,</p>

<p>I don’t blame America or Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, or GWB for terrorism, nor do I blame our Presidents for their ineffective responses to terrorist events before 9/11. </p>

<p>I do blame the terrorists.</p>

193

<p>DRJ4:
I am glad to see you don’t blame Clinton. Some on this board do. My point is that Bush’s policies are neither more nor less effective against terrorism than Clinton’s or Reagans or Bush I. They are simply more costly (almost 3000 serviceman killed, over $300 Billion).
Reagan comment referrs to Beirut Bombing, Lockerbie, U.S. Embassy in Beirut, bombing of U.S. embassy in Kuwait, Achille Lauro.</p>

194

<p>

I don’t think that you can support this statement by any facts. How many terrorists were captured and/or killed by Clinton et al? How many plots were disrupted by policies put in place by Clinton et al?</p>

195

<p>it took 4-5 YEARS to create a program to protect nucleur plants- and the plan still is not ready nor implemented</p>

<p>The identification of nuclear power plant mitigation strategies to protect the reactor core and containment should be completed in mid to late 2006.Most nuclear plants in the nation hire private security guards to protect the facilities. NRC boosted requirements for these guards in 2003 but not to the point where they would be able to repel a dozen or more heavily armed, well-trained attackers, Musegaas said. The exact level of force, however, is classified. So it is impossible to say with certainty what requirements have been imposed.</p>

<p>n April, the General Accountability Office released a report that gave mixed reviews to nuclear power security. The report, requested by Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4, found that since 2003 a number of concrete steps had been taken to buttress the plants against potential terrorist attacks.</p>

<p>It found that buffer zones had been augmented where possible, barriers thickened and detection equipment installed or upgraded.</p>

<p>Security forces were enlarged and armed with new weapons.</p>

<p>However, GAO said it was too early to claim victory since less than half of the 65 sites overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had undergone “force-on-force” exercises intended to test security.</p>

<p>Moreover, GAO found gaps in security at some of the sites inspected.</p>

<p>“The bottom line is, our nuclear security facilities are safer thanks to some security upgrades, but they are still not safe,” said Shays, chairman of the House Government Reform subcommittee on national security. “I will continue to shine the spotlight on this issue until we feel certain nuclear facilities are capable of protecting their reactors from attack.” The subcommittee has held five hearings on nuclear security since 2004.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_4315113[/url]”>http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_4315113&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

196

<p><a href=“http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/inside/attacks.html[/url]”>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/inside/attacks.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Several days after the millennium celebrations, President Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, announced that in the weeks before the New Year, law enforcement had disrupted terrorist cells “in eight countries and attacks were almost certainly prevented.” He didn’t give details, but FRONTLINE has compiled the following list from intelligence sources and press reports:</p>

<p>Acting on tips from U.S. authorities, Jordanian police arrested members of a cell planning attacks against Western tourists, including blowing up a large hotel in Amman, Jordan. A key member of this cell escaped but was later captured and is now serving a life sentence in Jordan. He was Raed Hijazi, a Boston taxi driver and American citizen who trained at bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan and who has recently been linked to the Sept. 11 attackers.</p>

<p>Five armed members of the Harakat ul-Mujahidin organization (HUM), an Islamic militant group based in Kashmir, hijacked an Indian Airlines plane with 155 passengers. One passenger was killed. The plane was held by the hijackers one week in Afghanistan before the hostages were freed in exchange for the release of imprisoned pro-Kashmiri militants held in India. The hijackers were allowed to escape to Pakistan. HUM is on the U.S. government’s list of terrorist organizations. It is ideologically linked to Al Qaeda because one of its leaders signed Osama bin Laden’s anti-America fatwah.</p>

<p>Terrorists failed in a planned attack against the American warship USS The Sullivans while it was refueling in Yemen. Information about the plot came from a suspect arrested after the successful attack on the USS Cole on Oct. 12, 2000. The suspect told Yemeni investigators an attack months earlier – and almost identical to the Cole bombing – had failed when the first assault boat became overloaded with explosives and sank. The attack was planned to be timed to the millennium.</p>

197

<p>^That still didn’t help us on 9/11 or WTC basement in the 90s, KWIM?</p>

198

<p>well, it disputes the idea that clinton did nothing, now doesn’t it</p>

<p>and REL, when Bush said in public several times he didn’t care much about Bin Laden, was he lying to us? or was he telling the truth because he disbanded the group trying to catch him?</p>

199

<p>FF:
Offhand I can recall two plots foiled during the Clinton administration: the Millenium Plot to blow up LAX and Project Bojnka to explode ten aircraft simultaneously.
The leaders of the first WTC bombing were arrested and convicted. Four perpetrators of the Kenyan embssy bombings were arrested. The Leaders of the Khobar Towers bombing are in Saudi custody (has Pres. Bush arranged for their interrogation by U.S. officials? Has Yemen increased its level of co-operation re: the Cole?)</p>

200

<p>Can anyone explain why Sandy Berger escaped serious prison time for the theft and destruction of items from the National Archives? I can’t. I’m there a lot. If I had done what he did, I would not be able to post on CC right now, that’s for sure.</p>