Sen. Charles Schumer to Bush: Avoid NYC!

[Hudson Boy]

Outrage throughout NYC over federal security fund cuts

By LARRY McSHANE
Associated Press Writer

June 1, 2006, 8:16 PM EDT

NEW YORK -- From the top of the Empire State Building to the torch at the Statue of Liberty, New York is a city defined by its spectacular landmarks. Ask any of the 41 million tourists who visited last year.

Just don't ask officials at Homeland Security. To them, the city is devoid of national monuments or icons and undeserving of an increase in anti-terrorism funding _ perplexing news that left angry New York politicians attacking the president and demanding that Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff step down.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., charged that the Bush administration had "declared war on New York" with its decision to slash anti-terrorist funding by $83 million _ a 40 percent cut _ while increases went to cities like Jacksonville, Fla., Louisville, Ky., and Omaha, Neb.

"I'm not begrudging any other city, but why would you cut the No. 1 target in the country by 40 percent?" said King, who demanded an investigation. "How can you possibly justify that?"

King and other lawmakers challenged the process used to decide New York's funding level. Federal officials used panels made up of state and local security experts who evaluated the risks in each city before distributing dollars.

Sen. Charles Schumer on Thursday advised President Bush to avoid the city until the administration comes up with some more money to keep New York safe.

"This is wrong and unfair, but also outrageous," Schumer said. "The bottom line is this is abandoning New York."

The slashing of funds comes less than five years after the terrorist attack that killed 2,749 people at the World Trade Center, and just a week after a Pakistani immigrant was convicted of conspiring to blow up the subway station at Herald Square.

The busy transportation hub sits below another non-landmark _ Macy's flagship store, one of the world's most popular shopping destinations.

The angry voices were heard clearly in Washington, where Chertoff defended his agency's finding that New York had no national monuments or icons. Historic sites like the Empire State Building and the Brooklyn Bridge were included on lists involving transportation and commerce, Chertoff said.

Chertoff, in a speech at a Washington think tank, said the funding kept with the city's average grant amounts in the years since Sept. 11. And he snapped back at those, including Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y., who called for his resignation.

"Attacking the secretary personally or threatening the secretary is not a way to drive funding decisions," said Chertoff, who was savaged by the New York tabloids.

An editorial cartoon in the Daily News compared him with infamous traitor Benedict Arnold. "Terror? What Terror?" asked a mocking front page headline in the New York Post.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg was less militant, although he questioned what was happening in Washington.

"I don't have to list the Brooklyn Bridge, the United Nations and Rockefeller Center and the Statue of Liberty and Empire State Building and the Stock Exchange," Bloomberg said. "So you really wonder what was going through somebody's mind."

An assortment of terror plots targeting city landmarks have come up since the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. The subways are often mentioned for terrorist activity, while other schemes mentioned the United Nations, the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, and the federal building housing local FBI offices.

Times Square remains such a target that former New York FBI head Jim Kallstrom advised revelers to stay home rather than show up there to celebrate the new millennium.

NYPD officials said the drastic slash in federal funding ignored the city's uncomfortable position as the top target for terrorists to strike. The department was depending on the federal money to:

_ Finance an $81.5 million proposal to safeguard Lower Manhattan and parts of midtown with a surveillance "ring of steel" modeled after security measures in London's financial district.

_ Pay half of the $200 million annual cost of heavily armored patrols _ called Operation Atlas _ and other ongoing security measures, including protection for the nation's largest mass transit system.

_ Provide $38 million for counterterrorism training and equipment, like biological and radioactive detection devices.

One out-of-towner visiting the Empire State Building on Thursday had no problem with the federal cutbacks.

"At some point, you have to stop pouring in money," said George Kent, 77, of Reno, Nev. "I think the national treasury needs the money."

___P>

Associated Press writers Devlin Barrett, Sara Kugler, Lara Jakes Jordan, Desmond Butler and Tom Hays contributed to this report.


Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.

Anti-terrorismCuts

[Dr Dave]

Well, Secretary Chertoff, it's like this: If you act like you're stupid (New York City has "no national icons and monuments"), people are gonna call ya stupid. It's a shame, I know. And I'm in total agreement with upping Omaha, Nebraska's annual take to $8.5 million. After all, Warren Buffet lives there! He's practically a national treasure!

[Gary Sisco]

The real reason is because the word security has become a euphimism for uncontrolled executive-branch statism in the US. That is, it's not about security at all.

New York *is* a national icon for christ sake.

The other factor is idiocy, of course, and that factor must always be accounted for in US power circles.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Gary

The real reason is because the word security has become a euphimism for uncontrolled executive-branch statism in the US.

Yes, I can hear the jackboots marching up and down my street.

No national landmarks? There's the Blue Note, Half Note, The Village Vanguard, etc. {I reckon they're still happening. If not, there must be a few JAZZistheonlytrueamerican art form clubs still in existence.}

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Yes, I can hear the jackboots marching up and down my street.

They're not in the street, Scott. That costs money. They're just on the phone and in your e-mail. But since you're a fine upstanding American, you have nothing to worry about, and people who do worry about it must, by definition, have something to hide, and are therefore probably not fine upstanding Americans, and deserve all the surveillance they get.

[Scott Dolan]

Yes, I know. They collect the records of who I call. Yours too.

It's all incredibly frightening.

Tell me, Finch. What will they do with them?

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Yes, I know. They collect the records of who I call. Yours too.

It's all incredibly frightening.

Tell me, Finch. What will they do with them?

Nothing, Scott. Nothing at all. It's not about you, and it's not about me. It's about ordinary Americans with Arabic last names; Quakers; ACLU members, etc. I know you don't care about them, and I'm sorry I bothered to bring this up at all.

[Scott Dolan]

So in other words you have no idea.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

So in other words you have no idea.

That's right, Scott. I have no idea.

[Scott Dolan]

I love how the intelligencia becomes condescending and indignant when they really don't have a solid answer.

It's outrageous because it's outrageous. That's probably the number one lesson I've learned from all the fine folk here over the years.

I just need to learn to let my imagination run wild every now and then.

You know, it's funny. They are combing through our e-mails, so they must be reading all of our posts here, correct?

Hey Cheney, fuck you. hee hee

[Dr Dave]

Yeah! Hey Cheney, EAT ME!

[Monte Smith]

Do you guys realize that a duck-calling ventriloquist could get Dick Cheney to shoot anybody? The man's a walking Manchurian candidate.

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Yes, I know. They collect the records of who I call. Yours too.

What will they do with them?

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

I have no idea.

Which is exactly why it's a problem.

[Al in NYC]

Oh, and the so-called Homeland Security Department has been used from minute one for pork, which is the main thing those folks now running our country stand for.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

Which is exactly why it's a problem.

Can you expand on this?

Because it's just as easy for me to say that's why it isn't a problem.

[sonic1]

Scott,

My solid answer to the privacy issue is that if you set a precedent that it is ok to spy on americans the way they are doing it, then you are removing a protection. That means you have to take Bush's word for it that he is not doing anything sinister with that information/access. Whether you trust Bush or not, it is quite possible and foreseeable in the future that there will be a president you do not trust. So no matter what your political leaning, you should be concerned.

History has shown many examples where rights were worn away in this manner, seemingly inconsequential at first, then sloping into something really bad. That is why we have all these protections, laws, constitutions, etc. And when someone comes along and supposed that those laws don't apply to them, no matter what their intent is, they are undermining the rule of law. And Bush has done that on an extremely unprecedented level, threatening the very meaning of the rule of law, as it applies to presedential powers.

I am not necessarily worried about them tapping my phones on a personal level (though maybe I need to rethink that). I am worried about the gall that the administration has in its aggresive ruling techniques and insubordinate relation to the people they are supposed to represent. Their attitude toward the country is sort of like, "why do I need to answer to you? Quit bugging me!"

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Jared

My solid answer to the privacy issue is that if you set a precedent that it is ok to spy on americans the way they are doing it, then you are removing a protection. That means you have to take Bush's word for it that he is not doing anything sinister with that information/access. Whether you trust Bush or not, it is quite possible and foreseeable in the future that there will be a president you do not trust. So no matter what your political leaning, you should be concerned.

You're telling me things here I already thoroughly understand.

What my question is, is what can they do with your phone records?

I tend to shy away from the whole slippery slope theory when it comes to all things political mostly because they are normally extreme and ridiculous(for example, Republicans pondering where legalization of gay marriage would lead, i.e. four or five people all being married, humans marrying animals, etc.). So that part I won't debate. We could all let our imaginations run wild and cook up shit that would Philip Dick books look like Fun With Dick And Jane.

As I've already stated before, the government has told us they've been spying on us in various forms since the 1940's. But what has truly come of it? Here's another question. The government spies on you, yet does absolutely nothing with whatever information they come up with. Have your civil liberties truly been violated?

I am not necessarily worried about them tapping my phones on a personal level

I'm referring to the collection of phone records. Not actual phone tapping.

[sonic1]

Well Scott, if phone tapping or collecting phone records is no big deal, then why cannot we all have the freedom to tap each others' phones?

Shit, if it ain't such a big deal, then why cannot just anyone tap phones or let just anyone have those records?

It is a simple invasion of privacy, a way of collecting information on a person that would otherwise be private, and can be used to bribe the person, or to gauge their economic habits, or...jesus, do I have to really write out all the scenerios? There is a lot of harmful things that can result from collecting private information on people via tapping phones, or from assessing calling habits of americans.

Scott, if the slippery slope argument is too pedestrian for you, or too theoretical, then how about the friggin rule of law? Does rule of law not apply to the office of president? Can a president abuse and ignore the rule of law as aggregiously as Bush jr. and not cause irrepareble damage to the office? Can a president just undermine the controls, checks and balances as this president has, and not damage the rule of law?

To me he has metaphorically taken a pretty nice town with a few roads to navigate, and ran a tractor amiss making roads just to suit his own needs, thus rendering the town uglier than before, and the purposes of the roads he uses will be found applicable for other uses which may or may not be good for the town. Sloppy metaphor, but I hope you get my drift.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Jared

Well Scott, if phone tapping or collecting phone records is no big deal, then why cannot we all have the freedom to tap each others' phones?

Again, I'm not talking about wiretapping. That and collecting phone records are two incredibly different things.

Shit, if it ain't such a big deal, then why cannot just anyone tap phones or let just anyone have those records?

Probably for the same reason that not just anyone can legislate/enforce law, control the military, etc.

There is a lot of harmful things that can result from collecting private information on people via tapping phones, or from assessing calling habits of americans.

There's a lot of possibilities when it comes to anything, Jared. There's a possibility that UFO's are real. There's a possibility that Nessie really exists.

Much ado about nothing is all this is. If there are people out there who want to wring their hands and live in fear of what "could" be, more power to them. As for me, I'm heading over to Sbarro's and getting a slice of stuffed pizza.

And I was only kidding everytime I said Republicans were looking in my window.

Oh, and look at the contract you signed when you got your phone turned on. It's all right there in black and white.

[sonic1]

I won't belabor the thread. I just don't feel as confortable as you do about letting the government gather private information on people. Particularly since we really don't know exactly what kind of information they are gathering on us, to what extent, and such. There is no oversight. That is troubling. If indeed what they are doing is so innocuous, then why do they have to be so fucking secretive about it. You cannot argue simultaneously that the information they are gathering on us is not significant, and then turn around and say they cannot tell us the details because it will threaten national security. If what they are doing is no big deal, then why do they obscure and hide the facts about what they are doing.

The fact is, nobody knows exactly what they are doing because they are not telling us, and for us to say what they are doing is or isn't ok is laughable because we don't know what they are doing.

[Scott Dolan]

I wouldn't consider myself "comfortable" with the fact, Jared. I'm just asking questions.

As I said in the other thread we had about the subject, I cannot be outraged simply because I'm supposed to be.

Yes, if this truly were a fascist or dictatorial state, then there would be some cause for concern. But no matter how hard some here try to convince you that it is indeed that type of state, it isn't.

The fact that we can sit here and mindlessly jabber on about this bullshit virutally unchecked(except when Lois steps in for whatever reason)is a great testament to that.

Try doing that in China.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

I wouldn't consider myself "comfortable" with the fact, Jared. I'm just asking questions.

As I said in the other thread we had about the subject, I cannot be outraged simply because I'm supposed to be.

Yes, if this truly were a fascist or dictatorial state, then there would be some cause for concern. But no matter how hard some here try to convince you that it is indeed that type of state, it isn't.

The fact that we can sit here and mindlessly jabber on about this bullshit virutally unchecked(except when Lois steps in for whatever reason)is a great testament to that.

Try doing that in China.

Outraged is a strong word. I am more concerned than outraged, though outrage might be reached when I consider all that has happened as a consequence of Bush running things. And even then, I don't know that 'outraged' is my style. Embarressed, pissed off, annoyed, and impatient for someone new to be in charge would sum it up much better.

I will say that I shoot for something a little higher than what China has going on.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

I wouldn't consider myself "comfortable" with the fact, Jared. I'm just asking questions.

As I said in the other thread we had about the subject, I cannot be outraged simply because I'm supposed to be.

Yes, if this truly were a fascist or dictatorial state, then there would be some cause for concern. But no matter how hard some here try to convince you that it is indeed that type of state, it isn't.

The fact that we can sit here and mindlessly jabber on about this bullshit virutally unchecked(except when Lois steps in for whatever reason)is a great testament to that.

Try doing that in China.

So now we're hysterical because the Feds are collecting data on us without bothering to get into the legal niceties? I admire your rugged-individualist determination to keep your head while others are losing theirs, but you might at least consider this:

Just because you cannot imagine that the Feds can hurt you with the information they collect about you doesn't mean that they can't or won't. And besides, what's next? What will you say if it comes out that the NSA actually is wiretapping without warrants? I'm not saying they are, I'm asking what if?

Oh, wait, I'm sorry...you don't deal in hypotheticals.

My bad.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Finch

Just because you cannot imagine that the Feds can hurt you with the information they collect about you doesn't mean that they can't or won't.

It also doesn't mean they have or they will.

Works out rather nicely, don't you think?