Author |
Topic: NY Times: Homeland Security (?) (Read 234 times) |
|
paulc
New Board Newbie
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Gender: 
Posts: 1
|
 |
NY Times: Homeland Security (?)
« on: Aug 20th, 2006, 11:36pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Something to think about:
Published: August 20, 2006
Ever since British intelligence did such a masterly job in rounding up terrorists intent on blowing up airliners, the Bush administration has relentlessly tried to divert attention from the disintegration in Iraq and focus instead on its supposed prowess in protecting our country against terrorist attacks. That ploy ought not to wash. While the administration has been pouring its energies and money into Iraq, it has fallen far behind on steps needed to protect the homeland.
You would not know that from listening to the president or other top officials in recent days. In a tour of the National Counterterrorism Center in Virginia last week, President Bush declared that “America is safer than it has been” and assured Americans that “we’re doing everything in our power to protect you.”
If only that were so. The sad truth is that while some important steps have been taken to harden our defenses against terrorist attacks, gaping holes remain in our security net.
For starters, consider aviation, where billions have been spent to improve airline and airport security, with only middling results. The likelihood that terrorists will be able to hijack passenger jets as they did on 9/11 has been greatly reduced by hardening cockpit doors, arming pilots on some routes and placing many more air marshals on flights. The screening of all passengers, their carry-on bags and their checked luggage has also made it much harder to smuggle standard bombs or metallic weapons aboard.
But there is still no system to detect liquid explosives, a shocking deficiency more than a decade after terrorists were caught preparing to use such explosives to bring down a dozen airliners over the Pacific Ocean. The installation of “puffer” machines to detect trace explosives is lagging, and a program to integrate explosive-detection machines into the automated baggage conveyor systems at airports will not be finished, at the current pace of spending, for another 18 years.
Very little of the commercial air cargo that is carried aboard planes is screened or inspected, mostly because neither the shippers nor the airlines want to disrupt this lucrative flow of business. There is still no unified watch list to alert airlines to potentially dangerous passengers, and a prescreening program that would match airline passengers against terrorist watch lists remains stuck in development. All this in the industry that has received the most lavish attention since 9/11.
Even worse gaps remain in other areas. Port security relies primarily on certifying that cargo shipments are safe before they are loaded on freighters headed for this country. Only a small percentage of containers are screened once they hit our shores, raising the fearsome possibility that a nuclear or biological weapon might be smuggled in and detonated here.
Programs to keep dangerous nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union out of the hands of terrorists through greater security are moving so slowly that it will take another 14 years to complete the job. This is reckless beyond belief when nuclear terrorism is the most frightening prospect of all.
On the industrial front, the nation’s chemical plants, perhaps the most lethal and vulnerable of all our manufacturing complexes, remain dangerously underdefended, mostly because the government has been unwilling to compel private industry to take action. A new tamper-proof identification card for workers in the far-flung transportation industry has yet to be issued.
The leaders of the 9/11 commission issued a final report last December analyzing how well the administration and Congress had done in carrying out the commission’s 41 recommendations. They awarded only one A minus (for disrupting terrorist financing), a batch of B’s and C’s, and a dozen D’s in such critical areas as reforming intelligence oversight, assessing infrastructure vulnerabilities and sharing information among government agencies. A failure to share intelligence allowed the 9/11 terrorists to succeed despite advance hints of their presence and intentions.
The commission awarded five failing grades, the most serious of them for Washington’s failure to allocate homeland security funds based on risk. Even after moderate tinkering with the formulas this year, greedy legislators from states that face little danger continue to siphon off funds that would be better used to protect New York, Washington and other large cities likely to hold the greatest attraction for terrorists.
Almost everyone agrees that the administration has taken some important steps toward greater security, but as the leaders of the 9/11 commission recently commented, it has not made the issue a top priority. The long, costly, chaotic occupation of Iraq, though touted as a front line of the war on terror, has actually sapped energy, resources and top-level attention that would be better applied to the real threat, a terrorist attack on the homeland.
|
|
 IP Logged |
Paul C
|
|
|
BMoneeTheMoneeMan
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
In remembrance of KingCazman. RIP
Posts: 2082
|
|
Re: NY Times: Homeland Security (?)
« Reply #1 on: Aug 21st, 2006, 10:35am » |
Quote Modify
|
This must be from the page entitled "duh"
|
|
IP Logged |
"Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool - can't get fooled again"
Think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half the population is stupider than that.
|
|
|
Charlie
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
Happy to be here
    
Gender:
Posts: 14968
|
|
Re: NY Times: Homeland Security (?)
« Reply #2 on: Aug 21st, 2006, 5:11pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Not to worry kids.
Chartoff is charge and the occupiers have seen to it that places like Indianapolis and other midwest hotbeds of terrorist activity have gotten big boosts in cash from Homeland Security.
There really is no way yet to thoroughly screen ports. Too much there all the time to do it yet. I hope we develop a better way it but it better be soon. These people have only one wish for us and it won't go away, just be held down a bit if we're lucky. Someone will say someday that terrorism is now down to an "acceptable" level. Sad but true.
Charlie
|
|
IP Logged |
There is nothing more satisfying than being shot at without result---Winston Churchill
|
|
|
zwibbs/Scott
New Board Hall of Famer
Stay Strong !!!
Gender:
Posts: 2206
|
|
Re: NY Times: Homeland Security (?)
« Reply #3 on: Aug 21st, 2006, 5:28pm » |
Quote Modify
|
The New York Times ??? You're kidding ----right ?
|
|
IP Logged |
There's always light at the end of the Tunnel.
|
|
|
Callico
New Board Hall of Famer
Proud Dad of a US Marine!
Gender:
Posts: 1395
|
|
Re: NY Times: Homeland Security (?)
« Reply #4 on: Aug 22nd, 2006, 4:44pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Is this the same NY Times that has done every thing in its power to expose all of the intelligence gathering sources we have while criticizing the Bush administration of not doing enough to find out what the terrorists are doing?
Is it the same NY Times that criticized screening of baggage as a violation of privacy?
Is it the same NY Times that has criticized the use of lists of suspected names as profiling?
I could go on with their inconsistancy, but it is a waste time. Maybe this is one of the reasons their circulation is falling to the point they are having to close printing plants and lay off people. For sure they don't need to worry about being on the target list. One does not attack ones allies.
Jerry
|
|
IP Logged |
"When He acts on the left, I cannot behold Him; He turns on the right I cannot see Him. But He knows the way that I take; when He has tried me I shall come forth as gold." Job23:9,10
|
|
|
Charlie
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
Happy to be here
Gender:
Posts: 14968
|
|
Re: NY Times: Homeland Security (?)
« Reply #5 on: Aug 22nd, 2006, 5:26pm » |
Quote Modify
|
There is an old truism that pops up all the time when things are going badly for the administration:
Having a tough time with war/policy/or other really iffy thing? Not going well? No problem: Bomb the press. Nothing is ever our fault.
Charlie
|
|
IP Logged |
There is nothing more satisfying than being shot at without result---Winston Churchill
|
|
|
Jonny
CH.com Alumnus
New Board Hall of Famer
Give me a shovel Ill dig my own grave!
Gender:
Posts: 26213
|
|
Re: NY Times: Homeland Security (?)
« Reply #6 on: Aug 22nd, 2006, 9:25pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Homeland security is getting your new profile deleted, Tom, John or WTF your name is 
|
|
IP Logged |
It is up to YOU to educate yourself and then help your doctor plan your treatment. If you just sit down in front of your doctor and say "make me better" you are setting yourself up for a great deal of pain.
- Guiseppi
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Member Map
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
test rss