Is the Obama Administration Making New York More Vulnerable to Terrorist Attacks?
posted at 6:40 pm on May 3, 2010 by Howard Portnoy
[ Terrorist Attacks ]
New York dodged a bullet Saturday night—again. The big question going forward is whether the Big Apple will be as lucky next time around.
New York dodged a bullet Saturday night—again. The big question going forward is whether the Big Apple will be as lucky next time around.
Not that luck is what the city needs at this point. The failure of the attempted car bombing in Times Square on Saturday is attributable to the crudeness of the device and possibly to a lack of experience on the part of the perpetrator charged with setting it off. There is no reason to expect that the terrorists won’t learn from their mistakes.
So what can be done to help avert the next attack? One solution would be for the Obama administration to restore the funding that it cut from New York’s anti-terror program. Despite the growing proclivity among terrorists to attempt to launch attacks in subways and on trains and buses, the federal budget for New York’s Transit Security Grant program was shrunk by almost $45 million dollars. That represents a 25 percent cut. Overall, federal funding went from $153.3 million to $110.6 million.
The city’s busy ports are another resource that that need protection, not only to keep the city safe from terrorist threats but to protect other areas of the country that might be vulnerable to attack from weapons sneaked into through a local port. Yet, federal funds for the Port Security Grant Program was also reduced by about 25 percent, from $45 million to $33.8 million.
These budgetary cutbacks are all the more glaring in the face of Washington’s penchant for out-of-control spending these days. Maybe it is time for the president to reorder his priorities. He has enough troubles to contend with without having to worry that the next 9/11 will happen on his watch.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
What makes you think he is worried? His policies have insured that it will happen.
chemman on May 3, 2010 at 8:04 PM
Oh my gosh, Mr. Portnoy….
Does a bear s–t in the woods?
gryphon202 on May 3, 2010 at 8:17 PM
You posed this article as a question so I’ll say yes, but it is because terrorists perceive him as weak. This most recent attack would not have been impeded in any way by the return of those federal funds to the NY budget. Nor would they have prevented the foiled subway plot using TATP that the FBI broke up a few months ago. It was also the FBI that broke up the plot to bomb the airline fuel supply system.
Other areas of the country are under attack too. No amount of money is going to make us all safe from attack unless all liberty is surrendered too.
I have a solution for NYC that will not cost the taxpayers a dime and will enhance security and lower crime. Relax or repeal the ridiculous gun laws in NY and NYC. The citizens there have chosen to disarm themselves by and large. The terrorism planners surely know this and include that fact in their plots.
GnuBreed on May 4, 2010 at 4:51 AM
They cut back funding? Funny, when Bush did that I definitely heard about it in the news. Funny I missed that one this time.
Dave_d on May 4, 2010 at 8:56 AM
Many of our major cities probably need extensive protection, not just NY. Surely all the terrorists are not as dumb as this latest and own maps. Cost? Major problem, along with everything else in this country where we have spent ourselves into some kind of time warp and are holding our collective breaths waiting for the results.
jeanie on May 4, 2010 at 9:25 AM
There is no question that this is true, though neither is there any doubt that so far NY has been their favorite target.
As to the cost, I maintain this is one expenditure that we can’t afford not to make. The administration could easily offset the cost by cutting any number of needless porky programs it has greenlighted.
Howard Portnoy on May 4, 2010 at 11:32 AM
I’m fairly certain they choose NYC because it’s got a population density 71,000 people per square mile. How a citizen having a concealed handgun would prevent a fuel air bomb from going off in the back of a van, I’m not sure.
You are correct it would have a positive effect on crime though, and, in perhaps in certain situations with terrorism.
I’m not sure how relaxed gun laws in a city with this many people crammed onto buses and underground trains would go though, but that’s another discussion.
Heralder on May 4, 2010 at 12:32 PM
Another caught terrorist plotter was aiming at Sears Tower in Chicago. They also have a pretty high population density downtown, particularly during the day. I do agree that NYC will always be an attractive target for a number of reasons, including symbolic. I am not sure that any measure could have prevented the NYC attempt, beyond having this guy under surveillance already.
A person with a concealed weapon may have been able to stop and detain this guy after he jumped out of the SUV and ran, but that is not really the point. Howard says that more federal dollars are the solution, and I contended that those dollars would have made no difference in this case either (or two others over the last year).
Did anyone notice that in a search of Faisal’s car parked at the airport, they found a 9mm handgun and 2 clips? The Fort Hood shooter killed 14 unarmed military personnel before an armed cop put him down.
I referenced the TATP subway bomber plot. TATP explosive cannot be detected by sniffer devices. One solution is to post armed guards at every subway entrance and search every package, container, and person entering ala the airline strategy. No more wrapped Xmas presents! The Detroit airline crotch bomber evaded the security measures with a TATP device. You could also post armed guards on every car of every subway train, I suppose, and that might work — but at what cost? The public transit system is designed to move a lot of people quickly and efficiently; these security measures would wreck that.
Throwing more money at a problem is not always the answer; check out how well that has worked in the performance of public schools. I agree with Howard that our spending priorities are all screwed up. Perhaps increased port security is an important step, but it should then be done nationwide. Terrorists will just use Miami or New Orleans if it is too tough to get stuff in through NYC.
The best defense is a good offense. Attack the trainers, the funders, the abettors, and anyone or any place that is making these attacks possible. Attacks are still going to happen though.
GnuBreed on May 5, 2010 at 12:58 AM
It’s not just New York — Homeland Security funding has been cut across the board, anywhere from 5 to 25%, depending on the jurisdiction. Additionally, in some programs, the jurisdiction is required to provide matching funds; in others, the Fed is requesting a match from the jurisdiction receiving the award. The going rate would be about 20% of the total award — i.e. a jurisdiction receiving $1M would need to provide $200,000 of its own funds toward the proposed project. Chatter has it that, while matching is voluntary for some funding streams this year, it may not be next year. Thus, in jurisdictions where the budgets are already tight, a required match may make it difficult for some, impossible for others.
Requiring a match is supposed to force buy-in from the local jurisdiction, to help ensure that they are spending the money efficiently and wisely. And, with our ever-increasing deficit, it’s understandable that the Fed might want to cut back on grant awards. At the same time, however, DHS is pushing new policy requirements down; technology prices are rising with each advancement; and more personnel are needed. The result is that many jurisdictions — large and small — are scrambling to catch up, with a shortage of resources all around.
ScaryBiscuits on May 6, 2010 at 12:20 PM