The terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland has continued to "evolve" and may now "be at its most heightened state" since the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told members of Congress on Wednesday.
There is an increased reliance on recruiting Westerners into terrorist organizations, she told the House Homeland Security Committee. State and local law enforcement officers are increasingly needed to combat terror, and the focus must be on aiding law enforcement to help them secure communities, she said.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/09/terror....tml?hpt=T2
What scares the hell out of me is the last sentence.
The policeman is your friend.
What if local law enforcement is recruited? :?
I'm sure it's only coincidence that this announcement came the morning after the House voted not to extend the Patriot Act.
Meh, this is just because they lost the vote on some of the supposedly temporary provisions of the Patriot Act the other day.
Edit: the good Pastor has beaten me to it.
I thought all that happened was that it was knocked off the fast-track, not voted down. Don't they still have the majority to extend it?
Quote from: Khara on February 09, 2011, 08:05:02 PM
What if local law enforcement is recruited? :?
Ask yourself why communities would need to be secured. What type of communities? Probably not the white upper class communities.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 09, 2011, 08:26:01 PM
Quote from: Khara on February 09, 2011, 08:05:02 PM
What if local law enforcement is recruited? :?
Ask yourself why communities would need to be secured. What type of communities? Probably not the white upper class communities.
Need I remind you where I live? :lulz:
Oh they will "Secure" my fucking neighborhood, I can guarantee it. With a quickness that will make even the crackheads heads spin.
1. If there had been any change in policy, there would've been a paper published. Same policies as previous will guide the current response, in the highly unlikely event that something happened.
2. You wouldn't be "secured" at all. You'd be left to fend for yourselves, while things which are actually important, ie; critical infrastructure, are secured.
3. It is almost certain that international terrorists would attack either a) New York, or b) Washington DC, or c) LA, or d) Miami or e) Chicago. Any effects outside of those areas are likely to be minimal at best, both in terms of the attack itself and the response.
It seems this was about domestic terrorism. Maybe I'm wrong. If I am right it would be easy to imagine a predominately Arab community being secured.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 09, 2011, 08:24:49 PM
I thought all that happened was that it was knocked off the fast-track, not voted down. Don't they still have the majority to extend it?
You're right. It's not a done deal yet, and I expect it will be renewed in the end. The thing yesterday had to pass by 2/3 majority, but didn't, to Boehner's apparent surprise.
Not especially. The cops in my town are bored as shit, mostly (we have one, very small ghetto area, but the rest of the town is really boring, to the point that they did a legit investigation when there was a streak of petty thefts on my street, which is in a working class neighborhood), and the cops in the City, such as it is, are waaay too busy to take time to mess with any of this. The only way to get a City cop to you in a decent time period is to tell them there's a gun involved. "Securing" the bad part of the City would take too many people and too much time from other things.
And, as Cain said, we're not a likely target and things like the dam are gonna be secured long before this hellhole.
Where/what is all this "local terrorism" that needs to be combated then?
Quote from: Triple Zero on February 10, 2011, 06:03:14 PM
Where/what is all this "local terrorism" that needs to be combated then?
There's the multi-billion dollar question. It's right there in budget justification.