Elaine Meinel Supkis
Now we know why the USA withdrew from the Human Rights Commission! Heh.
We are planning to put a bunch of third-world poor people 'on trial' only without
any witnesses, few lawyers who are very intimidated and NO PRESS. These aren't
going to even be Stalinist 'show trials'. These are going to be Nazi-style 'Nacht
und Nebel' trials: in the dark of night and fog.
WASHINGTON, May 31 — After vowing to steer a greater share of anti-terrorism money to the nation's highest-risk cities, Homeland Security officials today announced grants to New York City and Washington that would be slashed by 40 percent, while dollars headed to spots including Omaha and Louisville, Ky., would surge.
The release of the 2006 urban area grant allocations, which total $757 million, drew an immediate condemnation from leaders of Washington and New York, the two targets of the 2001 terrorist attacks, as well as expressions of befuddlement by anti-terrorism experts.
"When you stop a terrorist, they have a map of New York City in their pocket," Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said. "They don't have a map of any of the other 46 or 45 places."
Homeland Security officials said a more sophisticated grant evaluation process—combined with a smaller overall allocation of funds from Congress—were responsible for the unexpected results.
For the first time, they also said, teams of law enforcement officials from around the nation evaluated the effectiveness of the proposed spending plans submitted by the 46 eligible urban areas, cutting grants for cities that had shoddy or poorly articulated plans.
"We want to make sure we are not simply pushing dollars out of Washington," said Tracy Henke, assistant secretary for grants and training. "The reality is you have to understand that there is risk throughout the nation."
The net effect was that the grant to New York City, which was $207.6 million last year, will drop to $124.5 million this year, while Washington will see its grant dollars drop a similar 40 percent, to $46.5 million this year.
Meanwhile, grants for cities like Louisville, Omaha and Charlotte, N.C., each jumped by about 40 percent, to about $8.5 million each. Newark and Jersey City, which received a combined grant, also saw a large increase, rising 44 percent to $34 million.
Representative Peter King, Republican of New York, who is chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said the allocation formula is obviously flawed.
"This is indefensible," he said. "It's a knife in the back to New York and I'm going to do everything I can to make them very sorry they made this decision."
Senior department officials, in explaining the cut in funding for New York during a private briefing for Mr. King, made clear that they were unimpressed with the city's spending plan, he said.
Major pieces of the grant to New York, for example, are spent to cover overtime costs for police officers who are guarding high-risk targets, particular during times of elevated alerts.
"The overtime is not spent on guys sitting around doing crossword puzzles," he said. "They are out defending human life in what is the most aggressive counter terrorism force in the country."
The $757 million in so-called Urban Area Security Initiative grants was just one piece of a larger $1.7 billion pool of grant funds awarded to states today, $500 million less than was available last year and $342 million less than what President Bush had requested that Congress approve.
Overall, New York State will get $183.7 million, which is a 20 percent drop from last year. That means New York State's per capita share of grant funds, which totals $2.78 per person, will drop to an even lower level compared to some rural states, like Wyoming, which will get $14.83 per person this year.
Ms. Henke, who recently took over the office that distributed anti-terrorism grants, said the relative changes in the grant dollars are based on just the kind of detailed analysis of threat and vulnerability that officials in Washington have been calling for in criticizing past awards.
But despite repeated questions from reporters at a news conference today, she would not provide any detailed explanation of why cities like New York and Washington saw such large drops, when other seemingly less high-risk targets saw such an increase in funds.
"It does not mean in any way that the risk in New York is any different or changed or any lower," she said, in responding to one of the many questions on this point. "It means that we have additional information, additional clarity. Our risk analysis has been a maturing process. It is the best we currently have."
The competition for the grants this year kicked off in January when Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that in the fourth year of these awards, which were started after the 2001 attacks, the department would put much more emphasis on directing the money to the most likely possible terrorist targets.
"The department is investing federal funding into our communities facing the greatest risk and demonstrating the greatest need in order to receive the highest return in our nation's security," he said.
