Subway attack?

[Raiders Army]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9614242/

New York to be alerted to possible attack

Updated: 5:40 p.m. ET Oct. 6, 2005
NEW YORK - Police were preparing Thursday to warn subway riders of an unspecified threat to the subway system, NBC reported. Sources told NBC that the information came from a single informant of varying credibility.

Meanwhile, authorities were increasing security on the city’s subway system, a law enforcement official said.

The official, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity in advance of an official announcement, said the threat is “specific to place, time and method.”

“Obviously, this is a significant threat,” said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

The informant said operatives would try to smuggle explosives onto the New York train system — possibly in baby carriages — in an imitation of the London and Madrid attacks, several sources told NBC.

Some officials told NBC News that they doubt the credibility of the threat. The source has apparently given some accurate information in the past, and some inaccurate, and there are reasons, they say, to doubt this new information.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

Nonetheless, because the source gave a specific time for the planned attacks — the second week in October — New York police had decided to make some of this information public and ask riders to be vigilant.

There are no plans to raise the terror threat level

[Raiders Army]

Does anyone ever wonder if the government issues these "warnings" and they don't know it will happen, but it will prevent them?

[sachmo71]

gha

[Klinglerware]

single informant of varying credibility

What does that mean, exactly?

[Raiders Army]

Dunno but according to MSNBC on TV, the source has given pretty exact information as to when and where.

[Logan]

Not to get off topic, but for any of my fellow NYC'ers, does anyone know what was going on yesterday (Wednesday) at around 2 PM in Midtown? I was walking to Port Authority when a never-ending line of NYPD cars came flying down 42nd St in the direction of Grand Central with lights and sirens on. There had to have been at least 25-30 cars.

[kcchief19]

And also has a history of inaccurate information, and apparently there are reasons to doubt the veracity of this information. Where are they getting this, a psychic?

[HomerJSimpson]

The New York Police Department is investigating what it deems a credible tip that 19 operatives have been deployed to the city to place bombs in the subway, and security in the subways will be increased, sources told ABC News.

While the police department is taking the threat seriously, it is also urging the public not to be alarmed because – while the source is credible – the information has not been verified.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said this was the most specifically detailed threat made against the subway system, and he urged New Yorkers to be vigilant.

"I wanted to assure New Yorkers that we have done and will continue to do everything we can to protect the city," Bloomberg said. "We will spare no resource. We will spare no expense."

According to sources in intelligence, emergency services and police headquarters, when three Iraqi insurgents were arrested several days ago during a raid by a joint FBI-CIA team, one of those caught disclosed the threat. Because it slipped out during the arrest, the plot was deemed credible.

After several days of work, sources said, the NYPD is increasingly concerned because it has been unable to discredit the initial source and additional information from the source.

The 19 operatives were to place improvised explosive devices in the subways using briefcases, according to two sources. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said officers will continue to check bags, briefcases and strollers, and additional uniformed and undercover officers will be riding in individual subway cars.


Increased Security
The police are deploying additional officers, dogs and heavy weapons teams in subways and commuter rail terminals, sources said.

Department of Homeland Security sources told ABC News they are very doubtful the threat information is credible, though NYPD sources said the information continues to come in and is disturbing.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told The Associated Press, "Obviously, this is a significant threat."

Mark Marshon, assistant director in charge of the New York office of the FBI, said the investigation has helped stop the plans. "The encouraging news is that classified operations have in fact partially disrupted this threat," he said.

Bloomberg added that he will continue to ride the subways.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

Bloomberg added that he will continue to ride the subways.

I saw a piece on him on TV last night where FOX news interviewed some dudes in Harlem. The dude said he had seen Bloomberg in Harlem many times (I forget what the whole deal was), so I can assume that he rides the subway...I guess.

[JimboJ]

Whenever I hear one of these warnings, I picture the terrorists sitting there saying "Guess we won't do that this week. We'll have to wait a few weeks until everyone has forgotten about the warning."

[Easy Mac]

I guess a Jared joke would be obtuse right now, wouldn't it?

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by JimboJ

Whenever I hear one of these warnings, I picture the terrorists sitting there saying "Guess we won't do that this week. We'll have to wait a few weeks until everyone has forgotten about the warning."

That's what I hate about public warnings like this too. If they know when and where, why not do it secretly and catch 19 bad guys, instead of just saving them the trobule of even trying... and then they'll try again later?

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

That's what I hate about public warnings like this too. If they know when and where, why not do it secretly and catch 19 bad guys, instead of just saving them the trobule of even trying... and then they'll try again later?

What if the info turns out to be "close" (right time, wrong station) and 100 people die in a bombing? Would you want to be the one who knew you probably could have prevented the whole thing from even happening?

And if their source is reliable, they must have some insight into who these person(s) are, and try to track them down quietly.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

What if the info turns out to be "close" (right time, wrong station) and 100 people die in a bombing? Would you want to be the one who knew you probably could have prevented the whole thing from even happening?

And if their source is reliable, they must have some insight into who these person(s) are, and try to track them down quietly.

That's the problem, right there.

This is a no win thing for the government. If they give the warning and nothing happens, they are idiots. If they have information about a possible bombing and don't give the warning, the conspiracy buffs will have a field day.

There is not right/wrong way to handle this IMO. I think that if they feel a thread is credible, they need to do exactly what they are doing now, announce it and hope. Not announcing it and watching hundreds (if not thousands) of people dying is just too big of a risk.

[st.cronin]

After 9-11 all my anxieties and irrational fears were about subway attacks. I can't think of anything more horrifying.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by TroyF

There is not right/wrong way to handle this IMO. I think that if they feel a thread is credible, they need to do exactly what they are doing now, announce it and hope. Not announcing it and watching hundreds (if not thousands) of people dying is just too big of a risk.

Agreed. And being a daily train and subway rider, i'd prefer they err on the side of safety.

[Solecismic]

At this point, it just seems the timing is suspect. Bush gives a speech on Iraq, and in the afternoon the government scares us with a terrorist threat. Bush wants us to associate Iraq with terrorism.

If this were a real threat, it seems beyond daft to warn the 19 people that we're on to them.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

At this point, it just seems the timing is suspect. Bush gives a speech on Iraq, and in the afternoon the government scares us with a terrorist threat. Bush wants us to associate Iraq with terrorism.

If this were a real threat, it seems beyond daft to warn the 19 people that we're on to them.

So you believe Bush (or his cronies) set up this warning intentionally?

I'm just curious here Jim. What purpose would this serve? To gain a few popularity points after a speech only 20% (and that's being generous) of the population even heard or knew about?

I'm not going to shoot down the theory. Maybe you are dead on accurate here. But no matter how much Bush pisses me off sometimes, I can't for the life of me believe he's really that dumb.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

At this point, it just seems the timing is suspect. Bush gives a speech on Iraq, and in the afternoon the government scares us with a terrorist threat. Bush wants us to associate Iraq with terrorism.

If this were a real threat, it seems beyond daft to warn the 19 people that we're on to them.

There is always the possibility that we, as someone else mentioned, don't really know much about it and are making the announcement to scare the people off. The real tragedy is that the adminstration has made us so cynical that we even suspect that the alert is just a political farce.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

At this point, it just seems the timing is suspect. Bush gives a speech on Iraq, and in the afternoon the government scares us with a terrorist threat. Bush wants us to associate Iraq with terrorism.

If this were a real threat, it seems beyond daft to warn the 19 people that we're on to them.

Sorry Jim, but that's just stupid.

And to be honest, if it wasn't you writing this post, my language would have been very different.

[Rizon]

The sheep are gonna be screwed one of these days.

[JimboJ]

I think the government gets reports of threats like this every day. Did they just happen to make this one public to coincide with Bush's speech, or was this one more credible than all the others? We have no way of knowing the answer to that.

The problem is if you make every threat like this public, eventually you start to sound like the boy who cried wolf, and people stop paying attention. So you have some threshold where the info becomes so credible that you have to make it public.

I think a good rule of thumb to follow is, if you take public transportation, you should be alert for suspicious activity every day, whether there is a specific terror threat or not.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by TroyF

That's the problem, right there.

This is a no win thing for the government. If they give the warning and nothing happens, they are idiots. If they have information about a possible bombing and don't give the warning, the conspiracy buffs will have a field day.

There is not right/wrong way to handle this IMO. I think that if they feel a thread is credible, they need to do exactly what they are doing now, announce it and hope. Not announcing it and watching hundreds (if not thousands) of people dying is just too big of a risk.

Originally Posted by JimboJ

I think the government gets reports of threats like this every day. Did they just happen to make this one public to coincide with Bush's speech, or was this one more credible than all the others? We have no way of knowing the answer to that.

The problem is if you make every threat like this public, eventually you start to sound like the boy who cried wolf, and people stop paying attention. So you have some threshold where the info becomes so credible that you have to make it public.

These two posts sum up my feelings fairly well. The government has backed themselves into a corner- they have to both cover their ass yet not sound like the boy who cried wolf. It's a lose/lose. Then again, you could treat it like us in flyover country (sign: "No Terror Attacks Since 1995" with the 1995 on a card that can be changed whenever)- "Ho hum, that's so cute. Another terror alert that's nowhere near us".

That said, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Jim so quickly. I'm not saying it's happening but you people act like it's not possible that a politician would play with money or lives for their own gain. I remember seeing a chart put together a while back showing median approval rating with terror alerts also on the map and every time a terror alert was issued, without fail, he gets a few point bump. There's an unpopular Supreme Court nominee, need a little bump in popularity for a lame duck President to help secure his legacy... again, I'm not saying it's absolutely happening but this isn't a "very small but non-zero chance" scenario- it seems possible.

SI

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

There is always the possibility that we, as someone else mentioned, don't really know much about it and are making the announcement to scare the people off. The real tragedy is that the adminstration has made us so cynical that we even suspect that the alert is just a political farce.

Is that the doing of the administration or the media or political opponents or all of the above?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Is that the doing of the administration or the media or political opponents or all of the above?

Remind me, which one is the pure political apparatus that lied to start a war?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Logan

Sorry Jim, but that's just stupid.

And to be honest, if it wasn't you writing this post, my language would have been very different.

Why is it stupid? I think this administration has earned a little cynicism lately.

And, yes, I know a lot of this is politics as usual. I guess I'm just particularly fed up with Bush using terror threats like it's his own personal swiss army knife of issues.

If this were a real threat, the last thing authorities would do is provide details to civilians.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Remind me, which one is the pure political apparatus that lied to start a war?

None of the above (to answer your question) and you still haven't answered my question.

[NoMyths]

It was a hoax.

Report: Informant Admits Subway Threat Was Hoax

NBC: "NEW YORK -- The informant who sparked last week's New York City subway threat alert has admitted it was a hoax, CNN reported Tuesday.

"The network reported that the informant admitted providing false information.

"The informant had claimed that al-Qaida operatives in Iraq were plotting to attack the city's subways using baby strollers packed with remote-controlled explosives. The reported threat said the attacks could occur as early as last Friday.

"Authorities said earlier the interrogation of three suspects arrested by U.S. forces in Iraq has so far produced no information to corroborate a possible threat.

"New York City's heightened subway security will slowly scale back to what it was before officials announced the supposed subway bombing threat last week.

"New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly stressed that police will continue random bag searches in the subways that began in response to the bombings on the London transit system."

[Raiders Army]

That's bogus. The guy who did this should be put in jail. Misinformation I can understand, but a hoax?

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

It was a hoax.

Report: Informant Admits Subway Threat Was Hoax

NBC: "NEW YORK -- The informant who sparked last week's New York City subway threat alert has admitted it was a hoax, CNN reported Tuesday.

Hang him by the balls in Times Square for being such a nimrod.

[flere-imsaho]

Didn't they learn anything from "Curve Ball"?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

That's bogus. The guy who did this should be put in jail. Misinformation I can understand, but a hoax?

Absolutely. The hoax reduces the ability for people to be on alert. He should probably get a few years for this so others don't follow suit.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Absolutely. The hoax reduces the ability for people to be on alert. He should probably get a few years for this so others don't follow suit.

But, if the guy was an insurgent-type who was going to be put away anyway, he probably had little to lose and a lot to gain by causing a little mischief. He might have cost the City of New York several million dollars...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

But, if the guy was an insurgent-type who was going to be put away anyway, he probably had little to lose and a lot to gain by causing a little mischief. He might have cost the City of New York several million dollars...

Good point. But whatever they do, don't put him in Guantanamo. Send him to some shit-hole like Abu-Graib.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Why is it stupid? I think this administration has earned a little cynicism lately.

And, yes, I know a lot of this is politics as usual. I guess I'm just particularly fed up with Bush using terror threats like it's his own personal swiss army knife of issues.

If this were a real threat, the last thing authorities would do is provide details to civilians.

Didn't we discuss the last line above?

I don't think it's so open and shut what the authorities would do, especially in a situation where thousands of lives can be impacted.

Cynicism? Fine. Have at it. But thinking they are making crap up to scare us because he gave a speech that morning that 80% of the nation doesn't even know took place to this day? Sorry, I'm still not buying that one.