22 Dec 2003 | JF said...

I think the Dept of Homeland Security is doing the best they can under very difficult circumstances. They're probably being overly cautious, but I don't see an alternative in a country as big, exposed, and free as ours.

22 Dec 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Rightly or wrongly, the perception is that they've called wolf too many times, and it's not going to really affect people. Anyway, what can average people really do anyway? Nothing. It's sheer dumb luck, and even if there is an attack this week, the odds of being caught in it are still worse than my being struck by lightning on the way to the airport.

There's one thing that's always bugged me about these alerts though: "Americans are urged to be aware and vigilant." OK, what should we be aware of and vigilant for? We can't tell you. Gee, thanks. I'll be sure to be on the lookout for that.

22 Dec 2003 | Sarah Hatter said...

I think they're doing a pretty good job too, especially considering we *haven't* had any terrorist activity on American soil since 9/11. But I also think the media has spoiled what could have been a very effective safeguard by encouraging mass hysteria.

22 Dec 2003 | JF said...

Rightly or wrongly, the perception is that they've called wolf too many times, and it's not going to really affect people.

There is no way to manage the public perception if you're the Dept. of Homeland Security. You just have to call 'em like you see 'em. If there's chatter, if there's a possible threat, if there's rumblings of something unusual, you have to tell people. If you don't, they'll complain (and revolt and sue and...) that you were withholding information that could have saved lives. If you do tell them, and you tell them "too often," then you're diluting your effectiveness. In the end, you have to do your best to let people know when they need to know. And, hey, who knows -- the terror alerts may have silently prevented an attack or two.

22 Dec 2003 | Mick said...

I think the terrorists are using the color-coding as a weapon itself. They increase their chatter, the level is raised, more money is spent and nerves are rattled.

They get to strike a bit of fear without any real risk, but it will only work so many times.

22 Dec 2003 | Cade Roux said...

It could be argued that we have had more terrorist success on home soil since 9/11 than before - the purpose of terrorists is to pursue a political agenda through instilling fear into general public.

"Patriots" like Bush, Ashcroft and their cronies have certainly ridden OBL's coattails to a successful political future which didn't seem possible prior to 9/11/2001.

Seems they forgot what the revolution was about, while taking away rights our ancestors died to protect. Seems they forgot what being American was about, too, sending our own people to die for oil, money, and billions in contracts. Seems they forgot what being a conservative was about too, while pouring billions down the drain on "security" which experts will tell you is wasted. Seems they forgot what living in a liberal democracy means - being open to debate and truthful in answers.

We're doomed with Dean and the Democrats, too. Where are the leaders we need?

22 Dec 2003 | Cade Roux said...

That's the beauty of homeland security, no one will know if you're successful, and criticism is unpatriotic.

Sounds a lot like keeping your mouth shut so no one will know that you're stupid.

22 Dec 2003 | Darrel said...

It's sheer dumb luck

Yep. Terrorism is just random acts of viloence. The DOHS (haha...didn't realize that was the acronym!) is just yet MORE red tape. If our governments would just start modernizing their data collection, storate, and analyzing, we'd probably accomplish much more for much less $$$.

I think they're doing a pretty good job too, especially considering we *haven't* had any terrorist activity on American soil since 9/11.

And how much terrorist activity did we have BEFORE 9/11? It's just as plausible that we wouldn't have had any terrorism after 9/11 without the DOHS as well. We just don't know. Which is fine with them. It's very easy to justify a government department that's set up to prevent something that may not have really happend in the first place. ;o)

Cade makes some good points as well.

22 Dec 2003 | Darrel said...

It should be noted (and, as such, repeated) that there's a chunk of evidence hinting that we kind of knew something like 9/11 was going to happen in the years prior to the actual event. Even knowing it didn't seem to prevent it, so you wonder what a DOHS can really do in the event of a real attack.

22 Dec 2003 | p8 said...

The only ones who should be paying attention to the terror warnings are the Bush administration and other decision-makers. Now that the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented and the people sitting in the decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those positions.

22 Dec 2003 | One of several Steves said...

There is no way to manage the public perception if you're the Dept. of Homeland Security.

Snipped the rest of your point, but I agree that there's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation with regards to this. My larger problem is stuff like I mentioned: telling the public to be vigilant, but not what for. How can I be vigilant if I don't know what the potential problem is? If I'm watching the airport for funny stuff, and they've decided to blow up a bridge instead, fat lot of good my vigilance did.

Alert the appropriate people - the police, the emergency workers, the intelligence people, etc. Make the public aware that these people are on it. That's all that's really necessary.

Regarding the issue that there might have been some sort of foreknowledge of Sept 11: to borrow a term from my British friends, bollocks. I'm as cynical as hell about the current administration, but they did not know. Were they sloppy and not following through on the intelligence signals that were there? I'd say most certainly. But that's a far cry from knowing it was coming.

Where the failures are is that analysts, the commission Gary Hart was part of, etc. said something like this is going to happen. The administration was wrong when it said no one could envision civilian aircraft being used as weapons. Just such an analysis had been produced by intelligence and counter-terrorism people years beforehand, and like most of the counter-terrorism work, it was ignored. The United States was not prepared for an attack, continued to believe it was impossible, and did nothing to prepare even when people were saying it's coming, it's inevitable, and here's what we can do to try to prevent it and/or respond better.

And that's a fault of the Clinton administration as much as the Bush administration. Hart's work was done in the 90s. The aircraft analysis was at least 10 years old (older, I think).

Were people asleep at the switch? All over the place. Did they know this was coming? No, at least not in any remotely specific sense.

22 Dec 2003 | Taylor Garries said...

<cliche>
If we ignore the terror alert levels, then the terrorists have already won.
</cliche>

Like other people have said, the alert levels are laughable. "Ooooh, orange! Be vigilant but go about your day? Which is it? What do I have to be vigilant for?"

They would be more effective as an FYI kind of thing. At orange level the DHS says that they're pretty worried, so security at the following places would be tightened to the appropriate levels, neighborhood watch groups will be working 24/7, and Halliburton will be by with your tax-funded rations of duct tape and ammunition.

But maybe that just makes sense to me.

The CBC did a really spooky show on some of the events surrounding 9/11 (who knew what, when they knew it, who knows who, etc.). http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/index.html

22 Dec 2003 | Cade Roux said...

Sorry to be an insensitive hyper-realist, but 2752 people died spectacularly, and we've embarked on some very costly and ill-thought actions as a result. A whole new government department - we elected a tax-and-spend Democrat masquerading as a Republican? (Of course, he can spend as much as he wants, because the American people must be protected. What do you mean you don't have insurance for your shoes?)

Completely reactionary and opportunist, but also exactly in line with Bush II's entire career. You see someone who took his position as was his right and destiny, put into place by kingmakers, then using 9/11 to protect himself from all kinds of criticism. Feeling the weight of his duty to Americans, and then calling out for powers and taking actions to prove that he is doing something exactly like the boy-king who knows his duty but not the experience to be a real leader. Diane Sawyer's interview shows this - it's exactly what you would expect. Any vision he shows is simply attempting to meet some cloudy and cliched playing-cowboys-and-indians childhood expectations.

22 Dec 2003 | Cade Roux said...

And every state has their own alert level - Bush surely regrets his support for the separation of powers now that everything is so confusing - or maybe that's just convenient.

Orange is "high risk of terror attacks" - what is a high risk? 1% chance of attack today? - that adds up quickly and then you start to get meaningful real quick with the old factorials.

Frankly, I doubt anyone has done much of any risk assessment. But Bush doesn't need actuaries - he's got divine destiny on his side.

I'm sorry I'm so angry, it all just seems like a huge squandering. Our country probably does have a purpose and destiny for the future, but right now, it just looks like a lot of waste and mediocrity.

22 Dec 2003 | Darrel said...

I'm sorry I'm so angry

Don't be sorry. Just be sure to vote. ;o)

22 Dec 2003 | Cade Roux said...

Who's earned my vote?

22 Dec 2003 | JF said...

Cade, it looks like the only person who is going to earn your vote is yourself. But last I checked you aren't running.

23 Dec 2003 | Cade Roux said...

I think you're right - just a couple more years and I'll be able to run myself...

23 Dec 2003 | Chris said...

Cade can alwaya cast a write in vote for himself.

23 Dec 2003 | Chris said...

Cade can always cast a write in vote for himself.

23 Dec 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Someone should set up a web site with "Government Alerts", so that when our government does something that may -- DOWN THE ROAD -- anger someone or lead to anti-American sentiments, it could be broadcast.

I dunno ... I'm a bit of an idealist I guess ... but I gotta think that if we had a long-term foreign policy that was based more on *human rights* and less on *corporate profits*, we might do better. Dunno.

Shoot; it's all over my head. I'm going to go smoke a La Aroma De Cuba and think happy thoughts.

23 Dec 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Oh; here ya go.

26 Dec 2003 | p8 said...

"It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)"

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
" THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives," Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997.

06 Jan 2004 | portable said...

I think the terrorists are using the color-coding as a weapon itself. They increase their chatter, the level is raised, more money is spent and nerves are rattled.They get to strike a bit of fear without any real risk, but it will only work so many times.

04 Feb 2005 | Penis Enlargement Pills said...

Enhance Penis Size Increase Penis Size Erection Pill Male Enhancement Pill Review