The Fear Continues
The New York Times reports that the heightened terror alerts for areas around New York City and Washington, DC are based onrecent intelligence information, not just Al-Qaeda surveillance that took place three years ago. Yet the Washington Post quotes a senior law enforcement official who says the warnings are based on old information. Who are we to believe?
To be fair, The Department of Homeland Security has a difficult job. Terrorists from the Al-Qaeda network may be brutal and inhumane, but they are nothing if not elusive and stealth. Yet I have to question what good these constant alerts do in protecting the population. What are we supposed to do exactly when the alert is raised to orange? Run to Home Depot and stock up on duct tape? If we are to ever win the "war on terror," we cannot let our lives be dictated by vague warnings about a bunch of shadowy terrorist networks we have not effectively infiltrated.
Intelligence officials unquestionably are faced with arduous tasks, and they deserve credit for their service to our country. But why should we blindly believe and obey an administration that has deceived us in the past? They botched the intelligence on WMD in Iraq and Saddam's alleged purchase of uranium from Niger, so it seems quite easy that this new intelligence could be flawed as well. It is certainly admirable that officials would like to inform the public of any threats that materialize, but even if the threats are 100% certain and credible, it remains unclear how the public is supposed to react. Unless we go about our daily business and refuse to give into fear, the terrorists will have won by getting us to compromise our freedom. Personally I intend on going to protest the Republican National Convention in New York later this month, and it does not bother me one iota that this event will supposedly be a huge terrorist target.
To be fair, The Department of Homeland Security has a difficult job. Terrorists from the Al-Qaeda network may be brutal and inhumane, but they are nothing if not elusive and stealth. Yet I have to question what good these constant alerts do in protecting the population. What are we supposed to do exactly when the alert is raised to orange? Run to Home Depot and stock up on duct tape? If we are to ever win the "war on terror," we cannot let our lives be dictated by vague warnings about a bunch of shadowy terrorist networks we have not effectively infiltrated.
Intelligence officials unquestionably are faced with arduous tasks, and they deserve credit for their service to our country. But why should we blindly believe and obey an administration that has deceived us in the past? They botched the intelligence on WMD in Iraq and Saddam's alleged purchase of uranium from Niger, so it seems quite easy that this new intelligence could be flawed as well. It is certainly admirable that officials would like to inform the public of any threats that materialize, but even if the threats are 100% certain and credible, it remains unclear how the public is supposed to react. Unless we go about our daily business and refuse to give into fear, the terrorists will have won by getting us to compromise our freedom. Personally I intend on going to protest the Republican National Convention in New York later this month, and it does not bother me one iota that this event will supposedly be a huge terrorist target.
posted by Ben at 11:10 AM
7 Comments:
don't think people in nyc care or have time to care...
Well I was in Boston for a week for the convention, and I can tell you that the city was pretty much empty due to residents leaving the city due to fears of traffic and terrorism. I think the fear of terrorism is even more acute in NYC for obvious reasons, so I think many residents will leave the city. I will try to dig up an article and link to it.
But actually this is Dave. Ben, in principle, I agree with what you have to say here. Shadowing warnings issued as a result of "increased chatter" frightens the public and provides no directions on how to react to this fear. However, when discussing issues such as these, you must watch yourself. At this point, I don't believe that public warnings have worked to "compromise our freedom." Though I agree that other acts of the federal government have directly and measurably eroded our rights, the warnings themselves do not. Perhaps if you explained that frightened people are more malleable and therefore more receptive of restrictions (ie the "cage" at the DNC) that would lend credence to your argument. As for now though, you must remember that in today's political climate all liberals walk the line of being perceived as radicals and by extension illegitimate. To prevent your arguments from crossing that unfortunate line into illegitamacy, you need to take pains to stay on task, thereby keeping your otherwise well-stated point clean and defendable. Fight the power.
A few observations about the recent terror alert:
1.) It's been amusing, but not surprising, to see Howard Dean's comments taken out of context. As someone who saw Dean make his comments on CNN, I think he jumped the gun a bit. But he expressed skepticism, not a certain belief that the alert formed out of thin air. And it's not really unreasonable to suspect that the administration has played politics with terrorism. Especially when, in my view, it's a reality that the administration has done just that in other cases.
2.) We have to remember that before Sunday's alert, most previous alerts were very vague. I praise the Department of Homeland Security for at least issuing a report that gave some important specifics.
3.) The strength of the alert greatly lies in the strength of the recent intelligence. Al Qaeda has been known to carry out reconaissance over several years, updating information before it stages an attack. With this in mind, it would obviously be big news if reconaissance updates occurred as recently as January. But I too have heard claims questioning the validity and/or existence of the new intelligence, intelligence that supposedly corroborates the old intelligence recovered from Pakistan operatives captured last month.
We'll have to wait and see.
4.) In the area of letting the public know what to do, I agree the Department of Homeland Security has a mediocre record, to say the least. Among other things Ready.gov has had watered down or plain wrong information, many Americans still don't know what to do if a dirty bomb goes off nearby, and most Americans still don't know what key DHS buzz phrases--like "shelter-in-place"--mean.
.
Oops, I forget to put my name under the post with 4 points. It's UnityMike here.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home