[HarryCaul]

It's obvious that these so-called warnings with no real information behind them don't do a lot for national security. Even among freepers they're seen as pointless.

They need a new way of approaching this, or they're just wasting time and risking actually making people less vigilant via this sort of content-free 'briefing'.

[Stentor]

It's obvious that these so-called warnings with no real information behind them don't do a lot for national security.

I like the way the French give details. "We are cancelling flights for security reasons. Don't show up so we can catch you." Ridge is way behind the curve don't you think.

[alnick]

You know, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

First people complained that they weren't forewarned that there had been a lot of chatter and unspecific warnings prior to 9/11.

So they started to keep us abreast when the level of unspecific threat changed.

That leads to people complaining that since they can't be specific, they should just keep it to themselves.

I'd be willing to bet that at least 80% of the people complaining about the first are the same ones complaining about the second.

[af_vet_rr]

It's obvious that these so-called warnings with no real information behind them don't do a lot for national security. Even among freepers they're seen as pointless.

I don't think they are meant to provide any kind of warning (at least to any sane person - telling somebody "there maybe an attack someday against somebody" will usually get you weird looks).

I think it's the government trying to tell people "you need us" and "remember this the next time we ask for expanded powers and money".

[Mulder]

They need a new way of approaching this, or they're just wasting time and risking actually making people less vigilant via this sort of content-free 'briefing'.

It's administrative CYA. It's an election year, so I would expect to get these "warnings" every couple of weeks.

That way, if there was an attack, the democrats would have more difficulty in blaming the Republicans.

[Dave S]

It's obvious that these so-called warnings with no real information behind them don't do a lot for national security. Even among freepers they're seen as pointless

They werent created for you, they were created for law enforcement. If you dont like the alerts, then ignore the changes in status. If you really, really dont like them, write a nasty note to the media and DEMAND that they not publish the information. There is no way that Ridge or anyone else is going to have knowledge of potential attack and not issue some kind of warning, that is political suicide. Leave it up to the individual to decide whether its helpful or not.