The Terror Alerts (NYT Mega-Barf Editorial)

New York Times | 08/05/04 | New York Times

[conservative in nyc]

The Terror Alerts

Published: August 5, 2004

ur lives have changed so much since Sept. 11, 2001. We know that we may never again be free of the threat of terrorism. It's been a tough adjustment for everyone, and the burden on President Bush is especially heavy. Given the unprecedented circumstances and the costs of making a mistake, it's easy to understand why the administration has had so much trouble managing the way it informs the public about potential danger. But after 17 months in which alerts blinked from yellow to orange and back a half-dozen times, the White House should be past its learning curve. It isn't. The events of this week showed starkly that the system is not working.

The administration was obviously right to warn the country that Al Qaeda had apparently studied financial institutions in three cities with the idea of a possible attack. But the delivery of the message was confusing. The color-coded threat chart doesn't serve the purpose for which it was invented, and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is hopeless as a public spokesman on this issue. The Bush administration needs to come up with a method of communication that informs the public in a calm, clear way. Perhaps most important, people need to be made totally confident that this critical matter is not being tangled up in the presidential campaign.

The alert system has always rested on a precarious balance. Local officials must have up-to-date information about possible danger. Private citizens need to know, too, so they can make informed choices and be on the lookout for trouble. But it is possible to go overboard. Ratcheting up the warning level creates huge costs for city and state governments. And if Americans are warned too often, and too shrilly, they will become inured to terror alerts.

In the past, Mr. Ridge and others have talked ominously about intelligence that they have routinely described as the most alarming since 9/11, without providing details. This week they were specific: the five financial institutions were in danger of being bombed in the "near term." The terror alert was raised to orange for those sites in New York, Washington and New Jersey. But things quickly lapsed into confusion. For three days, officials at news conferences and background briefings said their concerns were based on new information, then old information, then back to new information. Many people were scared out of their wits on Monday, cynical on Tuesday and befuddled by yesterday.

Mr. Bush should junk the color bars, which are now of use mostly to late-night comedians. Ordinary people have no way of calibrating their lives to the color ladder. It does them no good to be told to be scared, more scared or really scared, especially when they are also being told to act as if nothing's wrong. Unless the government is prepared to tell people to stay home from work, there's no reason to keep lighting the terror lamps. What we need is information that we can use, not another shot of adrenaline.

We would have been happy last weekend if a senior official more adept than Mr. Ridge had called a news conference to say what the government knew and what defensive measures had been taken. Instead, he spoke in apocalyptic terms, then produced an "intelligence official" who offered more detail and more alarming words, anonymously. Later that day, and on the next day and the day after, other officials spoke off the record, providing additional information that made the situation seem much more complicated.

There's a practical aspect to the terror alerts that the administration must address to demonstrate its own commitment. The higher alert levels require local governments to take enormously expensive actions, for which Washington is not paying its share. The Homeland Security Department has made it clear that New York City is the spot that comes up most frequently in terrorism-related intelligence, yet money continues to be doled out in a manner that has much more to do with elections than genuine danger. It's shocking that Washington has not followed through on its own information by underwriting the protections cities need to stay safe.

Finally, there is the matter of politics. The Bush administration expressed outrage at the suggestion that there could be any politics behind any of its warnings, but the president has some history to overcome on this issue. There is nothing more important for Mr. Bush to do every day until Nov. 2 than to make it clear that he would never hype a terror alert to help his re-election chances. It is a challenge complicated by the fact that he is running on his record against terrorism and is using images of 9/11 and the threat of more attacks to promote his candidacy. The president's credibility on national security issues was gravely wounded by the way he misled Americans, intentionally or not, about the reasons for invading Iraq - including the suggestion that the war was part of the campaign against Al Qaeda.

Some of the past terror alerts have seemed aimless and happened when the Bush administration would have benefited from a change in the political conversation. On Sunday, when the administration had grim and specific information to convey, Mr. Ridge did a real disservice to himself, his president and the public by giving what amounted to a campaign pitch for "the president's leadership in the war against terror.''

It's hard to write that off as an offhand comment. If Mr. Ridge is to continue in this role, he must stay out of the election; using him as a campaign surrogate would be disastrous for public confidence. The administration should also stop dropping dark hints about Al Qaeda's having election-related motives to attack, as if a vote against the current president were appeasement.

Americans are stone-cold serious when it comes to potential terror attacks - there is no need to worry about making them pay attention. We have learned since Sept. 11, 2001, to value every day in which nothing terrible happens as a gift and an opportunity. The Bush administration has been given the same blessing. Every morning the president and his deputies are challenged not only to renew their war against potential terrorists, but also to earn the confidence of the people they aim to protect.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

It's about time that the Times connects the dots.

[Teplukin]

These terror alerts are costly: but think how costly a successful attack would be, not even in terms of human lives, but in terms of its effect on trade and the markets. Our swift and firm reaction after 9/11 maintained confidence in our business and financial system, and it is crucial to keep that confidence. Police overtime is nothing compared to the cost of loss of confidence in US stability and order.

Agreed, we need to maintain confidence in our financial markets. And if this necessitates a heightened cop presence in the streets, so be it.

However, random searches of trucks entering Manhattan cause terrible traffic jams, with little to show for the effort. Having police look for the proverbial "needle in a haystack" is putting a real drag on the economy.

Beyond that, these terror alerts subvert a sense of security. They give us a vague sense of unease, without a sense that the feds are totally on top of things. Perhaps I am unduly cynical, but I regard them as a bureaucratic CYA, so that if we are hit again, they can say "well, we warned you"

I'd prefer the gov't behave more like the Brits did, during the IRA terror bombings of London in the 1970s. Scotland Yard said comparatively little, as it systematically went about the business of annihitalting Irish terror cells.

[js1138]

I escaped from New York Tuesday morning after helping my daughter move to Brooklyn. While I was ther I was internet deprived and only knew about the terror alerts from the tabloid headlines (Jitter City). No one there even mentioned it.

Leaving Brooklyn by car was a nightmare. The BQE expressway was parked solid Tuesday morning while trucks attempting to enter Manhattan were routed to a single bridge and inspected.

I noticed there have been some interesting changes at the interstate highway truck weigh stations. At some stations the trucks aren't even required to stop, but they are routed past a science fiction array of devices that could be cameras, radiation detectors, or anything you could imagine.

Major bridges have signs saying no cameras, no video.