I'm sure everybody would prefer that, but it's easier said than done, and in the meantime, our citizens and infrastructure must be protected.
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.
How does the New York Times not know that these warnings when they came didnt prevent an attack? Of course they dont, and they can with the help of hindsight just blather
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.