Libertarian Party: Color-Coded Terror Alert System is Useless and Should be Scraped

Libertarian Party press release ^ | July 4, 2003 | George Getz

[Commie Basher]

===================================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: July 4, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008
====================================

Color-coded terror alert system is useless and should be scrapped, Libertarians say.

WASHINGTON, DC -- The national color-coded terror alert system should be scrapped, Libertarians say, because it only alarms the public with warnings that are too vague to be useful.

"Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge risks becoming like the boy who cried wolf with his frequent, unsubstantiated orange alerts," said George Getz, Libertarian Party communications director. "Soon the public might start ignoring him -- and that could be a real disaster."

As the Fourth of July weekend approached, Department of Homeland Security officials declined to say whether they planned to raise the terror alert level from yellow to orange, the second-highest category. Since the system was instituted last fall, the threat has been raised to orange four times, and no attacks have taken place -- raising questions about the reliability of the underlying intelligence data.

One example: In February, Americans stockpiled food and water and rushed out to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal their homes after the government warned about the risk of a chemical or biological attack.

At the time, Ridge claimed the intelligence reports were based on "multiple sources, obviously credible and corroborated." But days later he quietly canceled the alert after being forced to admit that the reports were "not as accurate as we thought."

An unreliable terror alert system may be worse than none at all -- which is why the program should be dismantled, Libertarians say.

"Telling a nation still reeling from the September 11 terrorist attacks to be on alert for another horrific attack -- without telling them when, where, or how it might occur -- is nothing more than scaremongering," Getz said. "In fact, every orange alert that is issued based on flimsy evidence actually endangers the nation by making Americans more likely to ignore future warnings."

The federal system also forces local police departments to squander tax money on unnecessary security precautions, he added.

"The U.S. Conference of Mayors estimates that cities spent $2.6 billion on additional security costs since the September 11 attacks, much of it related to 'code orange' overtime costs for police and other emergency personnel," Getz said. "These warnings actually made America less safe, because every dollar spent on imaginary threats is a dollar that can't be spent arresting an actual murderer, robber or rapist."

The solution is to replace the gimmicky color-coded system with one based on law enforcement needs rather than political posturing, he said.

"If the federal government obtains a specific, credible threat, it should share it immediately with local law enforcement officials and let them take the appropriate steps to warn and protect the public," he said. "But in the absence of solid information, it should cut the political chatter and refrain from alarming 280 million Americans with a vague, generalized terror alert."

Libertarians believe that preventing another terrorist attack is one of the most important functions of the federal government -- and that's why Americans should insist that it's done right, he said.

"This Fourth of July, let's declare our independence from unnecessary fear by pulling the plug on this counterproductive terror-alert system," he said.

[poet]

Before I can reason with you, you first must don an objective hat and realize that those of you who defend bush's obscene socialist spending spree are no better than the clinton apologists who defended their guy's indefensible positions. My first solution would be to polarize the TRUE Constitutional conservatives and the liberals, libertarians, moderates into separate parties.

You sit there day in and day out insulting those of us who disagree with your political savior and when we point out his 2 1/2 year record you choose the insult route rather than address the issues we bring forward. You don't even bother to refute what we post, rather, you use snide remarks
or out and out insults.

Truth be told, if any of you can really defend bush's programs (most of which are the dem's programs), then I suggest that you are closet liberals posing as conservatives. You chalk his embracing and adopting the dem's programs as smart politics, I say it's the same old lies, duplicity and deceit. Can a real conservative win, probably not. I would settle for a 75% Conservative agenda and a 100% honoring of their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. Bush and his partners in crime have violated their oaths on at least three occasions, i,e,; CFR, "patriot 1" and "homeland" ( that word brings the word Fatherland to my mind). What was wrong with National Security? Probably not european enough for the coming New World Order.

[nopardons]

I don't listen to him regularly; haven't for years now...ever since he spent three, THREE full days, at the height of some Clinton mess ( not Monica ), talking about toe fungus.

I turn him on every once in a while and usually turn him off in about 10 minutes or less. That's how I know.

[CWOJackson]

"Probably not european enough for the coming New World Order."

I thought that old conspiracy theory had died. Thanks for reviving it. Now I can appreciate why you're part of the Purple Politician and Spitting Druid Society.

[LilithUnfair]

Well, I'm not really interested in who or what you listen to. I merely used Rush as an example in comparison as he is a republican and conservative and made the same point re the original subject that the LP did. Yet I see no one insulting a conservative (Rush or any other) for disliking the color code. Bascially this thread is just another chance for opponents of the LP to whine about them. Par for the course on FR.

[nopardons]

If you'd take that chip off your shoulder, stop spouting lefty propaganda, and look at this Bush presidency with an unjaundiced eye, perhaps you could answer your own questions/change your mind.

Bush has gotten two tax cuts through, in 2 1/2 years. Are they big enough ? No, but it's a start and far different from what Clinton did.

I suggest that you read Malkin's latest article concerning the Patriot Act. She explains/refutes your paranoia, far better than I could , or wish to waste my time on you doing.

The CFR destroyed the Dem's soft money programs. You don't understand this any more than you " get " the Patriot Act.

You are the one calling anyone not as fanatical as you, a " closet Liberal "; yet, the LP shares many more positions with the Dems and especially the GREENIES, than they have ever, with the GOP. That's " Conservative " ? When pigs sprout wings and fly , it is.

Truth be told, you are not only a poltical naif, but can't refute those you oppose with any substancial, factual matterial.

[poet]

Sorry, didn't mean to wake you. Stay asleep.

[CWOJackson]

Okay, so I'll offer a reasonable question regarding the lp complaint about the color code system. At the very beginning of the article the lp claims that defending the nation for terrorist attack is one of the government's most important jobs.

How would the lp go about protecting the nation from terrorist attacks given their still standing platform of open borders and unrestricted immigration?

[MJY1288]

Hey slick, Last night you claimed your freedoms were taken away because of the Patriot Act and I asked what freedoms you have lost since the enactment of the Patriot act and you ran off. Would you mind explaining to me just what freedoms you have lost since its implimentation and how much this administrations spending has cost you in your take home pay?

If you don't mind...Please be specific

[CWOJackson]

"Sorry, didn't mean to wake you. Stay asleep."

Oh no, someone might mistake me for an lp candidate or supporter.

[nopardons]

I've repeatedly " insulted " ( if you want to call stating facts and my opinion insulting ) Rush on this thread and have done so on other threads as well. So, your statement is 100% incorrect.

I've seen Libertarians onsult, complain about, and denigrate Rush for years and years and YEARS here. Now, that they agree aabout something, it's okay ( Oh really ? ) for them to hypocritically say that Rush has said what they have; thus proving them to be correct. Sheeeeeeeeeesh ! that's hypocray and then some, in my opinion, dear.

We state our dislike for Libertarians and Libertarians do the same about us. What's the difference; other than my side is right and can back up our positions far better ? LOL

[poet]

Don't call me slick you jerk! Read the act and judge for youself. This is a dangerous law. Read section 802 clauses 5A, B (i, ii) and C. It has no expiration date as does the rest of the act. There's a reason for that and it was not an oversight.

[LloydofDSS]

>>When it comes to national defense and integrity of our borders, the LP and the liberals are one and the same.<<

On national defense all Libertarians agree we should have a strong national defense, whereas liberals are often in favor of unilateral disarming. Where libertarians split is on whether or not we should project our power abroad. The current leadership seems to think we should not project our power, but there are plenty of libertarians who support our work in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When it comes to the integrity of our borders, what gets lost in the rhetoric is that most libertarians think that if we shut down welfare and free medical care, the need to close the borders will fade out. But you have to shut down welfare and the free ride FIRST.

In contrast liberals support open borders for the cynical and expediant reason that it helps them win elections, not because they think it is good for the country.

[MJY1288]

I asked a simple question slick, Would you mind explaining how these clauses take away your freedoms?

[nopardons]

He asked for you to tell him what freedoms you've lost due to the Patriot Act and you're STILL refusing to enumerate them. Do so, or don't say you have. That's just being a weasel. ;^)

[nopardons]

He can't; he hasn't the foggiest notion what much of anything says/means. LOL

[CWOJackson]

Actually the lp platform calls for open borders and unrestricted immigration. It doesn't say anything about eliminating welfare first.

How do we protect ourselves from terrorist attack if they can simply drive across the open borders in trucks full of weapons and explosives?

[MJY1288]

I can't ask it any more plainly

[LloydofDSS]

Cut from lp.org website

The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America. We condemn the xenophobic immigrant bashing that would build a wall around the United States. At the same time, we recognize that the right to enter the United States does not include the right to economic entitlements such as welfare. The freedom to immigrate is a freedom of opportunity, not a guarantee of a handout.

end of cut and paste

I guess you don't read so good.

[CWOJackson]

I guess not, I don't see anywhere in there where it say unrestricted immigration is prohibited until welfare is reformed.

I also don't see how completely open borders and unrestricted immigration is going to protect the U.S. from terrorist attack. Of course there would be no need for the color code system since everyday something would be blowing up.

[MJY1288]

I never realized that all it took to get a pouting pitchforker to pull a Chuck Yeager was to ask him a simple question.