Clear and Present Dangers - Terror Alerts

[Melvyn]

The New York Times had an op-ed piece about the terror alerts. "Being Clear About Present Dangers"
By PHILIP BOBBITT Published: August 11, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/11/op...11bobbitt.html

It is an interesting discussion which speaks to the problem of officials who must decide whether to release information about potential terrorist attacks. On the one hand they don't want to create a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. On the other, they are concerned that if an attack occurs without a government alert they will be guilty of having put people at avoidable risk. Yet, when a general alert is raised, the reaction of individuals and the media is, "OK, but what are we supposed to do".

In a previous article,(http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/2004/08/03.html) I pointed out that with information specific enough to defend particular buildings, a public alert was warranted, if only to warn the potential attackers that these five targets are now hardened, thereby frustrating attack plans which have always been based upon relatively undefended targets.

That particular alert aside, The government has made it more complicated than it needs to be. The real alert came on 9/11. We are at war and it has been made clear that civilians are not exempt from attack. There should be a national safety checklist for all citizens. I am not going to speculate on what shoud be on that checklist. We already know about reporting unattended packages in public places. We generally know to report suspicious behavior. Perhaps there should be pamphlets discussing what constitutes suspicious behavior. We don't want to panic into large scale abuse. We also know that our families should have an emergency communication plan. The checklist should be regularly updated as we learn more about what to look for.

Even as the alerts have moved between yellow and orange, there are no studies indicating how many of us actually do have a communication plan, or know who to call if they see an unattended package. Children in Muslim countries are regularly given anti-western orientation and taught that we are the enemy. I don't think it would be wrong to have the children in our schools learn the contents of the checklist and how to take acion in an emergency. Beyond the first responders and the boy scouts, people should learn first aid. If people want to show their patriotism, beyond lip service and flying the flag, perhaps they could put charts with the checklist on their doors.

As I said earlier, we are at war. War is not comfortable, even though President bush and Tom ridge have told us to live normal lives. We should not be living the same lives as in peace time. We should find ways to show our solidarity as Americans. We should do those things which make us safer and sends the message to the terrorists, not that we are afraid, but we are taking steps to thwart them.

There is much debate about our policy in Iraq. There is not much debate that we are under continuing threat of attack. Our government has not trusted us to be part of this war. The terror alert system mainly serves the comfort of government officlas and not the safety of the people. It is time for change.


Mel - Blogging at http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/

[Zeebadee]

Yeah, this is a much better and clearer system. Of course, we'll have to be careful not to alert when we should merely inform, and not to warn when alerting and informing is called for, and to inform and warn if alerting isn't required, and, of course to be sure and warn, alert, and inform if no one has any better ideas. Yeah, this system will take a lot of the confusion out of a multi-colored warning system that seems to use only yellow and red.

[Scribbler1]

We don't have a plan because we essentially were told not to bother as there was nothing we could do. "Going about your daily routine" does not imply going out and building bomb shelters. Besides, I feel the utter stupidity which has been demonstrated by the government, such as trying to scare us with old news, and the hilarious advice to wrap our homes in plastic have soured many of us on ANYTHING these fools say.

And as for the color codes, I have said since Fox News began to plaster it on the screen 24/7 that it was a stupid move. First, if we can't do anything about it, the raising to orange only serves to scare the people and nothing else. It doesn't inform or advise and only makes us jittery. Or at least it DID, which brings me to point the second.

Second, I have always maintained that what makes us strong as a species is our ability to "get used to things" when conditions are bad, and this damnably stupid color code is just another thing we "got used to". They will have to raise it to red just to get our attention. We have learned to tune it out just like those huge network logos in the corner of the screen during every show. And that will make things worse if they decide to raise it to red to make us notice anything. Yellow and orange should have been used sparingly so we would pay attention is the government wanted to inform or warn us about something LESS than an actual attack, but now we don't notice. So if they DO go to red just as an attention getting device, what will they use in the event of an actual attack, dark red? Really dark red, or maybe something animated, like the yellow Wal Mart smiley face, but only red with an evil sneer on its face?

I look at Tom Ridge as being cut from the same cloth as Bush. He was a mediocre governor who found himself in a position of great responsibility which he is ill equipped to handle. His handling of "homeland security" has been inept and lacking in the necessary creativity to handle such a job.