Military

DATE=10/31/01

TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=SECURITY ALERT DEBATE

NUMBER=6-12526

BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

INTERNET=YES

EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

INTRO: The United States continues to be under the highest possible security aler,t since a warning from the Attorney General John Ashcroft on Monday. However the American press is beginning to wonder about the usefulness of such warnings when they do not contain any specifics as to the threat.

We get a sampling of editorial opinion now from ____________ in today's U-S Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: The warning came as the result of intelligence information that another terror attack was imminent, but no specifics were given. Newspapers throughout the country are debating the efficacy of such warnings.

In Colorado, The Denver Post feels they are useful.

VOICE: Attorney General John Ashcroft was wise in issuing a warning late Monday of possible new terrorist attacks ... during the week ahead. Unfortunately, the administration had no specifics about the type of attacks or possible targets. One official told The New York Times ... the new threats appear to have come from Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida.

In the world after September eleventh, no threat can be ignored, and it is prudent to alert the public to be vigilant.

TEXT: But The Orlando [Florida] Sentinel says a "High alert about terrorism without any details only breeds fear," adding:

VOICE: When government officials put the nation on "high alert" as they did Monday, for the second time since the September eleventh terrorist attacks - - they must provide Americans with as much information as possible about the ... threat.

TEXT: Another disquieted daily is Seattle's Post-Intelligencer, which complains:

VOICE: One gets the feeling that administration officials are either holding back more specific, more useable information, or they don't really have a clue what might happen. Neither prospect is comforting.

TEXT: Taking a cue from The Denver Post, The Detroit [Michigan] Free Press suggests:

VOICE: [Mr.] Ashcroft ... is just being practical, and he must continue to be forthcoming with credible information as it develops. Better to tell the people more than less...

TEXT: The Houston [Texas] Chronicle proposes that mixed messages on terrorism are simply "part of [the] confusion of war," but it agrees with the criticism. "The mixed messages are confusing, unnerving to some and highly problematic," it says.

In Tennessee, The Chattanooga Free Press takes the government's side.

VOICE: Somewhere out there in the shadowy world of international intelligence, strange pieces began to fall into place, not clearly, but "through a glass darkly." Was there a "loose word"? Was there some strange "movement" by someone of "foreign appearance? Was there an unusual phone call or a flurry of calls? Was there some purchase of a ticket, or of food, or of hardware?

... It may have been a combination of all of the above, or some of them, or entirely different things. But whatever occurred, it was sufficient to cause grave concern among high-ranking American officials. There also was the clear suggestion that the warning should not inspire panic among our people, just a sense of caution.

TEXT: The dichotomy between increased security levels and the striving for normalcy is inconsistent, according to an editorial in The Saint Louis [Missouri] Post-Dispatch.

VOICE: The Attorney General issues a global alert to 18-thousand law enforcement agencies. The vice president is shipped off to an undisclosed secure location. Meanwhile, the president throws out the first ball at game three of the World Series and the director of homeland security tells parents to get out to their kids' softball and soccer [football] games. "America has to continue to be America," he says. This, according to the White House, is the "new normalcy." But there is nothing ordinary about it. It is a schizoid state in which people plan routine activities and perform everyday chores while alert to the possibility that terrorists might try to blow them up. Who would have thought that Halloween 2001 would be so spooky? [Editors: "frightening"]

To many Americans this week's global alert - - issued before the last one was withdrawn - - is irritating and frightening for the same reason: The warning is so vague that people don't know how to alter their behavior to make themselves safer. But it's hard to see how President George W. Bush and his administration could handle the situation differently.

TEXT: The New York Times has this to say on the subject.

VOICE: The Bush administration must continue to keep the public informed, even when the information is unpleasant and unsatisfactorily vague. But it is critical... the president's aides avoid any temptation to use security precautions as an excuse for political errors.

TEXT: The Boston Globe is also groping for some sense of balance in the latest pronouncements.

VOICE: Americans are supposed to be on highest alert now, but what does that mean? Federal law enforcement officials have warned that a possible terrorist attack could come within a week - - the warning is the second for the nation in three weeks. ... Better a false alarm than a surprise fire, goes the theory, and the Bush administration is right to try to keep the public informed, especially since secret warnings to state governments and enforcement agencies would inevitably be leaked to the media and raise the citizen stress level even higher than it is now.

But the lack of specifics in the warnings also fans the fear that has taken up permanent residence in the American soul since September eleventh and shakes the ability of people to follow the simultaneously issued directive to go about normal daily life.

TEXT: And with that we conclude this editorial sampling from Wednesday's U-S press.

NEB/ANG/FC