DATE:
NOTE NUMBER:
DATE=11/19/02
TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP
TITLE=TERRORIST WARNING
NUMBER=6-12720
BYLINE=Andrew Guthrie
DATELINE=Washington
EDITOR=Assignments
TELEPHONE=619-3335
CONTENT=
INTRO: America's law enforcement and intelligence community is trying to cope with keeping the public informed about the ongoing terrorist threat without unduly alarming people. After the terrorist attacks of September a year ago, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency were both accused by some critics of not being diligent.
Now, when they fear new terrorist attacks, the agencies have to decide if the threat is real enough to alert the public. Last week's unspecific warnings of "spectacular" terrorist attacks, possibly with large casualties, proved to be of low credibility. That has generated some critical comment in the press. We get a sampling now from ___________ in today's U-S Opinion Roundup.
TEXT: Defenders of the F-B-I and C-I-A say they are in an untenable position. As far as terrorist warnings are concerned, if they warn and nothing happens they are accused of being alarmist. If they get intelligence of a possible attack and do not warn, they will surely be faulted as they were after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.
Last week, this issue surfaced again with a very grim, but unspecified warning of a possible new "spectacular" attack with large casualties. So far, nothing has happened, and some papers are upset with the way the warning was handled. For one, The New York Times fumes:
VOICE: Fourteen months after the terror attacks of September 11th, the American people deserve a more effective warning system about possible new assaults than the Chicken Little [Editors: Chicken Little is a character from a U-S children's story who warned that "the sky is falling".] alerts the Bush administration is providing.
The only thing warnings this vague are good for is providing political cover in case of disaster. They offer no specific information about the location, timing or method of attack, and are all but useless to the average citizen, or even to local law enforcement officers. Despite the new alert, the government's color coded threat level barometer was not adjusted to a higher setting. That oddity was supposedly explained by the fact that the F-B-I notification was sent to state and local law enforcement agencies but was not meant to be made public. Apparently someone in Washington actually believed that a message sent to hundreds of police departments would remain secret. The terror threat against the United States is too critical and too lethal to be handled in this ludicrous manner.
TEXT: In California's capital, The Sacramento Bee joins the Times in criticism of how the warning was handled.
VOICE: In trying to develop a realistic and effective system for keeping Americans apprised of terrorist threats, the Bush administration has been given the benefit of the doubt by most Americans. But the measures taken continue to be clumsy, as was obvious last week. First, the F-B-I issued a warning about a possible "spectacular" attack designed to cause maximum damage. [Then] days later, officials backed off and said there were "no new terrorist threats." That's not acceptable.
How can Americans make reasoned judgments about the threats they face if the government fails to distinguish between the ongoing need to be alert against possible attacks and a sudden warning that, by using apocalyptic language, seems to suggest there is a new and imminent threat?
TEXT: Frustration from The Sacramento Bee.
For its part, Florida's Palm Beach Post calls the warning: "Lots of hype, [but] little help," explaining:
VOICE: Last week, the F-B-I sent a lengthy bulletin to law enforcement agencies nationwide warning "of possible attacks in the United States." That narrowed it down to 50 states and the District of Columbia, but aside from that there was very little help for a sheriff or police chief trying to figure out how to counter the threat from al-Qaida.
The F-B-I issued its bulletin because the al-Jazeera network broadcast a tape of someone who might be Osama bin Laden praising recent attacks on Western targets and promising new ones. Law enforcement officials who read newspapers or watch the news knew that. What they needed to know, and what wasn't in the memo, is what they can do to stop an attack.
A year and a half ago, F-B-I officials were unforgivably blasé about terror threats. Washington ignored field agents' concerns about suspicious foreign students enrolled in flight schools. Memos of the sort issued last week are useless overcompensation. The next time it sends out a bulletin, the F-B-I should try to report some specific information.
TEXT: Editorial complaints from Florida's Palm Beach Post.
Lastly, Hawaii's Honolulu Advertiser uses another character from child's literature as an analogy to the problem.
VOICE: We're all familiar with the fable of the boy who cried wolf, over and over again, because he found the drastic and frantic defensive measures taken by his fellow villagers amusing to watch. They quickly learned, of course, to ignore him. The alert the nation received at the end of last week was about as dire -- warning of "spectacular attacks" -- as any we've heard."
The "chatter" being monitored by intelligence agencies was said to have reached about the same level as that immediately preceding the attacks of September 11th, 2002. Most media outlets, of course, took these officials at their word and gave this message a lot of ink and air time. After all, look what happened when we failed to prepare before September 11th.
TEXT: On that note from The Honolulu Advertiser, we conclude this sampling of editorials concerning last week's dire terrorism alert from the F-B-I.
NEB/ANG/RH
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
