so it appears that the bulk(and possibly all) of the information used in ridge’s recent press conference raising the terror level to orange was 3-4 years old. leaving aside any cynical questions of whether the alert was politically motivated, why would they tell the public the age of the photos, plans, schematics, etc.? i think people largely ignore the color alerts already. won’t that tendency be increased after hearing that this new threat was based on old photos? and it’s not to say that the information is bad or that it doesn’t represent a “live” plan by the terrorists. but the general public being what it is, will they understand that al qaeda can take years to plan an attack and thus realize that a plan started 3-5 years ago is still very much a threat? or will the public at large simply ignore even the orange alerts and major threats in the future as being based on outdated info–i.e. “there’s no threat, that info is probably 2 years old”?
by releasing the date and more specifics about the info they are using to make these decisions, it seems to me that they are making their job more difficult. dhs, fbi, etc. need to be able to close buildings, alter schedules, etc. where the situation warrants, but they could find cooperation on behalf of the public more difficult to come by when they tell people that the threat is based on older info…
According to the LA Times, apparently some of the information was updated only a few months ago.
Regardless, I do not understand why the sources of the information and the details have been made public. Why tell the enemy what we know? One answer could obviously be to stop the attacks in their tracks. Those in charge have to make tough calls.
I thought the publication of that old 8/2001 Presidential Daily Briefing was very damaging. If I were UBL and I learned that the US President was getting information which was so pathetic, I would laugh my ass off.
i think it was good that they gave some specifics of the information and potential targets since the nebulous “we have reason to suspect a possible attack but don’t know what, when, or where” don’t seem to have any real impact any more. but i still believe they made their job more difficult by revealing when the information was generated. i bet there are a lot of people that, upon hearing it was 2000-01 information, have largely put the entire terror alert out of their minds…
“so it appears that the bulk(and possibly all) of the information used in ridge’s recent press conference raising the terror level to orange was 3-4 years old. leaving aside any cynical questions of whether the alert was politically motivated,…”
I think the important distinction is that the intel is new but the data collected by al queda was old but it is widely understood that al queda takes years to develop plans for attacks so this data, although collected years ago, may be used for an attack next week. The find and arrest are very important and provides great insight (especially to the public) of how detailed, organized and patient they are. The data also fits with other intel sources.
“why would they tell the public the age of the photos, plans, schematics, etc”
I think this comes down to a few things. One, the best defense against an attack is to shine a light on it, they want suprise. Although it would be nice to keep this all secret, the reality is, al queda would know he was caught and would change plans anyway for fear the plan was comprimised so I don’t think we gave up much. The other factor is safety. Since they don’t know exact dates it is only right to tell people they work or live in an area they feel is a target, even if they don’t have a time frame. In this case it is only fair to tell people that they are specific targets. Finally, can you imagine the outcry if this intel was kept a secret and they did pull off an attack anyway and people found out it was kept a secret?
you are not understanding the point i am making. i don’t disagree with telling some of the specifics in terms of locations, etc.(especially in comparison to all the vague, and in my mind, nearly useless terror threats before now). but i think it detracts from the weight of the evidence, in the public’s mind, by mentioning it was 3-4 years old. it’s my opinion that many people will be dismissive of the evidence because of its age. from an analytical point of view–i.e. from the cia’s, dhs’, etc. perspective, the age is irrelevant if they have evidence that the attack hasn’t been affirmatively scrapped. however, i believe that age will be a factor in how much weight the general public accords the warnings and information and in the future, they will be more reluctant and complain more if they are disrupted by warnings based on older photos. i think the intelligence people/dhs have made their job harder by giving as much detail as they have.
Ok, I understand your point, and sadly you are probably right. If people would read or listen just a little beyond the headlines they would realize that the age of the data doesn’t make it less dangerous since we now know it took years of planning and surveillance by al queda to make 9/11 work.
It would be interesting to see how the public reaction would be different if they thought this was all “new” information.
I read an article that made me ready to cry foul on Bush for the timing of the alert escalation…except I did a little more digging and read that Pakistan recently captured people with current emails on their computers which show some of these “old” plots are still alive and well. That is what prompted the alerts.
9/11 took several years of planning as well.
Depending on which article you read, you will get a different slant. Some conviently leave out the recent info from Pakistan.
I would think it’s hard to wade though all the intellegence and determine when it’s time to raise an alert.
“so it appears that the bulk(and possibly all) of the information used in ridge’s recent press conference raising the terror level to orange was 3-4 years old. leaving aside any cynical questions of whether the alert was politically motivated, why would they tell the public the age of the photos, plans, schematics, etc.?”
The plan was three to four years old but the information is NEW TO US. Execution date for said plans is apparently in the future, which makes it pretty important to react.
“i think people largely ignore the color alerts already.”
Agreed. We’ve been on “Elevated” status since 9/11/01, except for the times it went orange.
“the general public being what it is, will they understand that al qaeda can take years to plan an attack and thus realize that a plan started 3-5 years ago is still very much a threat?”
The general public is basically a bunch of morons, so no, they won’t.
“I keep hearing about this crying foul on Bush for the alert.”
I think the rationale behind those comment comes stems from the article in the New Republic last month, which had Pakistani Intelligence claiming that they had been asked to capture “high-value” targets either during the Democratic Convention, or shortly before the elections in Nov. Most people would have discounted that article (I did and I’m pretty liberal), but then lo and behold, on the very morning Kerry is to be confirmed, we get news of a capture in Pakistan.
Now have a read of this article on results of some recent psychological research:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/07/30/campaign.fear.reut/index.html
“The volunteers were aged from 18 into their 50s and described themselves as ranging from liberal to deeply conservative. No matter what a person’s political conviction, thinking about death made them tend to favor Bush, Solomon said. Otherwise, they preferred Kerry.”
So, people who are scared seem to favour Bush. During the Democratic Convention and immediately afterwards, when the Dems would be expected to get all the headlines, we suddenly have a major capture, followed in short order by a major terror alert, putting the focus squarely back on Bush.
Now I’m not claiming that it actually IS a political move, but merely pointing out how I could be perceived as such.
So tell me, now that these sites have been put on alert, and security toughened around them: when do we get to relax the security at these sites? Or are all trucks trying to enter Manhattan now going to be pulled over?
I think Webswim is right. The capture of those high value targets in Pakistan is just a scam that was orchestrated to coincide with the Convention. The fact that they kept the capture of Khan, the computer guy, secret is just the exception that proves the rule.
The people they are rounding up now in Pakistan and London as a result of Khan’s capture should all be released because their arrests are tainted by political motives.
The mastermind of the African embassasy bombings that killed 200 should be released as well. He was captured on a day not approved for progress in the war on terror by the Democratic Party, and the arrest is thus void.
In addition, the companies targeted by UBL as described in the documents should disband their security procedures. They just aren’t playing fair if they don’t.
We are trying to have an election in this country based on strength through words. We can’t be having these events in the real world messing things up at inopportune moments.
They interviewed a truck driver on the NBC news (I think) last night who did deliveries in Manhattan and he mentioned that his truck had been searched three times that day alone. The gist of the segment was that things such as this terror warning amount to an un-official “tax” on business, because productivity goes way down. I guess this is the price of doing business in today’s climate.
This is Web Swim’s last sentence:
“Now I’m not claiming that it actually IS a political move, but merely pointing out how I could be perceived as such.”
The security business must be booming. They showed a guy who designs planters that double as security barriers. He is probably doing a booming business. At least you can plant flowers in them and they don’t look like concrete blast shields.
I remember when they closed off Pennsylvania Ave in front of the white house because of the threat of a truck bomb or the like. It was never re-opened.
It’s very sad. Once the barriers go up, they never come down. I missed my chance to go to the top of the Statue of Liberty. I was there in 2000 and it was still open, all the way to the crown and torch. I didn’t want to wait in line. Shoulda done it. Sigh.
If we had really annoying security checks at the airports in 2001, and the WTC attack had been thwarted, how many people would think the airport security was stupid?.
Realize now, that in the scenario above the WTC is still standing, so who’s going to believe that the attack was ever going to happen?
So let’s NOT inspect trucks going into NY’s financial centers, and just hope nothing happens? I for one have no idea whether the intel in question is any good or not. I don’t care, really, because the town I live and work in is on al Qaeda’s top ten list of places to terrorize at number 284,962…
The analogy doesn’t hold water. An individual doesn’t go through airport security every day, or every week, or every month. People are trying to deliver goods via truck in Manhattan every day; people working at those buildings go through every day. The overhead is very large.
And do we do this for every site that is seen as a potential target? So if Al Qaeda “chatter” or other info refers to several hundred sites, we do this same security at all of them?
Great. We’ve turned into an armed camp. Guess that’s to be expected, considering we’re in a “war on terrorism”.
“The analogy doesn’t hold water. An individual doesn’t go through airport security every day”
So what level of death is acceptable to you. My point was twofold, starting with “my town’s not on the list so I don’t care,” but mainly, would you have been willing to go through screenings like this if someone told you it would prevent what happened on 9/11/01? (I suspect you would) but would you have been, just on the speculation that it was going to happen, but you don’t trust Tom Ridge, so who knows?
“And do we do this for every site that is seen as a potential target? So if Al Qaeda “chatter” or other info refers to several hundred sites, we do this same security at all of them?”
This wasn’t “chatter,” as I understand it, but detailed plans for another large-scale terrorist attack.
"Great. We’ve turned into an armed camp. Guess that’s to be expected, considering we’re in a ‘war on terrorism’. "
Great, we’ve turned into a country of experts who know nothing’s really going to happen so why are you bothering us will all this security, but aren’t you one of those wanting to know why our government didn’t prevent the WTC attacks?
Hence the title of my prior post. I don’t have the answers, I just think I (and most folks) would rather have too much security than not enough.
