Terror Threat = Government Lies?

the one thats just happened in london, where there were tanks out at the airport and a LOT of frenzied activity in the news about an imminent attack ... surely designed to instill fear into the public and make people more in favour of action. but, if this is the case, it is a dangerous action. if no terror attack materialises blairs action will not look believable (yes, theyll say they thwarted it, but will *we* believe them? i would say no). so i think, if this was for political reasons (as most people seem to believe now), hes going to have to get the mileage out of it while he can, which, to me, suggests war in the next week, otherwise hes lost his momentum.

however, on the other hand, blairs capacity for actually believing in himself, and also for hamfistnedness means it could just be another muddle

the actually evidence/information is probably much the same as it's always been, pre- and post 9/11, ie low-level noise with worrying but inconclusive elements in it, and then a chain of command at each level drawing conclusions second-guessing their own professional situation if they're wrong about it, way before it reaches anyone able to make big public decisions/announcements

the decision to interpret it scarily needn't be high-level either: the security services can't afford to be seen to let anything else through

even the decision to broadcast it — at least in the uk — relates more to the fact that visible security activity (ie at heathrow) will start rumours anyway, so you might as well pre-empt and (somewhat) control them with official announcements

i imagine greatly increased clandestine activity in the various national security worlds (ie russia, france, uk, us) is also busily mutually setting off alarms

Which means of course that we will see renewed interest in Rocky and Bullwinkle.

the conservative spokesman on TV last night was visibly distressed at being torn between being MORE PRO WAR THAN BLAIR and wanting to tear into the hopelessness of the govt's dealing with this whole thing and exploit its increasing unpopularity

two nights ago i saw portillo making the deeply unconvincing claim that the only real reason the public was against the war was that blair had competely lost control of his backbenchers

But I think mark's talking a lot of sense about the 'low-level noise' as well. Sure, there's a massive element of doubt and uncertainty there. I guess some of the security recommendations/actions are more transparently fake than others though.

Or it could just be a cynical political tool.

And it covers the govt's ass.
"See, we told you shit might happen"

1 - Official view - terrorists are linked to Saddam, hence increased terror = increased reason for attacking Saddam

2 S is desperate not to be attacked and will do nothing to provoke/provide excuse for war he will certainly lose

3 Conclusion, either terrorist risk is lower or Saddam has no influence over level of threat

on the bright side, shares of 3m are up.

well, no: after all, us citizenry don't especially respect the competence of the us govt or its various bureaucracies any more than anyone else does (so the y2k types will buy up all the cans of wieners and everyone else will gloomily wait and see)

lemme preempt you before you pull that wingnut chestnut outta yer ass.

MSNBC just aired a segment about folks in a small town community in ALABAMA (!?!?!?!) stocking up on duct tape and supplies, etc. I mean,....really! Do you HONESTLY believe that Sweet Home Alabama is going to be the NEXT place terrorism would strike? I think it's pretty preposterous m'self, but I'm still taking this code Orange stuff pretty seriously, living here in NYC. I'm not buying duct tape (as it wouldn't do a lick of good....let's say I duct taped my windows...what about all the other windows and doors in my apartment building? What a crock!) I am avoiding mass transit and big name soft targets (although I work in Rockefeller Center, itself conceivably a target). I've lost faith in our current adminstration's ability to effectively warn or protect us (the code Orange warnings are just a way of covering their ass in case something does happen....telling us to go buy duct tape seems tantamount to saying "let them eat cake!"). I don't know who to believe anymore, but Tom Ridge doesn't exude a lot of confidence as far as I'm concerned.

Alex: Regardless of those particular folks thought process, Alabama is the location of a number of excellent military targets. Plus if you were a terrorist looking for an easy place to set off a bomb that would scare the shit out of people would you

A. Kill a bunch of NYCers again, confirming that you are only interested in coastal megacities?
B. Gas a number of smaller towns throughout the countryside, scaring the living bejeezus out of the ENTIRE NATION?

But of course that's all speculation and ludicrous at that, everybody knows these ragheads are just idiots with no inclination towards creativity in the service of evil. Ha! Iraqi suicide bombers in the US! Never happen!

GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL: "There's all this, there's all that, we know this, we know that, and here's what we're telling you."

PUBLIC: "Great. So what exactly are you doing about it?"

G-I-G: "Er, can't tell you, sorry."

...which is of course on the one hand exactly what you want to say if you're keeping everything covered/secret/still investigating, to not show your hand too early and so forth. But on the other hand giving out all the information had already makes it seem like there's a huge overwhelming flood of a problem or problems about to hit and there's nothing much to be done about it except worry. Is that constructive or not?

Maybe Ridge et al have absolutely no axe to grind with these warnings. Wonderful for them if that's the case, but if they aren't stopping to wonder why there's doubt and cynicism on the one hand and near panic on the other, then that's pretty damned naive, I'd think.

Feb. 13 — A key piece of the information leading to recent terror alerts was fabricated, according to two senior law enforcement officials in Washington and New York.

 The officials said that a claim made by a captured al Qaeda member that Washington, New York or Florida would be hit by a "dirty bomb" sometime this week had proven to be a product of his imagination.

The informant described a detailed plan that an al Qaeda cell operating in either Virginia or Detroit had developed a way to slip past airport scanners with dirty bombs encased in shoes, suitcases, or laptops, sources told ABCNEWS. The informant reportedly cited specific targets of government buildings and Christian or clerical centers.

"This piece of that puzzle turns out to be fabricated and therefore the reason for a lot of the alarm, particularly in Washington this week, has been dissipated after they found out that this information was not true," said Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism chief and ABCNEWS consultant.

It was only after the threat level was elevated to orange — meaning high — last week, that the informant was subjected to a polygraph test by the FBI, officials told ABCNEWS.

"This person did not pass," said Cannistraro.

According to officials, the FBI and the CIA are pointing fingers at each other. An FBI spokesperson told ABCNEWS today he was "not familiar with the scenario," but did not think it was accurate.

Despite the fabricated report, there are no plans to change the threat level. Officials said other intelligence has been validated and that the high level of precautions is fully warranted.

Terror watch list approaches 800,000; how many Noise Dudes must be on it?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-23-Watchlist_N.htm

"It undermines the authority of the list," says Lisa Graves of the Center for National Security Studies. "There's just no rational, reasonable estimate that there's anywhere close to that many suspected terrorists."