Ken Layne is back from a long hiatus, and he’s smelling opportunism in the Sunday terror alert. He begins:
After getting through the insane security at CitiBank Headquarters — caused by four-year-old Evidence of Terror Plans released Sunday to scare the bejesus out of you — you get to say “Hi” to Laura Bush in the lobby! That’s neat. (emphasis added)It’s neat when schedules work out that way.
Oh, and the Immediate Alert Scary-Ville terror info? Now they’re saying it actually refers to an attack planned for Sept. 2. You know, the last day of the Republican Convention in New York, when Bush gives his big speech?
This stinks. Go ahead and say, as Tom Ridge did this morning, “This is not about politics. It’s about confidence in government.” If you have to deny it’s about politics — while your party is actively campaigning in the locked-down buildings of New York City filled with teevee cameras and photographers and frazzled employees who wonder if today’s Terror Day — then you have done a Poor Job of showing us otherwise.
I didn’t know that. I’ve been content to be agnostic about this; I genuinely sympathize with the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” dillemma that the Administration faces.
But, yeah. If Homeland Security seriously believed that the CitiBank building was under direct threat- an “enemy target area”, specifically- what was Laura Bush doing there? Wouldn’t it put her safety at risk, while making the building a more attractive target?
I genuinely sympathize with the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” dillemma that the Administration faces.
Fred Kaplan has a good column in Slate making just this point, but there’s an important caveat:
If President Bush is truly serious about preventing terrorist attacks, he has to ensure that these alerts, even when they’re wrong, are at least perceived as sincere and untainted by political motive. By this standard, Tom Ridge last Sunday proved himself a dreadful homeland security secretary, and the Bush administration (by association, if not collaboration) diminished the trust that a president must inspire on such matters.
Unless it was announced a few days ahead of time that L. Bush was going to be in the lobby, I don’t see how her presence can be said to attract al Qaeda - they’re not that quick.
And I’d prefer L. Bush in Citibank’s lobby than GW Bush cowering on some airbase on 9/11.
If you thought terrorists might attack a particular building, would you send your wife there?
So either Bush doesn’t care about his wife, or he doesn’t think the threat’s real.
“If President Bush is truly serious about preventing terrorist attacks, he has to ensure that these alerts, even when they’re wrong, are at least perceived as sincere and untainted by political motive.”
I don’t think that’s actually possible, no matter what Bush does. There are a certain number of people who are going to be totally convinced that it’s all a sham, no matter what evidence is presented.
UCBlockhead, first, the President’s wife is likely a target no matter where she is, and second, she was probably surrounded by enough security people to cause terrorists to scrub their mission even if they WERE planning on attacking that building on that day. Unless they’re total idiots, they’ll attack where our security is weak, not where it’s strong. Warnings such as these are effectively self-negating prophesies.
> what was Laura Bush doing there
That is a fairly simple analysis: risk that an attack will happen during the 2 hours Laura Bush is there: very low. Cost to economy if 10,000 people refuse to work in Citicorp Tower: very high. So expose Laura to the risk for 2 hours to create a perception of security among the 10,000, then get her the heck out of Dodge.
Meanwhile, the 10,000 continue (or not) to absorb the risk for the next 20 years.
Cranky
It seems to me that this type of “Alert system”, while useful in other emergencies, is not very effective in this area. Differently from let’s say hurricanes or nuclear attacks, the authorities usually do not have reasonable certainty that an attack will be coming at a given time (or where, for that matter). Without that certainty, the alert is to the public simultaneously alarming and useless. You are supposed to act like nothing happens but be very afraid doing it (which frankly it’s not very useful). Interestingly enough, countries with long experiences with terrorism like England or Spain, deal with information about attacks in a completely different way.
I agree that
(a) The administration handled this latest warning in the only way they could, and that
(b) They will, in fact, be damned either way, politically speaking.
But they did bring this on themselves by shredding their own credibility over the last 3 1/2 years. They Saddamed (Saddamned?) themselves. We’ve got so much evidence that they’re willing to lie about important matters that it’s now rational to be suspicious of them at every turn, even though the evidence taken by itself in this particular case is far from damning.
I agree that
(a) The administration handled this latest warning in the only way they could, and that
(b) They will, in fact, be damned either way, politically speaking.
But they did bring this on themselves by shredding their own credibility over the last 3 1/2 years. They Saddamed (Saddamned?) themselves. We’ve got so much evidence that they’re willing to lie about important matters that it’s now rational to be suspicious of them at every turn, even though the evidence taken by itself in this particular case is far from damning.
I agree that
(a) The administration handled this latest warning in the only way they could, and that
(b) They will, in fact, be damned either way, politically speaking.
But they did bring this on themselves by shredding their own credibility over the last 3 1/2 years. They Saddamed (Saddamned?) themselves. We’ve got so much evidence that they’re willing to lie about important matters that it’s now rational to be suspicious of them at every turn, even though the evidence taken by itself in this particular case is far from damning.
So let me see if I can “connect the dots” on Winston Smith’s belief that “The administration handled this latest warning in the only way they could”:
1) There are credible reports, based on information that dates back to at least January, that there will be an attack on a specific building or buildings (including one quite close to where I am right now and one very directly on my way home, so, yes, I take this personally) on a specific date.
2) The specific date is, at the time of the warning, over a month away.
3) The date happens to coincide with the date that everyone and his brother would MOST expect an attack in the NYC area.
4) The warning is issued without mentioning the date.
If this is “the only way,” what happened to, say, (1) quietly increasing security, (2) not making any public announcement that would alert the terrorist early enough for them to, say, select an alternative target, and (3) only making an announcement closer to the expected time—a time, to be nice about it, when there will be EXTREME security in NYC?
What someone tells you three times is true . . .
;)
I think the point of sending Laura Bush to the building was to show that it was safe to be in the building. But it was safe because of the heightened security precautions, not because the threat was bogus. I think Ted’s analysis assumes that the heightened security in response to the threat doesn’t actually improve security. That may be true, but I don’t think you can make that assumption implicitly.
> What someone tells you three times
> is true . . .
Whereas I go with the Little Bunny Foo-Foo theory: “I give you threeeeeee chances…”
Cranky
I agree that
(a) The administration handled this latest warning in the only way they could, and that
(b) They will, in fact, be damned either way, politically speaking.
But they did bring this on themselves by shredding their own credibility over the last 3 1/2 years. They Saddamed (Saddamned?) themselves. We’ve got so much evidence that they’re willing to lie about important matters that it’s now rational to be suspicious of them at every turn, even though the evidence taken by itself in this particular case is far from damning.
I agree that
(a) The administration handled this latest warning in the only way they could, and that
(b) They will, in fact, be damned either way, politically speaking.
But they did bring this on themselves by shredding their own credibility over the last 3 1/2 years. They Saddamed (Saddamned?) themselves. We’ve got so much evidence that they’re willing to lie about important matters that it’s now rational to be suspicious of them at every turn, even though the evidence taken by itself in this particular case is far from damning.
If you don’t make high-profile public relations stops on behalf of your husband’s campaign, then the terrorists have won.
Egad, sorry about that… The page locked up on me…for awhile I valiantly resisted the urge to click ‘post’ again…but then…then…the temptation was just too great…
I am mortified…
Ken—I just heard about the 9/2 date, so hadn’t had time to think about that. I was still thinking in terms of the undated threat. In such a case, seems like all you can do is put the info out with some alacrity. They waited three weeks, but I’m willing to give ‘em that; keeping it secret for awhile while you try to exploit the info in secret ops seems reasonable.
My point is, in fact, this: what they did seems reasonable enough to me…or it would, anyway, if I weren’t already suspicious of them.
Not just Laura, but George W’s daughters were there too. I might buy that Laura being there is an “it’s safe” thing, but you just don’t send your kids into something like that if you honestly believe there is a heightened threat. It’s ridiculous.
That is a fairly simple analysis: risk that an attack will happen during the 2 hours Laura Bush is there: very low. Cost to economy if 10,000 people refuse to work in Citicorp Tower: very high. So expose Laura to the risk for 2 hours to create a perception of security among the 10,000, then get her the heck out of Dodge.
Who the hell would have a family member at a place where a terrorist threat warning was issued. Ask yourself this: if there’s a lightning storm are you gonna run outside and hold a metal rod in the air because there is a slim chance you might get electrocuted? I wouldn’t.
Winston,
I readily concede that, without a time frame, it is much more difficult NOT to “cry wolf” IF you have credible information.
But, if you have no timeframe, how credible can your information be? Especially when you declare—as Ridge did the next day, despite having used the word “new” in the initial announcement—that the most recent of it is from January?
The Best Case scenario (again, without a date): ORG plans to do X, which involves specific targets, within the next Y months. We have just reached the end of Y-1.
So you know they plan to do something within the next few weeks.
The problem is: I’m still at a loss to see why—IF you plan to PREVENT them doing something—you announce the SPECIFIC targets with no more reliable information.
The two choices are: (1) you KNOW the actual targets are NOT those named, and you’re trying to fool the terrorists into thinking your most reliable information is outdated (in which case, you send your wife, knowing you are NOT making the Henry-Fonda-at-the-end-of-_Fail Safe_-choice) or (2) you know you will NOT prevent the attack, and want to make people think “we tried.”
I’m still failing to see EITHER of those as a good option, let alone the only one.
Where do you get “three weeks”? If the most recent information is January, it’s longer than that. If the information is directly tied to the Pakistan initiative, it’s significantly less than that.
As I say, I work in the general area, and am walking through the notably increased security every day; they do not appear to have endeavoured to do anything by stealth BEFORE “going public.”
Ken,
Re: three weeks:
Apparently they got the information three weeks ago, tho, as you point out, it was most recently updated in January.
Anyway, so the info is kinda old to al Q, but new to us…it’s not like they could have released it in February…
Anyway, it sounds to me like our only substantive disagreement may be over whether to release the info or not. I wondered about this, too, but apparently even non-administration types agree that al Q. drops targets once they’re outted. So the policy is apparently to release the info in order to cause ‘em to start over on new targets. It doesn’t obviously seem to be the right strategy to folks like us, be we aren’t experts, and that’s what the experts say—even those who are not running dog lackies of the admin.—so we should believe ‘em.
And I should hope that you couldn’t detect their stealth operations (if any)! I hope they’re better than that!
I’ve heard that the info was years old, but that the file on the bad guys’ computer might have been “opened” as recently as January.
Assuming there is a kernal of truth to the story, the majority of the info predates 9/11 (they admit this, yes?). Why wouldn’t the contacts, operatives, information on sites, security, etc., have been significantly affected by the prosecution of the “Worldwide War on Terror!” sice then?
IOW, if alQ’s planning info has withstood 3 or 4 years of the US post-9/11 anti-terrorism campaign, then somebody’s not doing a very good job.
But I don’t follow this WOT stuff too closely, so caveats…I just can’t stand to listen to the posturing and paranoia-pandering from the media morons and terrorism experts, as they repeat each other’s meaningless conventional wisdom. I wish they would go back to hyperventilating about, say, the undercooked chicken crisis. The chances of dying from your dinner are, actually, much higher after all. (6000-9000 deaths a year).
Who the hell would have a family member at a place where a terrorist threat warning was issued. Ask yourself this: if there’s a lightning storm are you gonna run outside and hold a metal rod in the air because there is a slim chance you might get electrocuted? I wouldn’t.Whereas lightning researchers would, and do. One of the downsides (or upsides, if you are an adrenaline lover) to a government job at the very top is that you expose your family to some risks - sometimes intentionally, for political ends.
sPh
Poor Laura. Sacrificed to the altar of Security. It’s such a hard job being the President, or his wife, or his men. You expose yourself so much to such risks, PEOPLE SHOULD JUST BE MORE GRATEFUL!!! And stop with the questions already, ok? What are you, anti-american? Have some faith, you whiney bastards.
That’s what I’d say, if I was Tom Ridge.
Such a relief, that he had more conscience than that!
The Laura Bush things reminds me of that guy who had his daughter eat a hamburger on tv a few years back, during the mad cow scare. They are hardly putting their loved ones in danger - the fact that the kid ate a burger, or that the First Lady visited the building, would not have been noteworthy if it had not been set up as a publicity stunt.
My opinion is that, when the government releases warnings like this, there is usually no way of knowing whether they were right to issue the warning or whether it was politically motivated. I don’t expect enough relevant information to be public, which is as it should be. But I need to be able to trust that government is working to thwart terrorist attacks, and not for political gain. Once they’ve lost that trust and shown a pattern of dubious claims and politically calculated behavior, then skeptical speculation about their motives spreads well beyond fringe conspiracy theorists and becomes common (though most likely inconclusive).
The “guy” was British Minister for Agriculture John Selwyn Gummer (known as “Forrest Gum” to his friends).
If George Bush has sunk to the level of John Selwyn Gummer, boy, has the United States got problems!
MFB: ITYM “risen”. HTH.
MFB: ITYM “risen”. HTH.
Winston (love the nom de guerre, by the way),
They’re better on stealth efforts (though there is one guy who is always in the same place, no matter what time I pass him), but most of the acts they’ve taken “in response” are ones that (1) they could have done without announcing why because they are (2) not noticeable incrementally, i.e., an extra guard or two blends in, even in fatigues.
And the stealth measures are, as noted, supposed to be stealth.
Remember, NYC is Orange anyway. So “raising” the alert to Orange doesn’t affect this area as much as it would some place in AL or AZ or WY…
What is the evidence that aQ changes targets when outted? Their ventures have all been (a) thoroughly planned and organized and (b) had incremental more redundancy in the plan [e.g., flight 93 failed, but the operation was successful).
If that were true, every leaders would simply announce that s/he has “credible evidence” that aQ plans to attack [name significant city or building]. The Spanish leader certainly neglected to do that.
Try a thought experiment: Bush and Co. actually READ their briefings, the National Security Advisor actually had paid attention in 1998 when the G-10 first worried publicly about the possibility of using passenger planes as weapons, and the FBI field reports were escalated. Oh, and the month of August wasn’t treated as vacation by the entire upper level of the administration.
However, the drone Clinton used to track Bin Laden remains removed, and there are limited or no incremental security measures at the airports (no time to put them in place, etc.)
Somewhere around late August/early September (after the August 6th PDB but before September 11th), the Administration puts the pieces together and realises that al Queda plans to use passenger planes as a weapon.
If they make an announcement on, say, September 7th that they have credible evidence that terrorists plan to attack the World Trade Center (tallest building in NYC), the Pentagon, the White House, the Sears Tower in Chicago, and the Transamerica building in SF, does that prevent aQ from completing its years-in-the-planning attacks?
This is a straightforward problem of economics: information asymmetry leading to an arbitrage opportunity. In this specific case, greater information dissemination may change magnitude (marginal effect; e.g., the ca. 21% of people in this week’s CNN poll who said they wouldn’t have gone to work reduces casualty count), but it seems unlikely to change the occurence.
Just a word in defence of John Gummer. Despite his moment of folly early on in the BSE crisis, it is worth bearing in mind that he has been hugely right-on about world poverty issues, wasting nonrenewable natural resources etc, and is an excellent constituency MP. And a Tory to boot. Frankly, he could wipe the floor with George W and most of his compatriots.
Perhaps Laura’s presence in the danger zone was suggested by Condi to her husb… er, the President.
Seriously, I would have given much more credence to Ridge’s pronouncements if he had just been straightforward and not included the political fluff. God, I hate what these people have done to my country.
You see, Laura is Very Brave. And of course she’s an excellent driver.
Carlos said: “Interestingly enough, countries with long experiences with terrorism like England or Spain, deal with information about attacks in a completely different way.”
Yes, what do they do? I agree fully that the alert system seems unhappily imported from other domains in which it is more suitable and useful. But then, because I am ignorant of the other strategies for handling this kind of situation (and, I suppose, an uncreative thinker in this regard) I find that I am often left thinking, “Well, this is useless, but what else could they do?” This is unsatisfactory.
Educate me, please.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review