Infuriating

IN THE NEWS
That's the best word I know to describe yesterday's announcement that al Qaeda has been planning to targe major finanical centers in the United States. This story is wrong on so many levels that it screams for someone in the press (or better yet, the public) to ask the obvious follow-up questions:

(1) The lede in the Washington Post says, "The federal government raised the terror alert level yesterday to orange for the financial services sectors in New York City, Washington and Newark, citing the discovery of remarkably detailed intelligence showing that al Qaeda operatives have been plotting for years to blow up specific buildings with car or truck bombs." Yes, they've been plotting since at least 1993, the date of the first World Trade Center bombing. In fact, the major reason for al Qaeda's obsession with the Twin Towers was their symbolic importance as centers of what Islamists argue is neo-imperialist dominance of the Muslim world. So why is this news?

(2) The Department of Homeland Security is now raising the threat level for specific buildings--according to the Post, "the International Monetary Fund and World Bank headquarters in Washington; the New York Stock Exchange and Citigroup Center in New York; and the Prudential Financial building in Newark"--instead of the country generally. Why has it taken almost three years for this absurdly comic color alert system to finally be applied to specific targets, rather than claiming that the risk level was as high in Topeka and Ogden as it is in New York and Washington, DC?

(3) The "news", therefore, amounts to information about al Qaeda's surveillance efforts at these buildings. The way Ridge describes the sources of intelligence, however, the information doesn't sound new. In Ridge's own words, "The quality of this intelligence, based on multiple reporting streams in multiple locations, is rarely seen and it is alarming in both the amount and specificity of the information." It's possible that, simultaneously, these multiple streams--phone calls, emails, face-to-face meetings, etc.--all suddenly gushed specific information about al Qaeda surveillance efforts. However, it's more likely that the better metaphor isn't a stream, but a mosaic of information--built from our own surveillance of al Qaeda, using both human and electronic means. Which is it, Secretary Ridge--is this truly new information that we suddenly acquired, or have US intelligence and law enforcement officials been diligently collecting this information all along?

(4) Given the way terrorists operate, it's more likely that this announcement is the result of a slow accumulation of information and inferences over months or years. In fact, al Qaeda was "casing" these same buildings before the 9/11 attacks, along with other potential targets. Not surprisingly, then, no one--including Ridge and other officials interviewed outside the press conference--can identify the time of a likely attack. Not even a ballpark estimate. So, then, it's the press' responsibility to ask: Is this alleged attack something new, or part of al Qaeda's long-term strategy?

(5) Thus far, when the White House raises the alert level, it hasn't come through with the supplementary funds needed to offset these extra security expenses. Of course, what's famously missing from the Bush Administration's "check in the mail" list is the money it promised to New York City--the place where the Republicans, oddly, are holding their convention at the end of the month. Is the White House or Congress planning any special appropriations to cover these security measures? Or at least finish paying NYC what it had been promised?

(6) Given the Administration's secrecy, it's always a bit surprising for officials to release any details about anything. Remember, this is the same White House that won't release statistics about its counterterrorism efforts; won't make witnesses in federal custody available to accused terrorist conspirators facing trial in US courts; won't release the names of the detainees at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and other facilities in Afghanistan and elsewhere...I won't exhaust you with the full list of occasions when the Bush Administration claimed it couldn't release information without putting its vital counterterrorism efforts at jeopardy. However, it's willing to release this information at this time. Is this announcement being made because an attack is imminent? If so, isn't the announcement itself putting information or lives at risk, or is this attack going to move along anyway? If so, when is it likely to happen?

(7) The announcement begs the question of how al Qaeda plans to execute this alleged attack. Apparently, terrorist planners considered and rejected hijacking an oil tanker, but what else might they do. Airplanes again? Truck bombs? Explosives strapped to suicide bombers' chests? Something else? The possibilities are limitless--but if we have specific information, that list of possibilities should be fairly short. What specific precautions against what kinds of attacks are NYC and federal officials taking? Is there any type of threat to which citizens should be especially alert? And, the obligatory question, if this risk is for real, why are we spending our energies on Iraq instead of port security in New York?

(8) I can't resist adding this question to the list--this time, for the press itself: Do all of you have Post-It notes stuck to the monitors in your cubicles that say, "Remember to call Lieberman if you need someone to pooh-pooh questions about Bush's political motives"?

I don't doubt for a minute that al Qaeda means us harm. (In fact, one of the major reasons for this blog is the concerns I have about the poor job the Bush Administration has done in preventing further 9/11s.) And I don't doubt for a minute that al Qaeda has been checking out these buildings. Given their modus operandi, worldview, and goals, it would be surprising if they hadn't. (Oddly, the Department of Homeland Security's own Threats and Protection page hasn't added this new information, which is, to be fair, on the home page. However, about half the threats listed in the "advisories and bulletins" section discuss sendmail viruses, Microsoft Windows operating system vulnerabilities, and other threats to your home PC--not exactly the "advisories and bulletins" you'd expect.)

I do have my doubts about Ridge's announcement, however. That's because, based on past performance, I have doubts about Ridge--and Ashcroft, and other people in the Administration who have made content-free declarations about terrorist threats or arrests that turn out to be meaningless. Ridge deserved the scorn he received for the non-announcement a few weeks ago that terrorists were about to attack--but he couldn't say when, where, or how. Just go about your business, citizens. (Click here for a very funny cartoon on this topic.)

In short, the Bush Administration has cried wolf one time too many, and officials have tried to excite our fears often for fairly base reasons. Putting New York on a high state of alert a few weeks before the Republican Convention does smell a bit. Of course, that might be a completely unfair suspicion that maligns the hard work of many FBI agents, local law enforcement officers, CIA and NSA analysts, and scores of other people who are probably involved in whatever this effort is to block whatever the attack might be. Their bosses, however, have grabbed the headlines one too many times to do justice to the work they might be doing. Just as bad, the Prudential employees who went to work this morning should not be put in the following dilemma: Do I take this threat seriously, and just have my chain yanked, yet again, by a false alarm; or do I relax my diligence, and miss the warning signs of a threat that might be real?

Comments

[ellroon]

Exactly! I agree! Posted your site over at Kos, more people need to read your take on this.