Infuriating, continued

IN THE NEWS
Both The New York Times and The Washington Post carry effectively the same story today: the high state of alert for financial institutions in the New York area is based on old intelligence. The newest information, according to the Post, may have been an update to a computer file in January 2004. (I update the files that form this blog daily, by the way, but no cause for alarm, citizens.)

Here's the essential quote from the Post article:

"There is nothing right now that we're hearing that is new," said one senior law enforcement official who was briefed on the alert. "Why did we go to this level? . . . I still don't know that."

As I said yesterday, it's time for the Bush Administration to answer some harder questions about this incident than what it has received to date. I'm not surprised to hear that the intelligence on which this alert was based was old, and I am still infuriated. Any intelligence about al Qaeda attacks, no matter how old, will be troubling. (I don't expect to see an article with the headline, "Al Qaeda Abandons Terrorism for Flower Arranging, New Intelligence Shows.") And it had better be specific to some degree, or else what the hell have our intelligence and police agencies been doing for the last few years? The backpedalling here is as non-sensical as Ridge's original non-announcement of two weeks ago, and appears just as cynical.

Among the many infuriating elements of this incident is the very real cost of spurious alerts. There's always a direct dollar cost, in extra police, security guards, FBI agents, and other personnel kept on duty, plus the gasoline for the helicopters, the electricity for mobile equipment, and other "hard costs." There's also the "soft cost" in work time lost, the general distraction of everyone close to the high security zone, traffic slowed or stopped, and other less visible line items. Personally, I think this column in the expense sheet is fairly bogus, actually, but since many in the commentariat were quick to bring it up to denounce anti-war protesters blocking intersections in major American cities, it's only fair to bring it up now. There's also the effect on the stock market, which always reacts negatively to uncertainty and risk. And, finally, there are the many faces of "alert fatigue." Not only will security professionals lose their edge with each alert, but citizens will also become less vigilant, missing the signs of what might be a real threat. If you've ever wondered why warships don't stay in a state of constant alert, even when in a war zone, alert fatigue is a major part of the explanation.

In short, not only does this alert seem unnecessary on the surface, perhaps inspired by suspect political motives, but it also costs you and me in both direct and indirect ways, and it risks making us less safe.

UPDATE: In case you're wondering why I'm suspicious of Ridge, here's a quote straight from his press conference in which he announced the higher state of alert:

We must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror.

I liked Jon Stewart's line last night: He's planning on retiring soon so that he can spend more time scaring his own family.

Meanwhile, Katherine Harris is trumpeting claims that the Bush Administration has thwarted 100 terrorist attacks. Obviously, that's a suspiciously round number. Unfortunately, no one in the Administration is telling her to keep her mouth shut, so either (1) the claim is bogus, so no harm done to our counterterrorism efforts, or (2) federal officials have stopped these attacks, in which case someone in the Administration should spill about the details. I've been harping on this point for some time: where are the statistics on counterterrorism since 9/11? Obviously, someone like the Senate Intelligence Committee or the House Armed Services Committee would need access to some of the secret or classified information needed to verify the numbers, but someone, somewhere in the federal government other than Katherine Harris (who is not to be believed) has some win/loss statistics?