Apparently the info that's sent NYC and DC, and the nation for that matter, into a high alert from terrorism is year's old. Yes, it was recently uncovered as a part of the recent raid in Pakistan, but...
A sizable part of the information seized in Pakistan described reconnaissance carried out before the Sept. 11 attacks, officials said. The documents do not indicate who wrote the detailed descriptions of security arrangements at the financial buildings or whether the surveillance was conducted for a current operation or was part of preparations for a plan that was later set aside. In a briefing on Sunday, a senior intelligence official said that the threat to the financial institutions "probably continues even today." |
OK.. Not to be a cynic... But why did this send us into overdrive? Didn't we all already know that these are exactly the types of targets they're likely to strike? Isn't it therefore logical to conclude that they've had exactly these types of sites under surveillance for years? And therefore, doesn't it logically follow that we should have ALREADY ASSUMED that these places were at particular risk, and should therefore have been actively trying to protect them? Why is info from 4 years ago that has no new details or specifics, that does nothing except confirm something we already knew to be the truth, causing our governemt to issue new warnings? Why are we acting like we learned something new here?
| Another counterterrorism official in Washington said that it was not yet clear whether the information pointed to a current plot. "We know that Al Qaeda routinely cases targets and then puts the plans on a shelf without doing anything,'' the official said. |
and at the end of the same article, this quote:
| "Al Qaeda routinely comes up with ways to hit targets for years at a time, so it may not mean much that these buildings were first targeted more than three years ago,'' the official said. |
So what exactly makes this worthy of a major alert? I simply don't understand. And I have three huge problems with this.
First, its the boy who cried wolf effect. If they keep issuing alerts when they aren't absolutely necessary, eventually people will stop listening. In many ways I think that's already starting to happen.
Second, this is yet another example of why the color coded alert system is useless. Since it was created, we've been at two levels - yellow and orange. Tom Ridge has admitted publicly on several occasions that we'll only move to red when an attack is essentially underway. And that we won't go to blue or green any time in the forseeable future. So what the hell is the point of a 5 level system with only 2 usable levels? And can anyone out there explain to me wha the difference between yellow and orange is? From yesterday's alert, it would seem to me that orange means that someone somewhere learned something (not something new, just something), where yellow means nobody learned anything today. That's the criteria we use for shutting down half of New York City?
Third, I'd point you back to my post about the recent Bill Moyer's segment with the author of Fear's Empire. This is precisely the kind of "strategic jujitsu" that he (correctly in my opinion) says is critical for us to avoid if we're to win this war.
Why do I feel like the people who are responsible for thinking about things like this aren't. :(
UPDATE: According to a CBS News article:
| The FBI is analyzing the information about the surveillance of these five buildings, obtained after Khan's capture, to try to determine when it may have occurred, so that investigators can review building logs or videos during that same period, said one senior law enforcement official, speaking only on condition of anonymity because of the continuing investigation.
Investigators hope that logs or video might help identify some of the individuals involved, which would help agents understand the breadth of the terror plot. The FBI is also trying to compare reports about the surveillance with previous intelligence reports that might have been considered innocuous or unconfirmed months ago, but might take on important new meaning in light of the latest information. |
I understand the delicate balance that our government must strike between informing the public and keep the information to themselves, but wouldn't it have made sense, given that this involved surveillance that took place prior to 9/11, to wait a bit longer before making this public? I mean, at this point, its going to be much, MUCH harder to track down anyone involved in this plot, know that they know we know all about it. I can see the argument that "by going public, we may prevent an imminent attack", but what in this new info suggested anything was imminent. Wouldn't our ability to gather info have been improved by keeping this quiet at least a bit longer? I just don't understand how going public in this way and at this time helps ANYTHING. But at the same time, I refuse to go down the Michael Moore-esque "there must be some other reason" road. I'm just not willing to be that cynical.
As Hanlon's Razor says, "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately by stupidity."
Hey - maybe that should be the Bush's new campaigns slogan?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
--------
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: It's YEARS Old???.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.alexwhalen.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1133
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Leave a comment