Terror Alert Status Fallacy

[michaellee]

Just what is the Alert Status and what happens when the level is changed?

National Terror Threat Alert Status- 5 levels of conditions

Red - Severe
Orange - High
Yellow - Elevated
Blue - Guarded
Green - Low

This color coded system debuted in March 2002 with the status Yellow.
To date, the status has been raised to Orange level and lowered back to Yellow four times:

raised from Yellow to Orange for 2 weeks in Sep 2002
raised from Yellow to Orange for 3 weeks in Feb 2003
raised from Yellow to Orange for 2 weeks in Mar 2003
raised from Yellow to Orange for 10 days in May 2003

The US government estimates that raising from Yellow to Orange level status for a 2 week period costs the U.S. $5 billion
for increased security and overtime for law enforcement nationwide. New York City spends an extra $10 million, and Los
Angeles spends an extra $5 million for each 2 week period at the Orange status level.

During those four Orange periods, no attacks on US soil occurred nor were any suspected terrorists discovered or arrested
due to the "high" security measures.

During the Yellow periods, no attacks on US soil occurred nor were any suspected terrorists discovered or arrested due to
the "elevated" security measures.

In Sep 2003, the U.S. government raised the bar for elevating the threat level; to be raised only if there was specific and
credible information about an attack.

US and foreign sources of intelligence have reported a major increase in the volume of "chatter" from overseas
since October about a series of coordinated attacks in the United States. This new intelligence also indicates
that al Qaeda terrorists are exploring ways to hijack planes overseas.

The increased terror threat resulted in the terror threat color code alert status raising from Yellow to Orange on Dec 21 2003,
for the fifth time.

Under the current Orange alert status:

U.S. administration has contacted airlines and foreign governments to urge them to tighten security on all U.S. bound flights.
To prevent a potential attack, officials for the U.S. Military air defense were ordered to increase the number of patrols.

This new Orange level has also triggered the following actions to take place on U.S soil:

Stepped-up security patrols at airports nationwide.
Random, warrantless airport automobile searches.
Extra truck weigh station checkpoint searches using undercover officers and bomb-searching dogs.
Doubling of bridge patrol cars and the addition of undercover officer bridge foot patrols.
Increase of shipping port cargo container inspections.
Increase of Coast Guard boat patrols.
Airport custodians trained for trash can bomb awareness.
Rapid transit station lockdown of bathrooms and police monitoring of trains and station trash cans.

The obvious differences when the status raises from Yellow to Orange fall into two categories:

1. Heightened security- increase of manpower, patrols, searches, inspections, and monitoring.
At a cost of $5 billion per two week period.

2. Decreased liberty and travel delays for American citizens.
Unless random auto searches and overblown intrusive baggage and truck searches equal liberty.

The not so obvious Orange status differences:

1. A zero percent increase in the number of terrorists captured using the "high" security measures verses "elevated".
It could not be lower than the zero captured when on "elevated" alert status.

2. A recent trend to broaden the U.S. security measures to encompass foreign countries and airports.
That world's policeman thing again?

What bothers me the most is what never is mentioned by the media, politicians, or posters here at the JREF.

By having five levels of status alerts, isn't the U.S. government admitting that unless we are at the "Red" level, all of the anti-terrorism
security measures in place at each of the four lower levels are simply half-assed attempts to fight or find actual terrorists?
For instance, when at the "Elevated" Yellow status, the security measures implemented obviously are not the ones best suited to protect
the U.S. from terrorist attack. If they are, then how is it possible to "tighten security" by going to "high" status?

This seems to tell me that the anti-terrorism and homeland security people are NOT doing the best job they can be doing unless at "Red" level.
If they were, how would it be possible to improve or tighten security if you were already doing the best you could do at the "Yellow" level?

Am I to believe that when under "Yellow" status, and I walk through an airport to board a plane, that the screeners use a different set of guidelines
or instructions, ones that "lessen" security compared to the guidelines used when on "Red" level? I think not.
Screening a piece of luggage is screening a piece of luggage no matter what terror level the feds want to issue to the masses.

Do screeners let bombs, guns, knives and box-cutters go by when at Green "low" status?
And when at Blue status, do they confiscate the bombs but let guns, knives, and box-cutters go by?
And when at Yellow status, do they confiscate the bombs and guns, but let knives and box-cutters go by?
And when at Orange status, do they then confiscate everything except the box-cutters?
And when at Red status, do they finally do the best, the most heightened job possible by finally confiscating the box-cutters?

The same argument can be made for the increased patrols, searches, inspections, etc..

If this country truly wants to take the terrorist threat head-on, then we all need to wake up and realize that all we need is one level.
The one level would simply be the one where we at least TRY to do the best at all times, by implementing anti-terrorism policies deemed to be
the best known to us at the time, allowing for improvements discovered later to improve that same level; not to reserve the best practices for when
the end is near and panic rules and then declare "STATUS RED!".

This approach would also reduce greatly or eliminate the infringement on our liberties so common to the method currently in use.

I call this level not blue, green, yellow, orange or red; I call it "American".

 

[Zero]

Ummm...let me get the obvious out of the way: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We don't KNOW that stepped up security hasn't discouraged terrorists, evenif it does seem unlikely from time to time.

On the other hand, it IS a good point that we should have a steady high level of security...unfortunately, there is no way to pay for it, not while continuing to cut taxes and spend money in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Peter Jenkins]

The percieved values of these levels, outside of the US

Yellow level : ordinary people are going to be subject to delays at any US border, by unthinking, humourless fools. God help you if you happen to look 'middle eastern'

Orange level : As above. God help you, if you are anything but a WASP

Red level: Just dont bother going near any US border.

I recall an incident that happened in the UK, in the early part of this year. You may remember Tanks were sent to Heathrow Airport. The London orbital motorway was brought to a near standstill, Police were brought in and -----------well, basically, Nothing happened.
This, of course, was a triumph for the forces of lamw and order because, something COULD have happened and our increased vigilance prevented it.........possibly

Peter

 

[richardm]

During those four Orange periods, no attacks on US soil occurred nor were any suspected terrorists discovered or arrested due to the "high" security measures.

Just shows how well it works, doesn't it? I have a special rock in my garden that keeps elephants away, and works on the same principle.

 

[michaellee]

Ummm...let me get the obvious out of the way: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We don't KNOW that stepped up security hasn't discouraged terrorists, evenif it does seem unlikely from time to time.

No we don't. "stepped up security" is either an oxymoron or a brilliant future political catchphrase. Stepping up security, as practiced by the U.S. now, does little to improve the chances of either capturing a terrorist or preventing a terrorist act. The U.S. just throws more $$$, i.e. more government employees, at the problem, without changing the method behind the madness.

Double, triple or quadruple the number of airport screeners and the number of solo searches performed, shoes removed, baby carriages searched, and the result will be same as before. Searching and confiscating toe-nail clippers from inside a 90 year old grandmothers purse, or taking away a 7th graders knitting needles will not change the reality of terrorism, although it may help build up the wonderful government trophy quota of seized items.

Until policy including the practice of searching, identifying and detaining terrorists, instead of meaningless "weapons" is instituted, the US government will just continue to throw more money at the problem with little or no result.

As for discouraging terrorists by stepping up security; if by stepping up you mean "raising alert status to Orange" or "Red", then all this does is alert a terrorist to what steps he must take to circumvent security, i.e. he must fool 4 screeners instead of 2, and arrive at the airport 2 hours early instead of the planned 1 hour.

On the other hand, it IS a good point that we should have a steady high level of security...unfortunately, there is no way to pay for it, not while continuing to cut taxes and spend money in Iraq and Afghanistan

Yes, it is beyond imagination that the US government could afford to pay to protect and defend the United States of America, one of the few tasks actually delegated to it by the Constitution.
Lets see, with estimated 2004 revenue of over $2,000,000,000,000, not counting Medicare, Social Security and such revenue, and the government estimate of $33,000,000,000,000 in revenue it will collect over the next ten years, if we only didn't have that damn tax cut, we could afford to defend the U.S.! How much WAS the tax cut stretched out over 10 years for? Hell, lets make it $500,000,000,000 just for the fun of it. $33 trillion - $500 billion leaves only a paltry $32.5 trillion left over! Who will defend us?

 

[jimmygun]

The US government...damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

[michaellee]

Just shows how well it works, doesn't it? I have a special rock in my garden that keeps elephants away, and works on the same principle.

True, but then......
during all of the Yellow periods, no attacks on US soil occurred nor were any suspected terrorists discovered or arrested when at "elevated" level.

The same then can be said for the years 1945-1972 , when baggage and passenger screening was non existant and it was legal to carry a registered firearm on an airplane. Not one suspected terrorist nor one attack on US soil during this time period.

 

[richardm]

The same then can be said for the years 1945-1972 , when baggage and passenger screening was non existant and it was legal to carry a registered firearm on an airplane. Not one suspected terrorist nor one attack on US soil during this time period.

Firearms were banned on planes when people started to use them to hijack the aircraft.

Knives and other pointy objects were banned on planes when people started to use them to hijack the aircraft.

Invariably when this argument comes up, the matter of the 90 year old getting the nail clippers confiscated from her handbag is raised; sometimes she is in a wheelchair too.

I'd ask you only to consider if it would be fair to let her keep her nail clippers but to confiscate mine?

I'd also add that the whole screening thing is a farce anyway, since as soon as you're through security you are in a shop full of weapons. As someone who was born and raised in a pretty rough area, I can assure you that the broken end of a bottle is a dangerous thing.

 

[Samus]

The point of the system is to have increased vigilance. If the intelligence community (IC) says that there is no credible evidence to indicate an immediate attack, then the highest level of security and policing is not necessary, nor is it feasible considering the cost of implementing it, as you pointed out.

If the IC has indications that a planned attack is more imminent, then HLS wants to increase the amount of policiing and security at known vulnerable locations, such as airports.

Assuming an accurate assessment from the IC, a terror alert system has no inherent flaws (note I said a system, not necessarily the one we have implemented).

The problem with the system as we have implemented it is that we only increase security in known vulnerable locations. Trying to find a terrorist waltzing through these known locations is not going to be effective. More needs to be done to win hearts and minds in other countries (such as Yemen, Iran, etc.), and get the cooperation and resources of those governments to help decapitate and spoil the plans of known terrorist networks. The non-state actors are the problem, and we haven't done anything significant since removing the Taliban government to further that goal.