It is a quandary as old as Aesop and as fresh as the morning's news: When should a threat prompt a warning? And how many warnings without either disaster or a confirmed defusing does it take to make even the worst threat seem somehow less urgent, or credible or real?
Almost every time the administration of US President George W. Bush has issued an elevated-threat warning over the last two years -- often as a result of menacing but imprecise intelligence -- it has faced such questions. Administration officials from the president on down say they have little choice, and they believe that such warnings have a deterrent, disruptive effect on plotting by al-Qaeda.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
On Sunday, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge not only issued a public warning for financial institutions in New York, New Jersey and Washington, but also took the unusual step of conducting a conference call with network anchors and newspaper editors to alert them that the warning was coming. As he had before, Ridge pledged increased vigilance, then urged even those workers most directly affected by the threat to say, "Well, we know what you know, and we're going to go about leading our lives."
But how?
"In a society such as ours is becoming, it is intolerable that officials might know about an impending attack and not make this knowledge public," said Philip Bobbitt, a law professor at the University of Texas who is an expert on international security affairs.
"On the other hand, it hands the terrorists a costless if minor victory by terrorizing the population. If officials try to minimize that impact -- `Go on about your business, et cetera' -- they dilute the effectiveness of the announcement and encourage a complacency they were trying to pierce with the announcement in the first place," Bobbit said.
Bush himself was emphatic, telling reporters in the Rose Garden on Monday: "We have an obligation. When we find out something, we got to share it. And what we're talking about here is a very serious matter based upon sound intelligence. And I would hope the people affected in New York realize that by sharing intelligence, we can better prepare in case something were to happen.
"In other words, if we were just silent on the subject, I think people would be a lot more nervous," he said.
Would they?
Ridge has raised the color-coded threat level from yellow to orange on five previous occasions, often as a result of threats that were relatively specific as to time but not to place. Previous confidential warnings to local law enforcement agencies alerting them to possible attacks on specific sites, from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Sears Tower in Chicago, have leaked out, sometimes prompting more confusion than clarity.
Just last month, Ridge endured some criticism for announcing that the nation faced a heightened threat from al-Qaeda in the period leading up to the fall election while also saying there was not enough detailed information to warrant increasing the official threat level.
On Sunday, Ridge did just that, with a public notice unlike any that had come before.
He warned of threats against specific buildings in at least three cities, yet offered no real sense of whether active plots were under way or when such attacks might be planned to occur, "beyond the period leading up to our national elections."
One obvious goal of such warnings is to prompt increased vigilance by everyone from top law enforcement officials to everyday civilians. Such vigilance has paid off in the past.
A plot to bomb Los Angeles during the millennium celebrations may well have been foiled by a single alert customs agent who spotted a suspiciously nervous Algerian named Ahmed Ressam trying to cross the Canadian border at a remote ferry terminal in Washington state.
"The general approach of empowering millions of people by putting them on the lookout is no doubt a good one," Bobbitt said.
Another goal is to shake up al-Qaeda, by making plotters aware that the government is watching.
"If anything, what this kind of thing does is cause disarray within al-Qaeda," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
"The administration has not given away anything about its sources or methods of intelligence. Nobody in al-Qaeda knows who said what, or how much, or how deeply they're penetrated. This basically creates disruption," Cordesman said.
But do such repeated warnings run the risk of producing "terror fatigue"?
"I think there may be a dulling effect," Cordesman said.
"But the alternative is not to stop issuing warnings and wait for people to be killed," Cordesman said.
Ridge's spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, said that the secretary had informed Bush about his intention to issue the elevated warning at about 10am Sunday, and that there had been no debate or second-guessing by the White House.
"The intelligence in this case was very specific," he said.
"The president and the secretary have said when we have this level of specificity, we will be able to come out with an elevated warning," he said.
Roehrkasse said Ridge had taken pains to reach out to the television anchors and editors because "he has developed relationships with some of the anchors" and they had asked him to try to give them some context when he got some specific intelligence.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, a veteran of the intelligence committee and a former mayor of San Francisco, said she favored the broadest possible warnings about specific threats. She said secret warnings to states and localities would seep out anyway, creating confusion and recriminations.
"This is a Hobson's choice," she said in a telephone interview.
"If you don't warn people and something happens, and you knew about it, you have a real problem. The other thing is by warning people and causing them to be alert, you may very well pick up somebody who has been skulking in a doorway around the World Bank or the Stock Exchange. We're all in this in one boat, and we recognize that in the world of terror, it can happen to anybody, anywhere," she said.
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday was handcuffed and escorted by police to the Taipei Detention Center, after the Taipei District Court ordered that he be detained and held incommunicado for suspected corruption during his tenure as Taipei mayor. The ruling reversed an earlier decision by the same court on Monday last week that ordered Ko’s release without bail. That decision was appealed by prosecutors on Wednesday, leading the High Court to conclude that Ko had been “actively involved” in the alleged corruption and it ordered the district court to hold a second detention hearing. Video clips
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) arrest is a significant development. He could have become president or vice president on a shared TPP-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ticket and could have stood again in 2028. If he is found guilty, there would be little chance of that, but what of his party? What about the third force in Taiwanese politics? What does this mean for the disenfranchised young people who he attracted, and what does it mean for his ambitious and ideologically fickle right-hand man, TPP caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌)? Ko and Huang have been appealing to that
RSS