# On the Lack of Post-Election Terror Alerts **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 20, 2005, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251 "2005-04-20T16:30:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![picker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/picker/32/13969_2.png) [@picker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/picker)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251/1 "2005-04-20T16:30:47Z")
I don’t intend for this to end up in the Pit, so please keep it civil and let’s try to avoid the drive-by partisan one-liners, if we can. The other day I was struck by how our infamous Terror Alert Color Chart disappeared almost immediately following the election. For well over a year (maybe more, I don’t recall) leading up to the election, we were inundated with the ups & downs of the Terror Alerts and with portentous announcements of the dire situation we as Americans were faced with regarding TERRORISM and the AL-QAEDA MENACE. Yet I can’t recall off-hand a single instance of the Terror Alert level even being mentioned in the media (and I’m a pretty hard-core news junkie) since the election. I am very liberal, and I tend to believe it was blatant manipulation of the public and political grandstanding by the Administration. But I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise by cogent arguments from the other side. So please, Conservative Dopers, I would like to hear your reasoning as to why we’ve not heard a peep since the election. As a side note, and for extra credit, I’d appreciate it if you would also factor in to your argument why the State Department has decided to stop publishing its annual report on international terrorism, citing ‘faulty methodology’ or somesuch claptrap, when the report for 2004 concludes that there were more attacks in '04 than in any year since 1985, the year the report was first published. Here is the [original article](http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11407689.htm) and the Pit thread by **rjung** where it was first mentioned [here on the SDMB](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=312517). It seems that there might be some level of correlation between the two, or it might just be the natural instinct of politicians to try to bury anything that makes them look ineffective. Again, let’s please stay in GD, and keep it out of the pit. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251/2 "2005-04-20T16:39:53Z")
> [@picker](#): > > As a side note, and for extra credit, I’d appreciate it if you would also factor in to your argument why the State Department has decided to stop publishing its annual report on international terrorism, citing ‘faulty methodology’ or somesuch claptrap, when the report for 2004 concludes that there were more attacks in '04 than in any year since 1985, the year the report was first published. I was pretty sure that the big reason the State Department is going to stop publishing the annual report on international terrorism is because now, the new National Counterterrorism Center (which was created at the end of last year) is going to do so. So it’s not that the government is going to stop publishing reports on terrorism…the agency responsible for it has just changed. ---
**Author:** ![picker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/picker/32/13969_2.png) [@picker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/picker)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251/3 "2005-04-20T16:43:57Z")
Fair enough, but how would that justify burying this year’s report? Or is there evidence that they will re-issue the report under the new agenct? ---
**Author:** ![picker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/picker/32/13969_2.png) [@picker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/picker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251/4 "2005-04-21T03:08:46Z")
Anybody? **Manhatten? Brutus? Sam Stone? John Mace?** I can’t believe there’s not a single conservative on this board who can’t summon some argument for this debate. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251/5 "2005-04-21T03:27:25Z")
> [@picker](#): > > Anybody? > > **Manhatten? Brutus? Sam Stone? John Mace?** > > I can’t believe there’s not a single conservative on this board who can’t summon some argument for this debate. Because there is no debate here. > [@picker](#): > > Yet I can’t recall off-hand a single instance of the Terror Alert level even being mentioned in the media (and I’m a pretty hard-core news junkie) since the election… Then you aren’t as hard-core as you thought. [Google News](http://news.google.com/news?svnum=10&as_scoring=r&hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=terror+alert+level&btnG=Search+News&as_drrb=b&as_minm=3&as_mind=1&as_maxm=4&as_maxd=20) returns 300 hits for ‘Terror Alert Level’ within _the past two months_. It’s not that it isn’t being mentioned; it’s that you aren’t paying attention. ---
**Author:** ![picker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/picker/32/13969_2.png) [@picker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/picker)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251/6 "2005-04-21T03:54:57Z")
Those links talk about terror plots and incidents, suspected or real. Not changes to the alert level, nor the media attention or lack thereof. Nice attempt at a strawman, though. The question I initially posed: > [@](#): > > So please, Conservative Dopers, I would like to hear your reasoning as to why we’ve not heard a peep since the election. I never stated that there have or haven’t been changes to the level. I’m asking why they haven’t been trumpeted to the high heavens, as they were pre-election. I don’t doubt they actually change the level, based on evidence from the intelligence community. But they’re sure as shit not throwing senior Administration officials on the networks explaining the whys and wherefores of every alert change like they were before November. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251/7 "2005-04-21T04:04:50Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Then you aren’t as hard-core as you thought. [Google News](http://news.google.com/news?svnum=10&as_scoring=r&hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=terror+alert+level&btnG=Search+News&as_drrb=b&as_minm=3&as_mind=1&as_maxm=4&as_maxd=20) returns 300 hits for ‘Terror Alert Level’ within _the past two months_. It’s not that it isn’t being mentioned; it’s that you aren’t paying attention. But this thread is about **official** terror alerts from the DHS. From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department\_of\_Homeland\_Security\_Advisory\_System:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Homeland_Security_Advisory_System:) > [@](#): > > The threat level has stood at yellow for most of its existence. It has been raised to orange six times: > > September 10 - September 24, 2002, around the first anniversary of the September 11, 2001. > February 7 - February 27, 2003, near the end of the Muslim religious holiday Hajj. Intelligence reports suggested the possiblity of terrorist attacks against “apartment buildings, hotels, and other soft or lightly secured targets.” > March 17 - April 16, 2003, around the beginning of U.S. and Coalition military action in Iraq. > May 20 - May 30, 2003, “The U.S. Intelligence Community believes that Al Qaida has entered an operational period worldwide, and this may include terrorist attacks in the United States.” - Tom Ridge > December 21, 2003 - January 9, 2004, citing intelligence information suggesting large-scale attacks around the holiday season. > August 1-November 10, 2004, for specific financial institutions in northern New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C., citing intelligence pointing to the possibility of a car or truck bomb attack, naming specific buildings as possible targets. [11] ([http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040801\_723.html](http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040801_723.html))[12] ([Homeland Security | Home](http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=29)) > Other official terrorism warnings issued without raising the threat level above yellow: > > May 28, 2004, citing “credible evidence” of terrorist intent to affect upcoming elections. > July 8, 2004, again citing “credible evidence” of terrorist intent to affect upcoming elections. > The threat level has never been raised to red, nor lowered to blue or green. No “orange alerts”\* post-election. \*I remember thinking when the color-coded threat-level system was announced: “Gee! I haven’t heard the phrase ‘orange alert’ since _The Prisoner_ went off the air!” 🙂 [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061287/;](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061287/;) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Prisoner;](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prisoner;) and, but of course! [http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2\_022c.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_022c.html) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251/8 "2005-04-21T04:14:20Z")
From the same Wikipedia article: > [@](#): > > There are no published, objective criteria for these threat levels, and thus no objective way to tell whether the currently announced threat level is accurate. In addition, the evidence cited to justify these threat levels is stated vaguely (see below) and its sources are seldom published. This makes the system vulnerable to manipulation by government officials. These attributes have been openly ridiculed by cartoonists ([1] ([http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/002120.html](http://www.balloon-juice.com/archives/002120.html)), [2] ([http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1089947/posts](http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1089947/posts)), [3] ([http://www.classbrain.com/artteensb/publish/article\_338.shtml](http://www.classbrain.com/artteensb/publish/article_338.shtml))), journalists ([4] ([http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0804/p01s02-usgn.html](http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0804/p01s02-usgn.html))), entertainers ([5] ([http://www.imao.us/archives/000651.html](http://www.imao.us/archives/000651.html))), civil libertarians ([6] ([http://www.opednews.com/wade\_071904\_warning.htm](http://www.opednews.com/wade_071904_warning.htm))), and security experts (Do Terror Alerts Work? ([http://www.rakemag.com/features/detail.asp?catID=46&itemID=19950](http://www.rakemag.com/features/detail.asp?catID=46&itemID=19950))). . . . > > The specific government actions triggered by different threat levels are often not publicly described. Some actions which have occurred (such as systematic forced searches of otherwise innocent automobiles near airports [7] ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27518-2003Feb18?language=printer](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27518-2003Feb18?language=printer))[8] ([http://www.doverpost.com/PostArchives/04-02-03/war/statethreatlevelrai.html](http://www.doverpost.com/PostArchives/04-02-03/war/statethreatlevelrai.html))) have been held in earlier court decisions to violate the United States constitution. No court has yet ruled on a specific search triggered by this threat advisory system. The published terror alert notices have also not included enough information for ordinary citizens to do anything useful in response. > > \ > > In December 2004, the Homeland Security Advisory Council voted to review the color-coded system, with a panel member suggesting that it has outlived its purpose. ([9] ([http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/12/15/news/top\_stories/19\_42\_4412\_14\_04.txt](http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/12/15/news/top_stories/19_42_4412_14_04.txt))) Outgoing Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge said that the system has invited “questions and even occasional derision.” ([10] ([http://www.freep.com/news/nw/ridge15e\_20041215.htm](http://www.freep.com/news/nw/ridge15e_20041215.htm))) :dubious: You couldn’t have noticed that before the election. Mr. Secretary? ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251/9 "2005-04-21T04:31:16Z")
Interesting how I didn’t notice this. It seems so obvious. You are obviously very observant **Picker**. I must say **Brutus** , you disappoint me. Didn’t you even look at what came up on Google before you posted that link? I’ve looked at the first three pages, and unless I missed something, they are all references in recent news articles to terror alerts pre-election. You gotta admit it does seem suspicious that there haven’t been any big news conference announcements since the election like there were before the election. I guess they caught all the bad guys, huh? Oh well…I guess the deafening silence from the conservatives out there means something. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251/10 "2005-04-21T04:50:06Z")
> [@Kolak of Twilo](#): > > Oh well…I guess the deafening silence from the conservatives out there means something. Yep. It means that most conservatives here are brighter than me, and don’t want to get drawn into yet another OMG BUSH STOLZ0R3D TEH ELECTION!!! thread. _Of course_ there was a heightened sensitivity towards terrorism pre-election. Since you folks have apparently forgotten, [there was cause for concern.](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3647508.stm) As **BG** pointed out, the alert level was changed more often in 2003 than in 2004. (The election was in 2004.) Can any of you provide a good reason that we should now be at a higher alert level? No? Thought so. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251/11 "2005-04-21T04:53:43Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Can any of you provide a good reason that we should now be at a higher alert level? Well, for one thing, at this moment Islamic radicals and Arab nationalists alike have more good reasons to hate America than at any time, and I mean **any** time, in all previous recorded history. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251/12 "2005-04-21T04:57:03Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, for one thing, at this moment Islamic radicals and Arab nationalists alike have more good reasons to hate America than at any time, and I mean **any** time, in all previous recorded history. Why? They get Air America now? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251/13 "2005-04-21T06:34:09Z")
> [@Kolak of Twilo](#): > > I must say **Brutus** , you disappoint me. Didn’t you even look at what came up on Google before you posted that link? What, and break a lifelong habit? 😉 > [@Brutus](#): > > Can any of you provide a good reason that we should now be at a higher alert level? Having [triple the number of “major terrorist incidents” in 2004 over 2003](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=312517) comes to mind (from the State Department’s now-scrapped annual terrorism report). ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251/14 "2005-04-21T07:30:55Z")
C’mon **Brutus** , nobody here ever said > [@](#): > > OMG BUSH STOLZ0R3D TEH ELECTION!!!. If you want, I will even admit that Democrats have certainly done things to manipulate public opinion in the past via the media or whatever means were at hand. The actual proposition presented by the OP is more at this - before the election, multiple, in fact **weekly** , terror alerts were issued by the administration. Since then, nada. Zip. _ **Zero.** _ No matter what your political persuasion, ya gotta admit that’s a bit odd, dontcha? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251/15 "2005-04-21T10:33:04Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Having [triple the number of “major terrorist incidents” in 2004 over 2003](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=312517) comes to mind (from the State Department’s now-scrapped annual terrorism report). So because there were more international terrorist incidents in 2004, we should be at an increased alert level now because…? Oh ya, you don’t know and don’t care. Just one of your useless drive-by posts. Carry on! > [@Kolak of Twilo](#): > > The actual proposition presented by the OP is more at this - before the election, multiple, in fact **weekly** , terror alerts were issued by the administration. Since then, nada. Zip. _ **Zero.** _ Now we are up to weekly alerts in late '04? I provided cites to show that terrorism is still in the news. **BG** kindly provided a cite that showed that 2003 saw more threat level activity than did 2004, they year you guys claim is all goofy. Tell you what, why don’t you and **picker** put together a documented list of these ‘weekly alerts’? Refute the provided cites with cites of your own, not just accounts of what you two claim to remember. > [@](#): > > No matter what your political persuasion, ya gotta admit that’s a bit odd, dontcha? I find it odd that some people still cling to conspiracy theories about why Bush won, but that’s about it. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251/16 "2005-04-21T13:23:23Z")
**Brutus** and others, this is a valid question, and IMO not an attack on Bush and Conservatives. I can think of a few plausible explanations, only one of which, the first, presupposes any nefariousness on the part of Bushco: 1. Keeping the estimate of terrorism level in the public eye was beneficial politically before the election, and is no longer, so on Rove’s advice, the Administration is now downplaying what they previously made a point of. 2. Announcements are still being made, but the Lib’rul Media is not covering them, for its own reasons. 3. Owing to effective anti-terrorism work, the level has declined. A low level is no more news than the fact that the local high school did _not_ have a teenage shooting, or the local bank was _not_ held up by masked gunmen today. 4. It’s been judged that alert levels were playing into the terrorists’ hands, so they’ve been omitted. Pure coincidence that this took place in the months surrounding the election, but coincidences of that sort do happen. Scenarios 2, 3, and 4 are plausible and \*\*don’t \*\* cast aspersions on the Bush Administration. Obviously, I don’t know the answer, if there is a publicly available one. All I’m saying is that prior to assuming it’s an assault on Mr. Bush, it might be worthwhile to find out the actual answer if we can. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2005, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-lack-of-post-election-terror-alerts/300251/17 "2005-04-21T15:06:00Z")
It’s also possible that there hasn’t been any increases in chatter or any of the other means that our intelligence community uses for the terror alerts. Last I heard, the terror alert system only applies to the United States, therefore terror attacks in other countries would not affect it.