# Terror warnings **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 24, 2004, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terror-warnings/265811 "2004-09-24T02:37:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terror-warnings/265811/1 "2004-09-24T02:37:19Z")
When the government issues “terror warnings”, some people say that it’s a Republican plot to sway voters. (Yes, I say that as well; when the timing seems “interesting”.) But what about terror warnings that are _not_ disseminated? Surely, they exist? Is the government morally bound to share them, even if they have not been verified, on the chance that the threat could be real? Or should they not say anything unless they have hard facts? What about unauthorised leaks? (i.e., information that isn’t _supposed_ to get out; as opposed to information that isn’t “supposed to” get out?) Say _The New York Times_ receives information that such-and-such an agency has received unsubstantiated information about an alledged impending terrorist attack, and which isn’t part of an “orchestrated leak”? Should the paper let it out? Do you think that _all_ such information should be available, or do you think that only verified information should be available, or do you think that “ignorance is bliss” and there is no public “need to know”? ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2004, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terror-warnings/265811/2 "2004-09-24T17:17:25Z")
The Dept. of Homeland Security is little more than cosmetic. It is woefully underfunded, and aside from the occasional change in the color coded fear alerts, very little change has taken place. All across America, tanks of dangerous chemicals are easy to get to. Nuclear powerplants are lightly guarded. Would you like extra training and gear for “first responder” police and firefighters? Sorry, no money. Sometimes, yes, it does seem that the fear codes get bumped up at politically convenient times, but it would be imprudent to say the alerts are part of the GOP’s “smear and fear” tactics. Those things are surely separate. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2004, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terror-warnings/265811/3 "2004-09-25T15:15:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Sometimes, yes, it does seem that the fear codes get bumped up at politically convenient times, but it would be imprudent to say the alerts are part of the GOP’s “smear and fear” tactics. Those things are surely separate. That’s not what I was getting at. What I mean is this: Government agencies from the FBI to your local Sheriff get “warnings” that may or may not be substantiated. If the reports are substantiated, then I think it is in the public interest that they should be disseminated. But what about the reports that are _not_ substantiated? Suppose Agency X gets a report from the Terrorist Warning Clearning House (I just made that up) that says something like “We have received information from an untested source that claims Al Qaida is planning major attacks on Los Angeles, New York and Washington D.C. using truck bombs packed with radioactive waste. The validity of this information has not been ascertained.” If the source has not been vetted, should the information be made public? What if _The New York Times_ (since I used them as an example earlier) received a leaked memo that was stamped “Secret” or “For Law Enforcement Only” or some other indication that the memo is not for public consumption? If the information is unsubstantiated and it _really_ leaked instead of being an orchestrated leak, then what should the NYT do? If the information is genuine, then it seems the public should be made aware of it. On the other hand, what would the public be able to do with the information? If they can’t do anything about it, do they still have a “need to know”? (I’m thinking about Coventry, here.) If the unsubstantiated information is _not_ genuine, then I think it would cause “panic” among the public, and that it would be better if it were not let out. So the question is whether _unsubstantiated_ information should be made public, regardless of any political advantage or disadvantage. ---
**Author:** ![Podkayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Podkayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Podkayne)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2004, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/terror-warnings/265811/4 "2004-09-25T15:35:58Z")
I think that the government, as well as any news agency, has a responsiblity to verify a threat before they disseminate it to the public. If there’s some kind of a threat, “Al Qaida is planning major attacks on Los Angeles, New York and Washington D.C. using truck bombs packed with radioactive waste,” and they can verify that radioactive waste has indeed been mysteriously disappearing from labs and power plants, it’s a credible threat that should be shared with the public. But just the warning itself doesn’t justify going. For one thing, causing a public panic over an unverified threat is unethical. That’s exactly what the terrorists want, anyway, isn’t it? They don’t even have to lift a finger, just generate a threat! For another thing, the sixteenth time the Department of Homeland Security or the New York Times cries wolf, is anyone going to pay attention? We’re already seeing this effect. I mean, seriously, when the Terror Alert Level goes from Burnt Umber to Goldenrod, does anybody even pay attention anymore? I mean, First Responders and whatnot notice, of course, and certainly the late night comedians do, but does anybody in the public do anything different as they go about their daily lives? If every single unverfied threat is splashed all over the media, when finally a credible threat _does_ come along, the public will be so desensitized that we say, “Eh, probably just another fake.” If it turns out that a threat was real, but they weren’t able to verify it in time and thus did not go public before the attack occurred, then I’m sure there would be a public outcry. IMHO, their butts are covered if in fact they have a consistent policy in place that they require some sort of evidence to back up a thread before a public announcement is made.