How necessary and effective is the public alert system in protecting the homeland? Opinion on dKos ranges from it is bullshit designed to frighten the people to it is a useful and necessary way to protect us.
Why did the feds use old info for this most recent alert and why not tell us immediately that much of the info pre-dated 9-11?
A
diary yesterday by Lcohen suggests:
The explanation offered is pretty bizarre in its own right. Namely that they didn't want to reveal it on monday because it could harm law enforcement and intelligence operations. Of course if that was true monday why isn't it still true today?
One poster, RonK Seattle, was rather insistant that the intel is good and that the action - issuing the orange alert - was appropriate. RonK states:
The intel's good, the warnings are appropriate ...
... and Democrats are flirting with political suicide, with Dean as the lead lemming.
RonK then proceeds to mock skeptics, like me:
Additional mockery is probably your best option here -- because you're surely not equipped to match wits.
There are warnings here, and they are for your own undeserving good.
My questions are:
- Are public alerts, no matter what the intel, an effective means to prevent terrorist attacks? Could a more "covert" system of preparedness of law enforcement and intelligence personnel be equally effective, for example?
- Is there anything wrong with skepticism? Is it not justified given the Bush admin.'s track record with truthfulness (as daria g pointed out)?