With terror alerts, method matters

After Sunday's declaration of "orange" alert by DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, the news media responded with criticism that boiled up Monday and steeped on Tuesday. The Administration countered with weak tea denials to charges it relied on moldy intelligence. Most news organizations quickly threw in the towel, leaving unadressed faulty logic in Administration excuses.

The official response resembled that of a teenager trying to avoid accountability for careless homework by exclaiming, "I'm darned if I do, darned if I don't!" Such a tactic avoids the uncomfortable fact that how something is done matters as much as whether it is done.

The handling of the alert should have been designed to minimize public fear and maximize credibility. Instead, the Administration selected an approach that maximized fear and minized credibility. The dramatic network programming interruption and tone unnecessarily pumped public fears. Credibility suffered from a reference to President Bush's (alleged) national security prowess. Leaving out important details, certain to be found out later, further lessened credibility. And, credibility took another hit when, the day after the alert, the First Lady and both daughters visited one of the buildings covered by the terror alert.

Most likely, it was correct to publicly provide the information. But, there was more than one way to provide it. The selected method maximized political gain at the expense of harming public confidence in a process critical to saving lives. Whether the result of thoughtlessness or political greed, the action deserved criticism.

Tempest follows orange alert

Sunday's announcement of an orange alert by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, is currently the subject of widespread criticism following a New York Times report on Monday that the alert was based on old information. Administration officials defend the issuance of the alert, saying information dating back to 9/11 and earlier, had been updated as recently as January of this year.

A case is easily made for disclosing the threats against named businesses. Specific threats should always be treated seriously. However, the Administration's method of issuing the alert deserves considerable criticism. The information now appears to be no more urgent than many product recalls that are announced at an agency news conference for relay to the public during the next regularly scheduled news broadcast.

Reportedly, the federal government has a system for privately notifying major businesses of terror threats, even during non-business hours. Thus, it was possible to get information to those with a need to know without raising raise blood pressures nationwide. Even if terrorists did update the information in January, that's still old information in terms of a security threat. If nothing happened in the past six months, the odds of it happening before Ridge could convene a weekday press conference, 24 hours later, were pretty slim.

Instead, the Administration responded with theatrics: a special broadcast interrupting normal television programming, featuring a Cabinet-level official. Such interruptions are usually reserved for imminent threats like rising floodwaters and nuclear power plant emergencies; information that must reach a wide spectrum of people, including some who might not be reachable any other way. The drama was heightened when Ridge described the evidence for the alert as something rare.

The orchestration of this alert gives support to theories that the Bush Administration uses terrorism issues to bolster reelection chances. However, it was equally inappropriate for some writers to mock the alert before details regarding the evidence became known. Such behavior is as dangerous to public safety as crying "wolf."

The public deserves better from politicals, on both left and right, who stretch public confidence thin between goal posts placed at far ends of the credibility spectrum. The threat of terrorism is real; but, the information provided to citizens might as well be issued as a sequel to Alice in Wonderland.

Terror threat builds to "high" level

Normal television programming was interrupted Sunday when Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge made an appearance to warn Americans of new and specific al-Qaeda threats.

Ridge said the U.S. government had obtained terrorist plans that targeted five buildings in New York, Washington, D.C. and northern New Jersey, including the 59-story Citigroup Center, the New York Stock Exchange, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and Prudential Financial Incorporated. (U.S. Warns of Threats to Financial Icons, AP/Guardian Unlimited, 8-2) It is believed the terrorists plan to employ car or truck bombs.

Based on the new information, Ridge announced that he was raising the terror threat level to orange ("high") for financial institutions in the three locations. Additional security measures are being implemented at these and other fianancial institutions, including the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, in Washington (AP/Guardian Unlimited).

The degree of detail in the terror plans, described by Secretary Ridge, is alarming. Possibly, other, equally well-prepared plans exist that the U.S. has not intercepted. Therefore, all businesses and agencies - not only financial institutions - should be alert for signs of terrorist activity.

Warnings of tragedy still ignored

This week, in a rare special session, Congress will hold hearings to review the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission for improving intelligence sharing and assessment. But, the hearings are unlikely to address needed reform in handling a major category of intelligence: disclosures by federal employees.

Civil service employees regularly observe agency mismanagement and misconduct. That insider information is critical to identifying weaknesses in emergency preparedness and anti-terrorism efforts that could result in another tragedy like 9/11. But, employees rarely report such problems to outsiders. They fear reprisals and believe no action will be taken until there are "bodies." Events surrounding the 9/11 disaster do not prove them wrong.

Most whistleblowers whose names are recognizable to the public achieved that fame because a tragedy had already occurred. Then, their testimony became desirable for the high-profile investigations that followed. But, prior to 9/11, the public seldom heard about such problems. And, the public will not likely hear about problems prior to future disasters, either, because the handling of disclosures is profoundly dysfunctional.

The case of FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley shows perfectly the difference in government's response to pre-disaster and post-disaster disclosures. During Congressional hearings on 9/11, the testimony of Ms. Rowley was gratefully accepted. In contrast, her later warnings of future tragedy were treated with skepticism and disdain, as though her competence had somehow lessened in the interim. Rather, the attitude toward her revelations reflected the different circumstances in which the revelations were made.

Even now, whistleblowers are disclosing problems that are the roots of future disasters. But, their warnings are unlikely to spur meaningful investigation or action. Certainly, not by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which has accumulated a huge backlog of disclosures - some regarding homeland security problems unresolved from before 9/11. Certainly, not by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) or the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals: both hold whistleblowers to impossible standards of proof, and refuse to hold agencies accountable in nearly every case.

Whistleblower disclosures to Congress are seldom productive, either. The usual response by a Congressional office is to send a letter of inquiry to the whistleblower's agency. The usual agency response is to send the inquiry letter to the office responsible for the problems. Retaliation against the whistleblower often begins even before the agency's letter of denial is delivered to Congress. Seldom does Congress investigate further, instead leaving that responsibility to the OSC, MSPB and Federal Circuit.

The results of this dysfunction are predictable. There will be more tragedies. Subsequent investigations will find that lives and livelihoods were needlessly lost. The public will pay the price, emotionally and financially. Those who tried to prevent tragedy will suffer reprisals.

But, government officials responsible for the horrors will not be held personally accountable. Regrettably, this subject is not on next week's Congressional agenda.