WE ARE ON HIGH aLERT, AGAIN

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Current News - Homefront Preparations : One Thread

new alert just now on tv for next 2 weeks

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001

Answers

Local radio host is doing a tongue-in-cheek comparison.

"This is me on high alert" "This is me on NEW high alert"

ok, ok, so my radiation monitor was back on last night, but there isn't much more that I can do.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001


I never went stepped down from "High Alert." None of the spooks are home, yet, either.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001

When the meltdown started in Israel, I thought there might be some repercussions here. I saw the alert announced on TV this afternoon, just shrugged and went outside to put up more Christmas lights. At least it's not as scary as the Six-Day War in 1967.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001

Netscape News

Ridge Announces Security Alert

Monday, December 3, 2001 WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's homeland security chief asked Americans to return to a high state of alert Monday, citing threats of more terrorist attacks, possibly around ''important religious observations'' this month.

Federal officials said the alert should continue at least through the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan in mid-December. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge did not mention any religious faith but said officials took the ''convergence of different religious observations'' into account when they decided another alert was in order.

''Now is not the time to back off,'' Ridge said. ''Obviously, the further we're removed from Sept. 11, the natural tendency is to let down our guard. We cannot do that. We are a nation at war.''

Monday's warning, issued by the FBI to law enforcement nationwide as well as to the general public, was the third since the hijacker attacks in September and the anthrax letters in October. The FBI issued the two others on Oct. 11 and Oct. 29.

Ridge did not cite a specific threat, but said U.S. intelligence had seen an increase in the volume of information warning in general of more attacks.

''The quantity and level of threats are above the norm,'' Ridge said, ''and have reached a threshold where we once again should put the public on general alert.''

Bush reviewed the analysts' conclusions and ''he approved our decision to go forward and make the announcement,'' Ridge said.

Asked if he worried that Americans were becoming jaded by the repeated alerts, Ridge said the process of warning the public ''is an art, it's not a science. There are shadowy soldiers. This is a shadowy enemy.''

The FBI issued the earlier alerts in the days after the U.S. military launched airstrikes in Afghanistan Oct. 7, targeting Osama bin Laden and his Taliban protectors. Bin Laden is the prime suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Ridge urged citizens to view the current alert as ''a signal to be vigilant'' and asked that they report suspicious behavior to local authorities.

Meanwhile, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press that investigators have gathered evidence showing similarities among the last three terrorist attacks against Americans by Osama bin Laden's supporters.

Those attacks include the Sept. 11 suicide hijackings, the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen and the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the similarities included the way the attacks were planned, communicated and carried out, and the way the attackers were trained. The officials declined to be more specific.

''There are certainly similarities among the three, some of which have emerged more clearly in the last few weeks,'' one official said.

The investigators said they also are examining whether some of the same people were involved in planning and assisting the three attacks. One official said authorities are waiting for more information from authorities in Yemen and other countries about certain suspects.

Attorney General John Ashcroft previewed his appearance Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he will confront criticism about some of the Justice Department's hardline tactics.

''We're going to do what we need to do to protect the American people,'' Ashcroft said Sunday on ABC's ''This Week'' when asked whether restrictions designed in the 1970s to protect religious and political groups from government monitoring were being eased.

''We will respect the rights of political freedom and religious freedom, and we are deeply committed to that,'' he said.

''But for so-called terrorists to gather over themselves some robe of clericism ... and claim immunity from being observed, people who hijack a religion and make out of it an implement of war will not be free from our interest.''

Ashcroft told ''Fox News Sunday'' that military tribunals would be limited to non-U.S. citizens and ''not just normal criminal activity, but war crimes.'' He refused to rule out military tribunals for any foreigners detained on American soil.

''Can you imagine apprehending a terrorist, either in the deserts of Afghanistan or on the way to the United States to commit a crime, and having to take them through the traditional justice system?'' Ashcroft asked.

''Reading them the Miranda rights? Hiring a flamboyant lawyer at public expense? Having sort of Osama television?''

Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., a conservative former federal prosecutor, said he opposed tribunals for any suspect detained on U.S. soil. ''I'm not worried about tribunals, for example, overseas, but domestically we have to abide by the Bill of Rights,'' he told ABC.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001


". . . not as scary as . . . . "

Yet.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2001



I'll start to get really concerned when the Israeli Air Force starts bombing Cairo or when Syria marches into Israel. For now, I think the Arabs have digested what's happened in Afghanistan and they know there are likely to be serious consequences if they support Hamas and/or Islamic Jihad--or even Hezbollah--against Israel.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

I agree with your analysis on the current situation at the moment, OG, but there's more land at stake than in 1967 and the political system in Israel and PA has become increasingly polarized. Add the young, po'd, hot-headed males, from both sides, to the mix and what emerges is a volatile situation beyond the control of either national leader once the fuse is lit. These young guys aren't thinking about long-term consequences; they're focused on the short-term goals -- revenge, temporary acquisition of territory, relief from the gnawing apprehension, similar to what many in the US felt while listening to John Ashcroft yesterday. They don't have the patience to wait for the other shoe to drop. They are men of action, even if that action is as simple as throwing rocks at soldiers from the other side.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

(need more coffee!) That's what scares me -- the youth of both nations are the one of the wild cards. China is the other. . .

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

Bob Barr is an idiot. I've said so for years.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

Quite right, Meems. Rocks are about the extent of it, or will be before long. In 1967 (and up to about the mid 1980s or so), Syria was backed by the Soviet Union which provided substantial armor and weapons. Russia can't afford to do that this time and wouldn't anyway. Syria knows it if blows all or most of its weapons on the Palestinian-Israeli problem, there will be no free or cheap replacements. The various terrorist groups will be unable to sustain a serious battle for very long and none of the Arab countries are likely to supply them. (Or will have great difficulty in doing so surreptitiously.)

Blanketing all is the Arab cultural phenomenon regarding weakness. They have perceived the West and Israel as weak because, for so long, there has been nothing more significant than a mosquito bite on the arse of an elephant in response to suicide bombers and snipers. The Palestinians have heard Bush's words about bin Laden and al Qaeda. Now they have heard Sharon's eerily similar words. They are presently witnessing some of Israeli's strength, something this generation has seen little or nothing of.

I don't know what will happen, there are so many variables and what ifs. I hope the Israelis will be able to make a show of strength sufficient to stop the suicide bombers--after all, it is the leaders of the militant groups who give the orders, they do NOT want to die. Targeting them will give them pause and make them pull back. I hope.

After that, there must be negotiation but only with Israel negotiating from a position of great strength--and keep the bloody UN out of it!

I hope this is the way it goes but, as we all know, anything can happen.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001



OG, I agree with everything you've said here with one exception. I think some of the terrorist leaders, if they are religious fanatics, do want to die in the cause.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

I think you're absolutely correct about Russia being unwilling and unable to re-supply them, OG. That's why I'm keeping an eye on China. As recently as a year ago, I would've thought their involvement in an ME conflict unlikely, but if the reports of their involvement in Afganistan are true, then they are interested in getting a share of the proposed pipeline and stand to gain in several ways from a covert, short-term alliance with the enemies of Israel.

Peter, I'm half in agreement with you: some leaders would willingly die, not all -- I think Saddam is a big talker. In the end, he'd cut a deal. On the other hand, I think OBL would go down fighting.

But I think OG has the best point: anything can happen with those guys. Trying to figure out their next move is a little like guessing what's next on a cat's agenda. Could be anything.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001


Long as they don't throw up on my carpet!!!

But back to the serious subject--I don't think anyone believes the terrorists are through with us yet, whether AQ or one of their cousins. Talk keeps going back to a "dirty bomb" and, at this point, I do not think it would be going overboard to invest in some potassium iodide if you can spare the change. I can't remember how much it is--not prohibitively expensive for most people, I think. And don't forget to get extra for yer aminals! (Infant by pound weight are on the package; that's what you go by with the pets, I believe. I shall have to check with my vet if the threat gets a little more serious--don't want him to think I'm a tinfoil, do I?)

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001


Not an issue if the pets are housebound. For that matter, I see it more as a transition period for people until they are sheltering-in- place.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

I can't afford to go on high alert. All I can do is a slight buzz alert.

I hope they understand...

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001



ABC

WIRE: 12/04/2001 9:46 am ET

Ridge: Alert Not Tied to Bin Laden Nuclear Concern

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, responding to a report Osama bin Laden may be closer than first thought to obtaining plans for a crude nuclear weapon, said information on such a device had been found in Afghanistan but had nothing to do with the latest alert against possible attacks on U.S. targets.

Ridge said in television interviews that there was no information in the intelligence threat assessment against the United States that bin Laden had, in fact, acquired or built a so-called "dirty bomb."

The Washington Post said bin Laden and his al Qaeda network may have made greater strides than previously thought toward getting the information to make a "dirty bomb," a crude radiological weapon that would use conventional explosives.

The newspaper said the conclusion was made after interrogation of captured al Qaeda members and evidence gathered in the last month at al Qaeda facilities in Afghanistan by CIA officers and U.S. special forces.

"We're well aware they found some information relative to crude devices in some of the safe houses in Afghanistan," Ridge told NBC's "Today" program. "We're also aware that information that was discovered in Afghanistan one could pick up in this country off the Internet."

Ridge said in the interviews that the discovery had "absolutely nothing to do" with Monday's warning of unspecified threats of possible new attacks against Americans at home and abroad.

The Post reported that fear al Qaeda might be close to developing a "dirty bomb" was a factor in the new alert, the third since the Sept. 11 hijack attacks on New York and Washington.

Ridge said Monday the warning was related to al Qaeda and based on credible information received over the past several days.

The Post reported that a police source said authorities had received "nonspecific" information about a threat to the Washington, D.C., area on Dec. 4 or sometime thereafter. The paper said police are on the lookout for suspicious vehicles that might contain a bomb.

Ridge told both television networks that bin Laden has in the past openly talked about wanting to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

"The fact that he seeks these kinds of weapons is not news to the intelligence community," Ridge told CNN.

"But other than that public expression of his desire to get ahold of some of these weapons, there is absolutely no information in the threat assessment that leads us to believe that he's acquired one. None of the information we have seen over the past couple of days suggests that," he told NBC.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001


With our house being old and leaky, I think I would go ahead anyway if any fallout was expected around here.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001

A cynical friend reports that we're on "high alert" because Ashcroft is covering his fanny in the event that some evil doers slip by the FBI's net.

Besides the nat'l news, the two things that make me continue to take this warning seriously are: 1) the spooks are still gone, and 2) local .mil compounds are on high alert. It's like monitoring a good watch cat: I can't hear what she can, but if her ears are alert and twitching at 2 am, it's time to peek out the window.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2001


Moderation questions? read the FAQ