Another round of imminent threat: Are we alarmed yet?

Frontiersman editorial board

With at least some of the country's attention recently tuned to the hearings of the 9/11 commission, it's fair to ask if either the Bush or Clinton administration did enough with intelligence information available prior to the terrorist attacks. It's more important to ask what current and future administrations should do with intelligence from now on.

One thing we know the current administration continues to do is publicly raise the specter of possible attacks in the near future. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge made the most recent announcement yesterday, warning of possible "large-scale" attacks leading up to the November elections. As has always been the case with these warnings, no specifics are available. The administration can't say where, when or how the attacks might be carried out.

We've been in a cycle of threats since the original attacks, but have not seen any of the new threats materialize -- thankfully. It's possible that those attacks have been thwarted by heightened security. It's also possible that the administration has overreacted to some of the threats. Whatever the case, we wonder what advantage is gained by repeatedly alarming the public. In the news business, we always defend the public's right to know, and we are correct to fight for the opportunity to report important information to our readers, viewers and listeners.

We are also driven to report information that has the merits of truth and accuracy, or that can be of reasonable help to the public. We wonder if the warnings of possible serious attacks encourage the public to take reasonable precautions -- or to change the daily routine at all.

It's clear the administration is in a tough spot. It appears reasonable precautions were not taken to prevent or lessen the 9/11 attacks. It seems there was at least some suspicion that serious attacks were being planned, and that our government responded with inactivity. Now, if the administration has even an inkling that something is in the works, it seems compelled to publicly report it, to at least demonstrate that the government is hard at work rooting out the threat.

It's important to point out, however, that a general public alarm, such as what we now receive regularly, would have done little to lessen the devastation of 9/11. Had the administration announced in early September that some sort of terrorist attack might take place someplace in the near future, would any of us have done anything differently?

We can only hope that the other efforts to prevent future terror attacks are more substantial than these frequent, vague warnings.