Random Thoughts: On Terror Threats

How much information is too much? Too little? I live in a city that is a seething cauldron of terror threats. In the space of one week, my workplace was under investigation twice (both times I was told by the supreme homeland security experts, senior attorneys, to continue working and ignore my desire to evacuate the building) and twice the subways that shuttle me around were under heightened alert. I recently had a cab driver whose last name was "Jihad." Poor guy, he was a black American who had converted to Islam long before 9/11. He chose the name "jihad" because its meaning of religious freedom and struggle resonated with him. We laughed about it the entire way home. Each morning I nearly bump into New York's Finest posted at the mouths of subway entrances as I throw myself down the stairs while fishing for my metrocard, fumbling with my blackberry and balancing my work bag. Each morning, I, Selfish Spoiled American, secretly hope that I am not stopped on my way to the train because I just don't have a minute to spare for the sake of national security. And on many afternoons, my colleagues and I can watch officers in full riot gear with machine guns and dogs hunting around in the subway beneath the building where we work. In comparison to the cops, we feel totally naked, yet confident that no one ever wants to kill corporate attorneys. In the course of history, what shadowy underworld figure has ever cared about corporate attorneys one way or the other?

Living in New York City forces one to develop a sense of numbness to the terrorist threat. I can see Ground Zero from my apartment window and I only try to avoid walking past it because the throngs of tourists that choke the surrounding sidewalk and streets confound my New York haste. However, the relentlessness of the events of the last few weeks: multiple terrorist threats, a new wave of Bali bombings, and now this threat/non-threat in Baltimore, have prompted me to start to giving the threat of terrorism deeper personal consideration.

I was particularly thrown by the comment made by Maryland's Governor, Robert Ehrlich, when he explained that the state's alert level was not raised because "you don't want to give advance notice to the bad guys." Huh. On a law-enforcement level, I can understand. Catching terrorists off-guard is an important weapon that allows us to meet them on their own turf, which is the realm of surprise. However, isn't the purpose of the levels of alert to give the public information based on which they can make decisions, and not to lull the terrorists into a false sense of comfort hoping they will slip up? We have to be clear because playing with the public in this way is unacceptable. The system of alerts may give terrorists too much prior warning or tip our hand about our intelligence capabilities. If this is the case, then on balance it may be smarter to stop the alerts. However, if we are to maintain the alerts as a method of giving ordinary citizens information, then that information has to be as accurate as the providers of that information can make it because the public is led to believe that the information is dependable. Parents may make decisions on whether they will drive into the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel based on the level of the terror threat. Commuters may decide whether to take a cab or the subway based on the level of threat. Information, when the authorities decide to provide it, must be provided accurately.

Cutting edge intelligence work and a system of public information on terrorism are not easy bedfellows. In this shaky new world, it is the responsibility of public officials to weigh the value of each interest. There must be a balance between the Cold War cloak-and-dagger propaganda game and hourly terror threat updates that keep the population perenially anxious and "give advance notice to the bad guys". Unfortunately, this Baltimore episode missed the mark. Let's either use the alert system honestly or scrap it.