TIME.com - Do you take action based on terror alerts?

[Those who downplay warnings are the] same people who, when we are attacked again, will ask why we were not given any warning. You can't have it both ways, sorry.

Stephen Denney
Olive Branch, Miss.

Al-Qaeda in America
TIME's cover explores the threat to the U.S. from terrorism

Suspicions of Politicizing Terror War Must be Faced
George Will argues that the Administration must answer its critics for the safety of the U.S.

The Net Tightens on Terrorism
Despite skepticism from some, terrorists are indeed being uprooted

An American Hiroshima
Nicholas Kristof explores what could happen in the worst-case scenario

Face It, Dean, We're At War
A Des Moines Register columnist criticizes Dean's accusations of politicizing terror alerts

Transcript: Terror Alert Raised
Homeland Security director Tom Ridge took flak for praising President Bush's leadership during this threat alert

U.S. Denies Bungling al-Qaeda Alert
The Administration has faced criticism that by publicizing the threat, it eliminated an important intelligence path

Al-Qaeda in America
TIME's cover explores the threat to the U.S. from terrorism

Looking for Mr. Right

Maliki's Last Stand?
The prime minister makes a new call to curb violence, but Iraqis' patience with him and his government is wearing thin

What a Surge Really Means
Can a couple more divisions in Iraq make a difference? Or is Bush's idea too little, too late?

Where Does Negroponte Leave Intelligence?

Aug. 12, 2004

Do you take action based on terror alerts?

Last week's announcement of a threat from al-Qaeda, based on specific intelligence obtained from a captured terrorist suspect, made headlines for several reasons. While the raising of the terror alert typically makes news, it was also notable for Homeland Security head Tom Ridge's praise of President Bush during the announcement, and for former Democratic candidate Howard Dean's claim that the Administration is "playing politics with their timing of the release of these documents." What do you think? When the terror alert level is raised, do you take any specific action? Or do you find the alert system ineffective and questionable?

Send us your thoughts

People who continue to say that these terror warnings are just a political ploy by the Administration are the same people who, when we are attacked again, will ask why we were not given any warning. You can't have it both ways, sorry.
Stephen Denney
Olive Branch, Miss.

What kind of action is expected anyway? Should I not go to work? Stay home, watch the news and wait it out? It seems like a fear tactic taken by the Republicans to keep us living in terror.
Robin
Sun Valley, Idaho

No. Living in the boondocks in Nebraska does have its advantages. I also do not believe there are political motivations involved. After all, if warnings were not issued, and an attack did occur, the administration would then be under fire for having information and not acting on it.
Gene Gausman
Milford, Neb.

But what action could be taken? Stopping time, persuading Bin Laden? A terror alert is an official statement of inability to avoid a terror alert. It's just a trick for spreading through the entire society what is a government failure. By means of a terror alert, the Administration is saying: 'Well, we don't know how to solve this problem; so it's your problem now. Fix it yourself." Terrific usefulness.
Santi Quiones
Tres Cantos, Spain

Living in Canada tends to make the impact of the terror announcements moot to begin with, but it gives a clear view of what seems to be happening. Every time the Democrats have some newsworthy story or announcement, the Administration gives a terror warning. It's like a bad joke where you get a one-two punch line. A partisan would say these warnings are logical, warranted and of value. The objective observer would say they are redundant, political and smack of crying wolf. An interesting thing to note as reported on CNN was that the Department of Homeland Security gives as much money and resources to Missoula, Montana as it does to New York City. Does anyone still think this isn't a little bit political?
Devon Kruggel
Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada

No. At this time in the election, it's a political ploy.
Sue
Grand Rapids, Mich.

Mar. 2, 2007	Dec. 25, 2006	Dec. 18, 2006	Dec. 11, 2006
Start Saving Now! Click here to get unlimited access to the TIME archive.