Blunkett 'won't feed terror frenzy'

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Blunkett 'won't feed terror frenzy'
5
Sun, 08-08-2004 - 9:23am

From Britain: A very different method of handling "terror threats".


Should the US follow this method?


Would you rather be informed of every bleep on the terror screen? 


Is fear being used politically? (we've discussed this before)


http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0600uk/tm_objectid=14509430%26method=full%26siteid=50082%26headline=blunkett%2d%2dwon%2dt%2dfeed%2dterror%2dfrenzy%2d-name_page.html


Home Secretary David Blunkett has rejected demands for greater Government openness over terror threats, insisting that he will not "feed the news frenzy".


Following the security operation around financial institutions in the US, the arrest of a dozen suspects across England and claims about possible plans for an Al Qaida attack on Heathrow Airport, shadow home secretary David Davis criticised ministers for failing to share more information with the public.


Mr Davis claimed that there was "an unwillingness on the part of the Government to share information with the British public" about the nature of the terrorist threat facing Britain.


He complained that the British public appeared to learn more from foreign governments, such as that of the US, than from its own.


But in an article for The Observer, Mr Blunkett defended the British Government's more cautious approach to releasing information.


Mr Blunkett wrote: "Of course, it is not possible for me to comment on last week's arrests and the action which has followed. These are operational matters.


"But I can say that I am full of admiration for the work of the police and the Security Service in dealing with these situations. I issued an appropriate statement and I refused to comment further. Why?


"Because had I done so without having anything additional to add, I would have merely added to the speculation, to the hype, to the desire for something to say for its own sake. In other words, to feed the news frenzy in a slack news period.


"Is that really the job of a senior cabinet minister in charge of counter-terrorism? To feed the media? To increase concern? To have something to say, whatever it is, in order to satisfy the insatiable desire to hear somebody say something?


"Of course not. This is arrant nonsense."

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 08-08-2004 - 10:53am
The government here is screwed no matter what they do or how they go about accomplishing it. If they don't issue a warning and something does happen, they get blamed for not warning the public (as they did shortly after 9/11). If they issue warnings and nothing happens, they get blamed for "feeding the fear frenzy" and doing it for political purposes.

They can't win so far as I can see.

In regards to Britain, I feel that in the abstract Blunkett's sentiments are sincere and well thought out. However, it might not seem that way to the public there if there is ever a significant (ala 9/11) attack there which was proceeded by little or no public warnings. Then he would be subject to just as much criticism as our government was here after 9/11, and for the same reason.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sun, 08-08-2004 - 11:31am

What real purpose does it serve informing the public, outside of those in security/emergency services? Unless it's info that's explicit with time & place. The public "terror" warnings & the following reactions must be a rare spectator 'sport' for those wishing harm.


Then there's too much info.


See Hayashig's post........


http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elinthenews&msg=6984.1&ctx=0


Sunday's Terror Alert Outs Mole.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040807/ts_nm/security_source_dc_1

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sun, 08-08-2004 - 12:10pm
0<>

I agree, if the question is how do we avoid criticism. I, on the other hand, prefer to answer a different question, what can the public do if told? If there is nothing they can do but be frightened, is it wise to frighten them over a vague possibility. (Never mind the currency of the information.) What purpose is served by announcing an alert; are we more aware or just frigetened because we are confronted with a situation over which we have no control.

All civil defense organizations need to be put on alert, even if it is a false alarm. But every time the populace becomes fearful, the terrorist have made a statement; we are reminded of their power. Pakistan has other al Qaeda members on ice, if every time they release one the US has a knee-jerk reaction, we will have many more bogus alerts. However, does this lessen the chance of a real attack? We just don't know, and are fearful.

If these alerts continue, soon people will begin to ignore them. So, yes, I think the Britians have an excellent idea.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 08-08-2004 - 5:44pm
Not much purpose at all, but that doesn't stop many of them from complaining after the fact that they weren't told what we knew before the attack occured. That's part of what I was talking about.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-29-2003
Sun, 08-08-2004 - 9:03pm
Perhaps it's of little consequence to those who do not live and work in these settings. It's different for those of us who do. I was driving down the highway the other day and saw a checkpoint for trucks and vans, complete with machine-gun-toting police. I live 20 miles from a building that's been identified as a "personal favorite" of Osama bin Laden -- his operatives have been casing it for four years, and took updated surveillance there earlier this year. Those who work there are now surrounded by concrete barricades and 24 hour armed security. These types of measures simply cannot be taken without informing the public as to why they're being taken, because this simply leads to more anxiety and fear.

And I think you have an excellent point, Mark, which I'm about to drive home for you: the people on this board who are doling out the "too-much-information" moan know full well that the past week and a half has been a slam-dunk for the president and his administration. We've unraveled a major faction of Al Qaeda, taken out a number of top operatives, and accessed a TON of critical info. Their ilk must now try to make it look as though it was insignificant; otherwise, Bush's rating with the real "heart & soul" of America is liable to go through the roof.

joy <= happy the head-in-the-sanders aren't in charge