The British vs. American Press on the bogus terror alert

So, in the British newspaper the Independent, here's what we've got going on today:

Shocking Prisoner Abuses Are Revealed!

No, not in Abu Ghraib. In Guantanamo. Though apparently, it's getting hard to tell the difference.

The same reporters have another story in the same issue about the fabricated terror alert which goes into a little more detail about the various permutations that the official story has gone through. Here's my favorite chunk, from their description of the media briefing at which the alert was unveiled:

"During the briefing one official, described only as a "senior intelligence official", said: "The new information is chilling in its scope, in its detail, in its breadth. It also gives a sense, the same feeling one would have if one found that somebody broke into your house and over the past several months was taking a lot of details about your place of residence and looking for ways to attack." "

OK, people, are you informing the public or are you writing horror? Make up your minds! If I were the media, I would want to know what some of this 'detail' was, and exactly how they're defining 'new,' instead of all this "Ooooooooooh, this intelligence is really SPOOKY!" crap.

Well, here's a piece from the New York Times that was written after a "lengthy interview" that the Times set up with some Bush administration officials after they ran yesterday's headline:

New Qaeda Activity Is Said to Be Major Factor in Alert

According to these unnamed "senior officials," the alert was not based on the old information that they got busted on, but on "a separate stream of intelligence, which they had not previously disclosed."

Well, they're really not disclosing it now, either, since the "senior White House official who mentioned the new stream of intelligence in an interview refused to say anything more about its source or content."

Instead, they decided to tell us more about the old and busted intelligence:

"In providing new details about those case reports, senior government officials described them for the first time as discrete documents, each at least 20 pages long and devoted to a particular target, and perhaps most intriguingly, they said, written in "perfect English.''"

Well, I guess that explains why our intelligence agencies were able to actually read them. If they'd been in Arabic, no doubt we wouldn't have had this terror alert for another 3 years.

Here's the kicker:

"Though the case reports do appear to have been completed before the Sept. 11 attacks, as Bush administration officials first acknowledged on Monday, some of the computer files appear to have been updated or accessed more recently. One was a file modified in January and including a photograph of a building, a senior White House official said."

So, they are reminding us that the initial alert deliberately attempted to conceal the nature and age of the intelligence on which it was based...while asking us to take on faith, without any detail, evidence, or explanation, the existence of this not-previously-revealed other intelligence that is brand spankin' new. But wait, there's more:

"The officials also acknowledged that they had not been able to assess the significance of the fact that the computer file had been modified. Such a modification could have meant that the file was updated with newly taken surveillance photographs but might simply have meant that the file had recently been opened and closed."

Oh for Christ's sake.

Neither piece brings up what for me is the most ridiculous part of the terror alert system: what is it supposed to accomplish? What can the average reader of USA Today do to materially affect the chances of this possibly completely imaginary plot from being carried through? Nothing. If this terror alert system wasn't political, they wouldn't be making these vaguely scary pronouncements in the national media; they would be communicating the actually useful pieces of information to the law enforcement agencies that actually have a shot at sabotaging these attacks. Think about it. In virtually every other area, the Bush administration shrouds its dealings in secrecy. The Terror Alert system is the only means by which they ever give the average American an insight into the inner workings of the 'war on terror'. That alone would make you suspicious of it.

Ah well,

The Plaid Adder

jerking others' leashes and gettin' dey own jerked too. :shrug:

Being one and having many American friends I can vouch for them that most Americans are good and decent people. We should be very thankful we have America and its freedoms regardless of who is in the WH for their four year stints.

gettin' all defensive and whatnot. I for one ain'tatall "thankful" for the morphing I've witnessed in the land of my birth in the last decades. In fact, what I've witnessed in the last three years has me FREAKING AND SHRIEKING! What freedoms are you so certain you have, dear? Would you deign to illuminate me?

I have not seen any dissappear yet. Do you have some in mind?

"Think about it. In virtually every other area, the Bush administration shrouds its dealings in secrecy"

Except when it comes to naming active FBI agents who have the misfortune to be married to a certain former ambassador whose views don't quite coincide with the Preznit's.

It's surprising how open they can be then- except, of course, to naming the miscreant who leaked the name in the first place.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

It's a nice place to be after too long in the cyber wilderness !

Trying to get some support for my right wing, and completely terrified, aunt.

Of course the fact that they lied every other time doesn't mean anything to her *rolleyes*

but there are direct links on my livejournal:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/plaidder

Don't know if the NYT one will go through if you haven't registered with the online site, but you can give it a try.

Good luck with the aunt,

The Plaid Adder

The Independent article is here:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=547719

The Independent has many good articles, particularly by it's reporter Robert Fisk, who is presently reporting on Iraq, however some of the articles (Fisk's included) do require paid subscription.

The NYT article is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/politics/04terror.html?hp

...so they went back into the trash bin and found something on which they could 'base' a warning.

- The Bushies have USED terrorism for political advantage since 9-11. And absent a free press...they have no intention of stopping any time soon.

- Bush* in trouble and scandals brewing? Whip out another 'alert' to distract the people and their representatives. Keep in mind that these alerts are also intended as a 'warning' to our representatives to shut the hell up and not complain about the 'war' on terror.