Have we ever NOT been at Homeland Security Threat Level Orange?

[goof2]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

Of course they do.

Orange is "safe" mode for Homeland Security. It means "we could be hit by a terror attack at any moment, but don't worry, we're on it."

If they stayed at red and nothing happened, people would be pissed. If they stayed at yellow, and something happened, people would be even more pissed.

The entire system exists to inform the people who are the least prepared to do anything about it.

Us.

JC

As I posted above the threat level moves around. It hasn't just stayed at orange.

The public in general may be the least prepared, but they are the ones in the best position to do something about it.

In the early 90s in England you didn't leave your bags unattended and if you saw an unattended bag you reported it. That was because unattended bags at that point had a nasty habit of blowing up. The first line of defense against this was the public.

Fortunately (due to the lack of incidents) Americans have not had to develop this vigilance. If the situation changes I hope we are capable of adapting.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by goof2

As I posted above the threat level moves around. It hasn't just stayed at orange.

The public in general may be the least prepared, but they are the ones in the best position to do something about it.

In the early 90s in England you didn't leave your bags unattended and if you saw an unattended bag you reported it. That was because unattended bags at that point had a nasty habit of blowing up. The first line of defense against this was the public.

Fortunately (due to the lack of incidents) Americans have not had to develop this vigilance. If the situation changes I hope we are capable of adapting.

I looked at your link to the DHS timeline, and with a few exceptions, most of the threats were so vague, they were of no value to the average citizen. "We received intelligence that terrorists may be planning attacks somewhere in the US, around the holidays". OK, so, what, you want I should wear a hat today? What am I supposed to do with that information? Tell me what the fucking guy looks like, and I'll keep an eye out for him.

I think Homeslice is right. They have to look like they're doing something, so they made a chart. I'm not discounting the others measures they're taking, but a chart? Charts scare me. In my experience, when people have no fucking clue what to do next, they start making charts.

I don't disagree that the average American has a low degree of situational awareness. This isn't Israel, or the UK in the 70's. Shit, we can even concentrate on driving down the freeway without fucking it up. All the charts in the world aren't going to make up for that.

JC

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

I looked at your link to the DHS timeline, and with a few exceptions, most of the threats were so vague, they were of no value to the average citizen. "We received intelligence that terrorists may be planning attacks somewhere in the US, around the holidays". OK, so, what, you want I should wear a hat today? What am I supposed to do with that information? Tell me what the fucking guy looks like, and I'll keep an eye out for him.

I think Homeslice is right. They have to look like they're doing something, so they made a chart. I'm not discounting the others measures they're taking, but a chart? Charts scare me. In my experience, when people have no fucking clue what to do next, they start making charts.

I don't disagree that the average American has a low degree of situational awareness. This isn't Israel, or the UK in the 70's. Shit, we can even concentrate on driving down the freeway without fucking it up. All the charts in the world aren't going to make up for that.

JC

So what should they do? Nothing? The public demands some sort of "visual" so they give it to us. What would satisfy you guys? What is your solution HS? How would you deal with this situation? Instead of standing aside and pointing fingers and calling people who are at least trying to keep us safe "ghey", why don't YOU do something?

JC I agree that the chart system may be flawed but what would you suggest instead? You realize that we are the reason for it don't you? We want to be "unaware", we don't want the dirty details, and we sure as hell don't want to have to actually DO anything. Listen to the complaints here about water bottles, etc.

I'm not saying that they are perfect or anything but unless you have a better plan, it's the best that we have to work with right now. Again, I understand that this is a flawed argument but since there haven't been any more attacks, they must be doing something right.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by TIGGER

JC I agree that the chart system may be flawed but what would you suggest instead? You realize that we are the reason for it don't you? We want to be "unaware", we don't want the dirty details, and we sure as hell don't want to have to actually DO anything. Listen to the complaints here about water bottles, etc.

I'm not saying that they are perfect or anything but unless you have a better plan, it's the best that we have to work with right now. Again, I understand that this is a flawed argument but since there haven't been any more attacks, they must be doing something right.

I don't need a better plan, we already have one. It's been five or so years since the 9/11 commission finished it's report, yet we have yet to implement some of their most basic recommendations, (I'm not typing it all out for you, go look it up).

If you think a chart is the "best thing we have to work with right now", you are woefully uninformed.

JC

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

I don't need a better plan, we already have one. It's been five or so years since the 9/11 commission finished it's report, yet we have yet to implement some of their most basic recommendations, (I'm not typing it all out for you, go look it up).

If you think a chart is the "best thing we have to work with right now", you are woefully uninformed.

JC

This is why I've always demanded that these type of threads stay in the "War Room". I don't even want to see them.

I'm not saying that a "chart" is the best we have, I'm saying the DHS is the best we have. As far as implementation of the 911 commission's reports goes, well considering the opposition to everything that the Bush administration has implemented so far. Like someone else said, "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

To answer the question about "sacrifice", there are more ways to "sacrifice" than just blood. These people work 24/7 trying to keep us safe.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

I looked at your link to the DHS timeline, and with a few exceptions, most of the threats were so vague, they were of no value to the average citizen. "We received intelligence that terrorists may be planning attacks somewhere in the US, around the holidays". OK, so, what, you want I should wear a hat today? What am I supposed to do with that information? Tell me what the fucking guy looks like, and I'll keep an eye out for him.

I think Homeslice is right. They have to look like they're doing something, so they made a chart. I'm not discounting the others measures they're taking, but a chart? Charts scare me. In my experience, when people have no fucking clue what to do next, they start making charts.

If charts scare you what happens when you see a powerpoint, a complete loss of bladder control?

Part of the reason for the threat level is for the public. It is designed to drive situational awareness among the public. The public has not responded as hoped. It is also designed to cover the government's collective ass. If an attack happens they can point to the threat level as evidence that they tried to warn the public. On both these fronts I don't think it has been particularly effective.

It is also designed to be the civilian agency equivalent of the DEFCON system for the military. Government agencies are supposed to set their preparation, readiness, and security procedures based upon the threat level. The military has different procedures based upon different defense readiness conditions. Civilian governmental agencies are supposed to do the same based upon the different threat levels. I don't know how successful that has been.

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

I don't disagree that the average American has a low degree of situational awareness. This isn't Israel, or the UK in the 70's. Shit, we can even concentrate on driving down the freeway without fucking it up. All the charts in the world aren't going to make up for that.

JC

As I said above, part of the reason for the threat level was to drive situational awareness in the public. It hasn't worked. Is that a failing of the system or the public? I would say both.

The only reason this isn't Israel or the UK with the IRA is terrorists have so far chosen not to go that route. It has nothing to do with either the government or the public. The general public thinks they are safe, which has created much of the apathy about security. If the public no longer feels safe I suspect the apathy will disappear.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by goof2

If charts scare you what happens when you see a powerpoint, a complete loss of bladder control?

No, that's reserved for the unexpected appearance of ex-wives, and snakes.

Originally Posted by goof2

Part of the reason for the threat level is for the public. It is designed to drive situational awareness among the public. The public has not responded as hoped. It is also designed to cover the government's collective ass. If an attack happens they can point to the threat level as evidence that they tried to warn the public. On both these fronts I don't think it has been particularly effective.

We would seem to be in agreement here.

Originally Posted by goof2

It is also designed to be the civilian agency equivalent of the DEFCON system for the military. Government agencies are supposed to set their preparation, readiness, and security procedures based upon the threat level. The military has different procedures based upon different defense readiness conditions. Civilian governmental agencies are supposed to do the same based upon the different threat levels. I don't know how successful that has been.

I don't know either. Maybe we need a chart...

Originally Posted by goof2

As I said above, part of the reason for the threat level was to drive situational awareness in the public. It hasn't worked. Is that a failing of the system or the public? I would say both.

Ok, so if it hasn't worked, why are we still using it? That, I think, is the whole point of the conversation. Perhaps we should stop wasting our money on charts, and try something else.

JC

[Low]

Personally I don't believe the TL will ever drop below Yellow. and if it does for some reason.. Be sure to stock up and grab your ankles cuz it's going to hit the fan for sure....!

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by Low

Personally I don't believe the TL will ever drop below Yellow. and if it does for some reason.. Be sure to stock up and grab your ankles cuz it's going to hit the fan for sure....!

I think that the threat level should be gauged by you sig.... Jeez talk about creepy!

[Particle Man]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

Ok, so if it hasn't worked, why are we still using it? That, I think, is the whole point of the conversation. Perhaps we should stop wasting our money on charts, and try something else.

JC

Because "the public, " in our society of fast food and movies on demand, wants to see a "product" to be assured that the government is doing something about potential threats.

BUT, we can't show them what the real product should be (a terrorist's head on a freakin' pike) because "that would be inhumane." So instead, we print up signs and talk about threat levels because that's all the public can handle.

Sad.