Some interesting comments from this
article from December, 2003.
Points I find interesting:
One reason they aren't raising the terror level:
David Heyman, a senior fellow and director of science and security initiatives at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted in a recent interview with United Press International the high cost of the increased threat alerts. He said the enhanced security measures required by the Orange Alert level cost an estimated total of $1 billion a week.
This isn't the first time we've heard these things either: (from the same article in December)
"The information we have indicates that extremists abroad are anticipating near-term attacks that they believe will either rival or exceed the attacks that occurred in New York and the Pentagon and the fields of Pennsylvania nearly two years ago," said Ridge at a quickly called news conference Sunday.
I think they don't have enough information to raise the alert level but they are afraid to not say that there is a risk because of political fallout if something happens and we didn't have any notice.
I find it interesting that they get more concerned around holidays or "special events" such as the political party conventions, yet, 9/11 had no significance and that is part of what made it terrorism. It was just another day, the day that Michael Jordan announced he was coming out of retirement, until about 8:43 a.m. They seem to prefer an element of surprise, part of the shock value.
So.. is NYC still the safest even though it's commonly thought of as the most likely target for terrorism? (referring to NYC safest city thread).
Dee