The threat level: unethical?

[Zeekater]

Is it unethical to make the people feel in danger all the time?

This is a question I first thought when I heard about the threat level thingy and homeland security stuff, what good does it to make the people always 'on edge'?
Then, this question was also brought up in F911, in which some guy stated that it isn't good for the people to feel in danger all the time.
When I asked my father (who HAS NOT seen F911, never even heard of it before I mentioned it), he said the exact same thing, 'so that people accept things like the patriot act easier', 'it makes them go; yes yes, do it, so we are in less danger'.
Is there really even a threat? The things they say are pretty vague, 'A attack, somewhere in the states'.
To me it seems like in one Simpsons episode, Homer puts up a 'bearpatrol' to hunt for bears, Lisa says "'but there are no bears in Springfield'", Homer: "'See, the Bearpatrol is working'"....

 

[Warman17]

well i'm sure they tell specific places to be on the look out for an attack too, like recently. They don't tell the press to avoid mass hysteria or the terrorists changing tactics. It also may help prolong the time between attacks, because the terrorists are cautious. I bet they tell local police that an "attack is imminant" if they have credible info. Think of it this way, from a quote I like- "if you do things right, people won't know you did anything at all"

 

[Ben E Gas]

Well, the govt. got such criticism for ignoring threats and not being prepared, that I think they are paying attention to more and more threats and letting us know about more of them so we don't criticise them for not warning us when something finally happens.

Also, I think the reason we aren't seeing any big terrorist acts here in the US is because they can get to us a hell of a lot easier in Iraq. Killing our soldiers and the Iraqi people. They probably figure they'll keep giving us false alarms in the US while still getting kills in Iraq. Win win for the terrorists. Tough road for the Iraqi people and the US troops. I hope the Iraqi people and US troops prevail for the good of all.

 

[Marla_Singer]

When you're a government, the best way to get a domestic support is to convince people there is a threatening "outside ennemy".

In the 50's and 60's, Eastern European governments were often doing tests to prepare local population in case of an attack from the West. The real purpose was of course to make them fear that kind of attacks... to make it sound as a real probability of occurence.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

The only times it has been raised to orange is before the attack on Iraq, during the attack on Iraq, and during the occupation of Iraq. It will never be raised to red, because that would just cause doubt in the Bush administration in those who still support it.

It's a mechanism through which the government can control the people; it serves no real purpose. Does the FBI or CIA go on higher alert than normal during elevated periods of warning? Of course not, they realize an attack can come at any time, most likely not when it is anticipated.

 

[Shadylookin]

I don't feel like I'm in any danger. If there is a decent chance that something might happen I feel they should report it. It is their job to try and make us safer after all. So for the paranoid at heart they can put plastic sheets around their house and the rest of us can go on living since the odds are better that you would fall and die in the shower than be killed in a terrorist attack.

 

[Zeekater]

I find it a dangerous concept. The goverment has too much influence on the public through this.
Example (fictious): "We need to be able to tap your phones to find the terrorists".
And if terror threats are that important to tell local policemen to look out, why is there a 150 mile coastline guarded by only one patrolman (from F911, not sure if true, but haven't heard anyone debunk it either).

 

[Bugfatty300]

When you're a government, the best way to get a domestic support is to convince people there is a threatening "outside ennemy".

So terrorist are not a threat to the U.S.? Or did you just miss the whole 9/11 thing?

 

[PHSikes]

Is it unethical to make the people feel in danger all the time?

This is a question I first thought when I heard about the threat level thingy and homeland security stuff, what good does it to make the people always 'on edge'?

If I thought someone was going to burn your house down, would it be ethical to warn you? Even if I wasn't sure about it? Or would you just want me to help out with the investigation after? You will feel safer if I don't say anything.

 

[Zeekater]

Your example is far too specific, the goverment warns for A attack SOMEWHERE. Not 'this terrorist is going to attack this plane using these means'

 

[Shadylookin]

I find it a dangerous concept. The goverment has too much influence on the public through this.
Example (fictious): "We need to be able to tap your phones to find the terrorists".
And if terror threats are that important to tell local policemen to look out, why is there a 150 mile coastline guarded by only one patrolman (from F911, not sure if true, but haven't heard anyone debunk it either).

I never said I'd give up my rights. It is their job to prevent possible terrorist activities by any means that don't violate my rights.

 

[skyline5k]

I can't find it on google, but has there ever been a study done with the correlation between support for Bush and the threat level? They raised it recently after the media said he was behind Kerry. Has this happened before?

Edit: Sims may have answered my question with his post.

 

[Zeekater]

I never said I'd give up my rights. It is their job to prevent possible terrorist activities by any means that don't violate my rights.

Nor did I, it was a crosspost
Good attitude
But too late perhaps? Patriot act?

 

[Sanaz]

So terrorist are not a threat to the U.S.? Or did you just miss the whole 9/11 thing?

The US, and the entire world, is a much safer place since President Bush has taken office. Just ask him and his blind supporters.

The thing that I can't understand is, if the President has claimed such fabulous success over the terrorists, why do we still need the terror alert levels? Simple answer, the US is in much more danger today than it was three years ago, as a direct result of the Bush Administration's policies. This administration has put its citizens in a dangerous situation, and should be punished accordingly. And I can't understand anyone who believes a single word they say. Fortunately, I've never met anyone who does, I've only read about them.

As a side note, the threat level has absolutely nothing to do with security - they are mutually exclusive ideas. The security agencies need to do their jobs, and the politicians need to fake like they are doing theirs to the people who vote for them. You need to look at the agenda of anyone involved in a security decision to know who to listen to and who to believe.

 

[Hitro]

Can someone who supports this ridiculous "warning" system explain to me its actual use?

I mean, no matter where you live, unless you are directly involved with security operations what exactly can it help you? "Something might happen somewhere". Well, obviously, I can tell you the same. In neither case you can change anything about it. Should you, which is ridiculously unlikely, get in the position to stop a terror attack in progress in some way you surely would do so without having recieved a random warning before. It is not as if the warning would make it more likely that you or any other citizen will prevent such a thing. After all it is not as if they were saying, "we got information about a car bomb attack in Manhattan tomorrow and could need every available man to watch out for it there". This would make some sense, as people could actually do something.

But this way it is simple scaremongering and a cheap preemptive attempt to divert critisism for nothing having prevented whatever might happen whenever and whereever.

 

[crystal]

The whole terror level thing is ridiculous (and a way to control the population.) Seriously, what are ordinary people supposed to do when alert level is raised from yellow to orange, for example?

 

[PHSikes]

Be more observant than you were before?

 

[Warman17]

become paranoid and vote for bush >_>

 

[Immortal]

I want GWB to be defeated simply so I dont have to hear sims blow a gasket any time anybody does anything.

 

[Zeekater]

Be more observant than you were before?

Yup, you never know when that terrorist will walk by.
Besides, this only creates paranoia, being more observant.