Applebaum: Terror Warnings Must Be Specific
Anne Applebaum writes:
Speaking as an American who lives in Europe, I feel it is incumbent upon me to describe what people like me do when we hear warnings like this one issued on Sunday: We do nothing.
We do nothing, first and foremost, because there is nothing that we can do. Unless the State Department gets specific -- e.g., "don't go to the Eiffel Tower tomorrow" -- information at that level of generality is meaningless. Unless we are talking about weapons of mass destruction, the chances of being hit by a car while crossing the street are still greater than the chances of being on that one plane or one subway car that comes under attack. Besides, nobody living or working in a large European city (or even a small one) can indefinitely avoid coming within close proximity of "official and private" structures affiliated with U.S. interests -- a Hilton hotel, an Apple computer shop -- not to mention subways, trains, airplanes, boats and all other forms of public transportation.
Second, we do nothing because if the language is that vague, then nobody is really sure why the warning has been issued in the first place. Obviously, if the American government knew who the terrorists were and what they were going to attack, it would arrest them and stop them. If it can't do any better than mentioning "tourist infrastructure" and public transportation, it doesn't really know anything at all.
In which case, why are they telling us about it? Since the warning made breakfast television on Sunday morning, speculation has been rife. So far I have heard at least one full-blown conspiracy theory: Some believe the U.S. government has issued this statement to frighten Europeans into greater intelligence cooperation, and in particular to persuade the European Union to agree to a new system of airline passenger data exchange.
Click here to read more.
