Vague Threat Prompts Overreaction
It reads like a hoax:
The Police Department set up checkpoints yesterday in Lower Manhattan and increased security after learning of a vague threat of a radiological attack here.
[…]
The police learned about the threat through an item on the Web site debka.com—a site that Mr. Browne said was believed to have Israeli intelligence and military sources—that said that Qaeda operatives were planning to detonate a truck filled with radiological material in New York, Los Angeles or Miami. Officials say the Web site carries reports that are often wrong, but occasionally right.
Occasionally right? Which U.S. terrorist attack did it predict?
Come on, people: refuse to be terrorized.
Paeniteo • August 16, 2007 6:26 AM
This all makes sense under the CYA (Cover Your Ass) assumption.
The real issue is: How do we provide incentives for sensible reactions? How do we measure the efficiency or the value of security precautions and security reactions (or, non-reactions for that matter)?
Naturally, as long as you could be liable (losing your job, at least) for something, you will protect yourself.
Something like explicit non-liability of responsible officers sounds like a bad idea, too.
How about liability for overreactions / “false positives”? Would be hard to define that in a sharp way.