The color-coded terrorist alert system used by the Department of Homeland Security does not provide federal, state and local officials with sufficient information to prepare for an attack – and it’s costing states a lot of money when the alert level rises, the Government Accountability Office reported to Congress.
The report followed a series of official warnings about possible attacks – most recently voiced by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge – that lacked new intelligence or details on the threats and how to respond.
The report was based on survey of 28 federal agencies and 56 states and territories.
“To ensure early, open and comprehensive information dissemination and allow for informed decision making, risk-communication experts suggest that warnings should include: multiple communications methods; timely notification, and specific threat information and guidance on actions to be taken,” the GAO report said.
Those responding “generally indicated that they did not receive specific threat information and guidance, which they believe hindered their ability to determine and implement protective measures,” the report said.
The issue isn’t new.
On July 3, 2003, Arizona Homeland Security Director Frank Navarrete said the state might opt out of the color-coded program when the alert level goes up.
“It creates incredible problems: overtime, financial, functional. It’s not quite to the point where it creates havoc, but it’s quite disruptive,” he said.
If a threat is directed toward specific facilities in the state, those facilities might go on heightened alert, he said, but not the entire state. Likewise, if a threat is directed at coastal areas of the United States, inland Arizona might stay at a lower status.
Meanwhile, some critics have accused President Bush's administration of using terrorism warnings as a political tool. Bush has made the fight against global terrorism a major theme of his campaign for a second term.
The administration denies playing politics with terror threats, but a GAO official said repeated vague announcements harm the administration’s credibility.
“When the government gives warnings without more information about why they're giving them ... that inevitably leads to people questioning whether the timing is a diversion, or politically motivated,” Randall Yim, head of GAO's homeland security division, told Reuters.
On the other side of the coin, Land Line reported in July 2003 that Ridge said the alert system can be only as good as the intelligence reports that guide it.
For example, terrorists might pump up “chatter” picked up by intelligence officials in order to trick the country into tightening security. Or they might change their way of doing things if they’re tipped off by public information that is specific.
Nevertheless, Ridge said at the time that he wanted to find a way to target the alerts for specific industries, states or cities rather than the entire country.
GAO, which issued the new report, was formerly known as the General Accounting Office. Under recent legislation, its name changed to the Government Accountability Office.
