Morning Sedition on Security Issues

Today, on Morning Sedition, a man involved in the security industry called in to discuss some of the recent warnings in Manhattan. First off, I would like to commend the Marks at Morning Sedition for having an intelligent, interesting conversation with someone they disagreed with, rather than a boring shouting match.

Secondly, I'm going to disagree with them on several points.

• After the guy hung up, the Marks made fun of him for being a racist. Now, this seemed to be based entirely on the fact that he called potential terrorist an 'Ali Baba'. While it isn't a term that I would use, I wouldn't call it inherrently offensive, especially in the context in which it was used. (Note: he didn't call all Arabs terrorists, he just mentioned that Arab terrorists were the ones we had to watch out for.) Now, Mark&Mark, I realize you guys may be a bit confused. But this isn't the West Wing where the terrorists are carefully designated as Southern Gun-Toting White Supremacists inspired to act by an interracial relationship: this is real life where the PC gurus didn't get to decide what our attackers look like.

• The caller kept talking about what private companies could (and should!) do. The Marks kept trying to ask him what the government should be doing (presumably so they could denounce it for not doing it). But the some of the most important things are the smallest and most local: if your building is hit, you need a way out. The city government can't possibly know the best way out of your building; that's something you (and your company) need to work on.

• As for "evacuating the island" (which the Marks mentioned several times), the reason that the city hasn't publicized plans is because it is impossible. Terrorists might hit the bridges and/or tunnels so any plan using bridges/tunnels is subject to change, furthermore if they knew which bridges and tunnels were in an evacuation plan, those would be moved to the top of the hit list. In the case of the necessity of a city-wide evacuation, expect to walk over any available bridges or tunnels.

• The Marks said that they thought Bush announced the attacks, not because he thought they would happen but for one of 2 reasons:
  1. He knows that they won't happen, but he wants to scare people (so they are prepared for the extra security involved in the RNC's convention) or
  2. He wants to cover himself in case there are attacks
  No, really, that's what they said. Bush warned us about the possibility of attacks on specific targets in NYC (and Newark, for good measure) because he doesn't think they will happen but he is worried that they might. Huh?

• The Marks (and yesterday, Randi Rhodes as well) kept repeating that Bush wanted to scare people. If so, he's doing a terrible job. Paying attention to the news and talking to people I know who live or work in Manhattan (although, admitedly not Newark), I have heard about exactly one person (besides these three radio hosts) who appeared concerned: a radio spot mentioned that a woman hesitated nervously for 30 seconds before crossing the street and entering her place of work past an armed guard; most reports were more along the lines of "it's just another day" and "it's good that there's more protection, but no one in my office is concerned".