After the WTC bomb, your government of the time did not think fit to implement any special measures. After 911 your government did. The latter course was the more responsible course of action to take.
Your fine example of a terrorist attack, lacks credibility as a terrorist attack as no responsibility for it was announced which kind of defeats the object of making such an attack, i.e. to draw attention to a particular situation or grievance. All leads were investigated, and the possible involvement on the part of a foreign government was ruled out on available evidence by process of elimination. For arguements sake, should an individual do something out of sympathy for Iraq and Saddam Hussein, that does not implicate Iraq or Saddam Hussein in the incident. Your anthrax incident remains on the books as an unsolved criminal act - as a terrorist motive has not been established.
The changing of alert status, as someone else has pointed out directly affects those dealing hands on with security. Advising the general public about such changes, keeps them informed, allows them to exercise choice based on best information to hand, allows them to either cancel trips or makes them aware that, due to increased security checks they may have to turn up earlier than they otherwise would have done. I would call that responsible, not scare-mongering, not vague, not objectless and certainly not hysterical.
One result of the vastly improved co-operation between law enforcement agencies and intelligence organisations throughout the world was the prevention of the clandestine import to the USA of 30+ state of the art shoulder launched SAM's. Recommended use of same, from the supplier, was to mount a co-ordinated simultaneous attack against at least 15 civilian airliners at various locations in the US. Would you have felt safer if that supplier had not been caught?
Nice to hear you appreciate some of the steps your government has taken to combat the terrorist threat (IMO Code ISPS). It may well catch a few drug shipments - that would be a bonus a catch-crop. The reason it is part of SOLAS certification is because it affects safety of the ship. Method of implementation was through the IMO, the UN's watchdog for maritme concerns. The reason it could not have been done solely for drugs is because drugs carried onboard a ship do not affect that ships safety.
Going back to two of your earlier posts:
Peg 06 Jan 04 - 12:12 PM
"I call this domestic terrorism of the worst sort."
Then the following day
Peg 07 Jan 04 - 09:50 AM
"Peg, if what you describe is the worst domestic terrorism you have ever encountered, then you have led a pretty privileged and sheltered life." --Hah! That's a larf. I never said it was the worst example I knew of."
Please explain what is worse than worst?
On courses of action, I believe I actually said, "...your apparent preferred course of action" not, "...(your)preferred course of action" there is a difference. As you have done nothing bar complain about jackbooted nazi thugs, loss of your civil rights, etc, without putting forward one single proposal regarding a course of action subsequent to 911 (apart from discounting taking your class out for a drink, rejected because they happened to be under the age limit). Your APPARENT preferred course of action would appear to be to do nothing - Absolutely brilliant! the message sent to Al-Qaeda, "there you go boys, have a nice day, make sure y'all come back now, missin' you already".
You may well subjectively believe that things have not been made any harder for terrorists trying to attack targets in the USA. But objective analysis of the situation prior to 911 compared to the situation now would demonstrate that it is harder now than before because there are more safeguards in place. By the way, your example of a different methodology, "An attempt to poison a municipal water supply" a bit pointless, such an attempt would be detected almost instantly. Municipal water supplies are regarded as being essential and it has long been realised that they may be subject to accidental contamination. That being the case they are continuously sampled for any impurity.
Regarding the US economy, rate of growth four times higher than in any Euro-zone country and twice that of the major Far Eastern countries. At its highest level ever the Dow Jones stood at 11,700-odd points (1999), it is currently standing at 10,576. I'll stand by what I said regarding your statement about the US economy "tanking".
Numbers subjected to arrest, detention and strip-search are minute, there is no evidence that the powers given are being abused on any scale that could be cause for alarm. I say that realising that nothing in this world is perfect and that while mistakes, although regretable, may be inevitable, the over-riding consideration can only be founded on the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. When I referred to police in the normal performance of their duty (no Homeland Security connection), I was specifically thinking about police work associated with drugs, theft, assault, burglary, etc, where I am sure that people brought in as suspects are subject to arrest, detention and strip-search who are completely innocent.
Sledge has correctly identified the group I refer to as drunken plastic paddies - "Irish Americans" who for years funded the terrorist activities of the IRA from the safety of bars in Boston, Chicago, etc, etc. If your sensitivities and those for whom you speak are offended by such a reference, then tough shit, that is what did happen, they did it for years knowing full well the damage they were causing, they suceeded in destroying the lives of thousands of innocent people, the majority of them real Irish men, women and children.
You brought up the subject of "police states". Your contention is that the current President and his administration, have subverted your democracy and assumed powers that rob you of your civil rights, turned the home of the free into a police state for their own ends in order to enrich themselves and their inner circle. I suggested that things are a long way off the state you describe. I also suggested President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe as an example of exactly what you describe, so again I would suggest that you compare the conditions in the US for an opponent of the US government, to a member of the MDC in Zimbabwe then tell me who is better of ( or maybe that should be who's worst off, or worser than worst off).
The US did not declare war on Afghanistan, the US did not invade Afghanistan. The US did supply assistance (primarily air-power) to the Northern Alliance forces in their struggle against the Taleban. The Northern Alliance then suceeded in driving out the Taleban. No war, No invasion. In actual fact permission had to be sought from the Northern Alliance leaders to allow specialist troops in to secure the airport and make it safe for Hamid Karzai to return to the country.
On the Geneva Convention and the treatment of Prisoners of War. Prisoners of War need no recourse to any legal system or legal representation, because they will not be charged with anything, because they have committed no offence. What prisoners of war are entitled to is contact with the representatives of the International Red Cross or Red Crescent, who have access to prisoners of war in order to monitor the conditions under which the POW's are being treated and kept. As you say there was a war in Afghanistan, what army were these members part of? Where did Al-Qaeda fit into this army?