Fear and Terror in Las Vegas

[LethalWolfe]

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/08/10/terror.vegas.ap/index.html)
From the article:

When the Justice Department obtained two videos suggesting terrorists had cased Las Vegas, Nevada, casinos, the discussions didn't center on public alerts or heightened security. Rather, authorities worried about the effects on tourism and the casinos' legal liabilities, internal memos show.

Apperently the locals turned a blind eye when the feds tried to show them that terrorists had been doing recon in Vegas.


I wonder how much tourism would go down if an attack *did* happen there?


Lethal

[LethalWolfe]

Hmmm...

Figured this would at least get a few responses...


Lethal

[takao]

Hmmm...

Figured this would at least get a few responses...


Lethal

i liked your "fear and loathing in las vegas" reference

my guess is that it is a lack of interest in las vegas ;)

[Desertrat]

Any notable attack on a Las Vegas or DisneyLand or a football stadium would cause a helluva money-problem for the owners of any equivalent facility...

These are places where people voluntarily go, with an intended purpose of having fun. They're not like some downtown business area where a mess gets cleaned up and folks have to go back to work. So, I'd venture there would be a much greater comparative economic impact.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

I don't think the casino owners are half so much concerned about the effects of an actual attack as they are about the loss of business due to public fear of an attack. This is another example of how terror alerts, or the lack of them, are influenced by politics.

[mischief]

Now here's an ugly thought....

Al Qaeda attack Vegas.... The oldschool Cosanostra interests in the place decide enough is enough. Suddenly there's a quiet deal between traditional organized crime and (say) the Moussad.

BINGO:

Al Qaeda suspects start falling out of the woodwork.... dead. American embassies worldwide start having to pull DOA terrorists off their front porch every morning.

Turn the wolves on the wolves. Sounds like fun. ;) :D :eek:

[Taft]

Now here's an ugly thought....

Al Qaeda attack Vegas.... The oldschool Cosanostra interests in the place decide enough is enough. Suddenly there's a quiet deal between traditional organized crime and (say) the Moussad.

BINGO:

Al Qaeda suspects start falling out of the woodwork.... dead. American embassies worldwide start having to pull DOA terrorists off their front porch every morning.

Turn the wolves on the wolves. Sounds like fun. ;) :D :eek:

Unfortunately, I think this would have worked a lot better a few years back when the mob had more influence.

Great idea, though. And maybe I'm just buying into a myth when I pull out the old "the Mob is dead" line. Guess I'd have to be a criminal to know....

Taft

[IJ Reilly]

Tony Soprano for President!

[mischief]

A good parody from a while back. Only peripherally relevant but funny nonetheless:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=8843&highlight=ninjas

[diddy]

I live in Las Vegas, and believe me, our officials did NOT turn a blind eye. They went nuts. Our local news did a whole special segment about how the feds are basicly lying right now, and we as Las Vegans dont know why.

Our casinos would rather be honest about threats and have a good reputation than lie to customers.

[LethalWolfe]

I live in Las Vegas, and believe me, our officials did NOT turn a blind eye. They went nuts. Our local news did a whole special segment about how the feds are basicly lying right now, and we as Las Vegans dont know why.

Our casinos would rather be honest about threats and have a good reputation than lie to customers.


Do you have a link to yer local news?


Lethal

[SPG]

So far the authorities in Vegas were right to not panic and lock down everything and post machine gun toting guards behind sand bags all over town...wouldn't have done anything but scare people, not terrorists. I guess I'd have a different comment if something had happened, but that's the nature of risk assesment...sorting out the BS from the real threats that deserve attention, something w and this current administration have had a very poor record of.

[Desertrat]

"...sorting out the BS from the real threats that deserve attention..."

SPG, isn't that always going to be the problem? If the information is incomplete, should the Administration say nothing at all? Then, if some Act* does occur, what would you then think? If there is a warning but no Act occurs, what would you then think?

When warnings are given, there is some portion of the public which becomes fearful and remains so, even if no Act occurs. When warnings are not given but an Act occurs, there is some portion of the public which will castigate the Administration.

Yet, whether or not an Act occurs is up to the terrorists--or, it is to be hoped, the anti-terror establishment's successful efforts at stopping the Bad Guys.

I don't have any answer...

'Rat

* Any terrorist action; bomb, etc.

[IJ Reilly]

'Rat -- So, politicians covering their butts is in the interest of national security?

Yes, I know this isn't what you meant, but in reality, this is the policy. The problem with this entire terror alert system is that it's designed to provide cover for the pols instead of producing security for the nation.

I've tried to be understanding and patient with this issue, knowing that the authorities are struggling with something new here, but I find myself becoming steadily more incensed as they release alert after alert that only serves to raise the general fear level on the one hand, and provides people with no ability to do anything useful about it on the other. This is beginning to look every day more like self-interested manipulation of public emotions.

[LethalWolfe]

So far the authorities in Vegas were right to not panic and lock down everything and post machine gun toting guards behind sand bags all over town...wouldn't have done anything but scare people, not terrorists. I guess I'd have a different comment if something had happened, but that's the nature of risk assesment...sorting out the BS from the real threats that deserve attention, something w and this current administration have had a very poor record of.


It's not that they didn't "battin'<sp?> down the hatches" but it's the seeming lack of interest at seeing what the feds had to offer. If officals and heads of security viewed footage and info and then decided that there's not enough there to warrent any action that's one thing. If officals and heads of security dismissed the tapes and info w/o ever viewing them because they were afriad of lost tourism and potential civil liability that is something else. This course of action would aslo lay the ground work for plausible deniability.

It's seeming "lack of interest" (and possible motives fueling them) that concerns me.

I agree that threat levels and color codes really don't do much. But then what can you do to predict terrorist attacks (something which by its very nature should be unpredictable)? It's not like the Battle of Britian where radar and look-outs gave people warning of incoming bombers. Heck it's not even like a natural disaster. At least floods, wild fires, and tornados typically happen during the same months each year. The government is in a catch-22. People want to see that the governmant is doing something to protect them, but 95% of what needs to be done to protect people must be done in secret. All the average citizen can really do is prepare for an attack. Have a plan, have supplies, don't panic and burn you city to the ground. As someone living in LA I fear the public expolsion caused by an attack as much as the attack itself. Some how I just don't see LA "pullilng together" the way NYC did.


Lethal

[IJ Reilly]

If it were up to me, I'd institute a simple system for warning the public about possible terror attacks: If the government has information upon which we as individuals can act, then they should release that information. If they don't, then nothing should be said. This "be vigilant" and, "now be more vigilant" (but go about your business) nonsense is worse than useless and in fact has turned into a manipulation of public fears. All of this concern about who'd be to blame if a terror attack occurred without warning is just so much political CYA. And it also begs the question of what the political consequences would be if an attack occurred during an orange or even red level of alert. The question would be asked, "what good did it do?"

The clear answer (to me) is, it was never really meant to do anything.

[LethalWolfe]

If it were up to me, I'd institute a simple system for warning the public about possible terror attacks: If the government has information upon which we as individuals can act, then they should release that information. If they don't, then nothing should be said. This "be vigilant" and, "now be more vigilant" (but go about your business) nonsense is worse than useless and in fact has turned into a manipulation of public fears. All of this concern about who'd be to blame if a terror attack occurred without warning is just so much political CYA. And it also begs the question of what the political consequences would be if an attack occurred during an orange or even red level of alert. The question would be asked, "what good did it do?"

The clear answer (to me) is, it was never really meant to do anything.

I pretty much agree. I think the color alerts have a purpose just not the purpose they are "supposed" to have. The fear of an attack, the fear of being helpless and defenseless can be worse than the effects of an actual attack. Those feelings, unchecked, can lead to panic and chaos.

The color alerts, IMO, are a placebo. They exist because we, humanity as a whole, need to have, or feel like we have, control in our lives. We need to feel like we can do something to save/defend/help ourselves even if we can't. Did people who knew what atomic bombs could do really believe that duck and cover would save lives? No, not really (unless you are the outter rim of the blast). But the government knew they had to give something for the public to "hold onto" otherwise fear and helplessness could easily spiral into despair<sp?> and panic.

I'd be fine as well if the only time info was made public is if there was something the public could actually do. Unfortunetly I don't think that would fly at a national level. The US government is just screwed in a situation like this. It's a catch-22. We are a country that cringe's over every single casualty<sp?> of war yet we demand to know about military operations, troop movements, attack plans, etc.,. Just another example of how, on a whole, American's want to have their cake and eat it too (but that's a rant for another day).

Sry if I'm not being clear. I know what I want to say I'm just having problems putting it into worlds.


Lethal

[IJ Reilly]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't necessarily agree that this is the way the government is forced to go about things. Government officials force it upon themselves, when the only question they are prepared to ask is, "who will people blame if something goes wrong?" The irony is, these palliative measures won't provide much if any cover if something does happen, and in the long run, they do the opposite of creating a sense of comfort. They don't make me feel any more secure or in control.

[skunk]

I'm just having problems putting it into worlds.

I know how you feel... ;)

[SPG]

People want to see that the governmant is doing something to protect them, but 95% of what needs to be done to protect people must be done in secret.

Exactly the problem with "terra alerts" they put the whole thing in the public domain.
On this last round the bush administration admitted that the alerts were from intelligence that was four years old. That didn't go over so well as Ridge mentioned in the first paragraph of the announcement that this alert was the result of the president's lead in the war on terra (or something to that effect, but basically open politization of the announcement). In order to cover for the old info that now looks to everyone to be the president gaming the system to keep his poll numbers up, they had to say that it was also the result of new intelligence. Now here's where someone really screwed the pooch...Condoleeza Rice names the source of the intel, a guy arrested in Pakistan named Khan who had flipped and was now working with the Pakistanis to send and receive encrypted emails to all his Al Qaida contacts so that the Pakistanis and British could track them down and build cases against them. Wow! Our first double agent inside Al Qaida, a real intelligence coup, except that he had only been on the job for a couple weeks before his cover was blown. Those arrests in the UK of the 13 terrorists? Khan's guys. They've already had to let one or two of them go because they hadn't built their case up yet. The British were extremely pissed off about this because there was no need to blow this guy's cover, no need to tip off the terrorists, and the brits had to rush in to round up these guys once the word hit the press that Khan had been arrested and flipped.
So one of two reasons for outing Khan:
1. Protect the terror alert announcement process and the administration's credibility and therefore their grip on power.
2. Simple incompetence.
Either way these people do not deserve to be in power and will not be able to win against the terrorists if this is how they operate.

[skunk]

So one of two reasons for outing Khan:
1. Protect the terror alert announcement process and the administration's credibility and therefore their grip on power.
2. Simple incompetence.
Either way these people do not deserve to be in power and will not be able to win against the terrorists if this is how they operate.
A bit of both, I fear, brewed in an ethical vacuum.