Red alert details no sure thing

Though residents may want to know about every possible terrorist threat, officials say spreading the word is not usually wise.

By JEAN HELLER, Times Staff Writer
© St. Petersburg Times
published March 25, 2003

If a specific terrorist threat to the United States put the nation on red alert, Tampa Bay residents say they would want to know the details.

But there is no guarantee that the government would tell them.

Federal officials and experts on public health and terrorism said information on a nuclear, chemical or biological threat had been withheld in the past. They said it might be again, especially when the target is uncertain.

"This is a problem we face almost every day as information comes in," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman in Washington for the Department of Homeland Security. "What's credible? What should be shared with state and local authorities and what should be made public? We have to take it on a case-by-case basis.

"If information is so vague in nature that it would only cause concern, we probably wouldn't share it. But if the citizenry could be helpful in terms of protecting themselves or in terms of keeping watch for something or someone, then we share."

The situation sets up a tug of war between the public's right to know and the government's penchant for secrecy, especially when secrecy can be shrouded in the cloak of national security.

Government officials in the Tampa Bay area, for example, say they have disaster response plans. But they won't discuss specifics, citing security concerns.

What the public will see and hear "is minimal," said Richard Morera, spokesman for the Tampa regional office of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the lead agency in the nine-county regional security task force.

"Threat assessment is always on the table," Morera said. "And that's about all we can say."

Local officials are no more forthcoming.

"We can't talk about everything we know and everything we're doing because when you tell the good guys, the bad guys are listening, too," said Capt. Bill Wade, a spokesman for Tampa Fire and Rescue.

That's also the case on the other side of the bay.

"At each alert level, we have a range of protocols," St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker said. "For each alert level we have response plans. But we are not publicizing what they are."

Citrus County officials barred both the media and the public last week when they met to discuss disaster response. They wouldn't say what they would do if there were a terrorist threat close to home.

This is the sort of secrecy that gives Robert Sharbaugh pause.

"I want to know as much as possible so if there is a problem I can take precautions to protect my family, like putting everybody in a car and heading for Georgia," said Sharbaugh, a St. Petersburg lawyer. "I think the government should tell us what's going on and what they're doing to meet threats. It's my right to know as a citizen."

Kelly Rogers, the general manager of a car dealership in Tampa, said he thought the government would provide the information that people need.

"We have to trust these folks, many of whom we elected, to make these decisions," Rogers said.

Peter Feaver, director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies at Duke University, said there were so many scenarios for terrorism within the U.S. that they almost have to be considered case by case.

"If you get notice that somebody's going to blow up the Golden Gate Bridge, you tell people," Feaver said. "First, it's easy to tell people simply to stay off the bridge and, second, it's an easy target to defend."

But threats aren't usually that specific, he said.

"More likely the information would come in as a warning of a chemical attack on the subways in New York City sometime in the next week," Feaver said. "You can close down the subways and tell people why, or you can leave the subways open and let people make their own decisions.

"If the threat is specific enough to warn people, it is specific enough to build an adequate defense."

But what the government deals with most often is intelligence that is not quite specific enough.

"It might come in as a threat against a church in Los Angeles, or a radiological weapon in a large urban area, but no one knows exactly where or exactly when," he said. "Making something like that public could induce panic."

Dr. Scott Lillibridge, director of the Center for Biosecurity and Public Health Preparedness at the University of Texas -- Houston, is one of the few Americans who have seen up close the devastation of a bioterrorist attack.

As an official at the federal Centers for Disease Control, Lillibridge led a U.S. medical delegation to Tokyo in 1995 after a terrorist released the deadly nerve agent sarin on a subway train, killing 12 and sickening thousands.

"The single most important guideline in determining what to make public is to ask yourself this question: Do I have information that people need in order to take life-saving action?" Lillibridge said. "If the answer is yes, then you have to tell the people. That's a lot different than imparting every rumor."

Dr. Jacqueline Cattani, director of the Center for Biological Defense at the University of South Florida, said she received constant alerts from federal and state officials of possible terrorist threats.

"There have previously been unspecified threats of dirty bombs around the country," Cattani said. "The federal government and the state task force alerts emergency operations and first responders that they should be ready to receive patients. But I don't really know what good it would do to tell the public in that instance. It's a balance. What could the public do in response to something that nonspecific?"

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright