Post 7/7 US-style terror alerts for UK

[Annie]

US-style terror alerts for UK
MPs to recommend clearer public warnings in wake of London bombings

Richard Norton-Taylor and Oliver Burkeman in New York
Monday April 17, 2006

Guardian

A cross-party committee investigating the background to the July 7 bombings is expected to recommend a transparent official public warning system for the threat posed by terrorist attacks. It would be similar to the kind that has proved controversial in America.
The idea, which is likely to be one of the conclusions in the intelligence and security committee's annual report next month, has caused consternation among the security services. The issue is at the heart of an intense debate involving MI5, the Home Office, and the committee, in the wake of the attacks on London.

At present, threat levels are determined by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (Jtac) which handles more than 50,000 items of intelligence every year.

Jtac came under the spotlight when leaks revealed that it lowered the terrorist threat level from "severe general" to "substantial" just a month before the July 7 suicide bombings. It then raised the threat level to "critical". It was about to downgrade the threat level again on the morning of the failed attacks of July 21.

Confusion about the criteria which determine the terrorist threat levels agreed by Jtac assessors is compounded by the existence of a separate "alert" status, critics say. This sets the level of protection that should be given to public and official buildings and transport systems but not to the infrastructure of the UK as a whole. It is set on the advice of MI5 and appears in the entrance halls of public buildings. Black is the lowest state of alert and red the highest.

Under the Jtac system "moderate" is the lowest threat level and "severe specific", which assumes an attack is imminent, the highest. A public official warning system would be unified and is likely to appear on government websites and would be available to the media.

Patrick Mercer, Conservative spokesman on homeland security, believes the threat assessments should be made public. "Currently, the threat levels are deeply confusing", he told the Guardian. He said he failed to understand why the government did not publish them.

The Home Office is understood to be grappling with the problem. The security and intelligence agencies are concerned that if the threat levels are published they could be misinterpreted. It would also place them under greater scrutiny. Recommending a downgrade in the threat level early last June, Jtac said many of its concerns focused on a "wide range and large numbers of extremist networks and individuals in the UK". It did not foresee "home grown" bombers, let alone suicide bombers who attacked London tube trains and a bus on July 7.

Security sources have said they are concerned about the "integrity" of the threat assessment system, and the need to avoid the temptation to keep it artificially high. They also say that the system in the US, where threat alerts are regularly announced, could lead to a "crying wolf" syndrome in the UK. Other Whitehall officials are concerned about how to keep the public alert while avoiding alarm or panic.

Critics of the high-profile American terror threat system, first introduced in 2002, say it is useless at best, and, at worst, subject to being manipulated for political ends.

In theory, the colour-coded hierarchy of threats has five levels - low, guarded, elevated, high and severe - but it has never fallen to low or guarded, and never risen to severe. Instead, it has been raised from elevated to high, on a nationwide scale, five times, including around the first anniversary of 9/11 and the start of the war in Iraq. In New York, it has been at high all along.

One of the most controversial uses of the elevated level came in August 2004, in the thick of the election campaign, immediately after a Democratic convention thought to have been a triumph for John Kerry. "I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism," Mr Kerry's former rival for the Democratic nomination Howard Dean told CNN at the time.

But since the specific criteria for each threat level are kept secret, it is impossible to know when raising it is justified - or, indeed, whether the lack of an actual terrorist strike on each such occasion so far shows that it works, or that it is pointless.

Nor is it made clear exactly how ordinary people should respond. "A terrorist alert that instills a vague feeling of dread or panic, without giving people anything to do in response, is ineffective," the security expert Bruce Schneier has written.

The US homeland security department's published guidance says that during a time of elevated threat citizens should "ensure disaster supply kit is stocked and ready". When the threat is high, they should "exercise caution when travelling ... expect some delays, baggage searches and restrictions at public buildings."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006