- Sister: Shooting victim died a hero (9/30/16)12
- Fatal-shooting victim ID'd; uncle said he tried to break up fight (9/29/16)30
- Driver charged with manslaughter in crash that killed 2 (9/27/16)
- Perryville couple arrested on felony drug charges after sting operation (9/29/16)
- Perryville High principal on leave; no reason given (9/28/16)9
- Animal-rescue group receives grant from rock star for spay, neuter assistance (9/28/16)1
- Video and evidence largely confirm trooper's claims in April traffic stop shooting (9/23/16)9
- Monia pleads guilty to 9 counts of financial exploitation of elderly; dealings with murderer Joseph clarified (9/28/16)11
- Woman accused of pushing Wal-Mart employee after theft (9/27/16)
- Planning, design puts renovations of H-H building into hotel on hold (9/26/16)6
Tell us the basis of those terrorist alerts
An already uneasy American public was shaken even more last Monday when Attorney General John Ashcroft and the FBI announced the nation should be on alert for more terrorist attacks within the week.
At a news conference, the government wouldn't say on what it based the need for the alert, only that it was issued on credible information. An alert issued on Oct. 11 was similarly vague.
A day after the latest alert was given, Americans found out why it was issued:
It was based on information obtained by Canadian officials supplied to the United States.
There is no reason that information couldn't have been conveyed when the alert was issued rather than many hours later. The information was indeed credible, but the vagueness only left Americans wondering how serious the threat really was.