- Cape businessman known for starting NARS dies at 49 (2/23/17)9
- Apparent punch at girls basketball game propels lawmaker into action (2/21/17)4
- Business notebook: Owners ready to roll out the Barrel 131 (2/20/17)7
- Japanese restaurant up and running; owner surprised by fondness of sushi here (2/24/17)
- SoutheastHEALTH, Washington University School of Medicine announce collaboration (2/24/17)18
- Missouri bill would limit transgender school bathroom access (2/22/17)48
- MSHP: McLendon shot in side; autopsy refutes witness account (2/19/17)23
- Annual father-daughter dance provides some fun bonding time (2/19/17)1
- City issues precautionary boil order near Arena Park (2/23/17)
- $22M bond issue would alter Jackson schools (2/22/17)13
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.