- Few Southeast students face suspension, expulsion for sexual assaults, campus paper finds (4/25/17)6
- Perryville family organizing bone-marrow drive Friday for ailing 6-year-old boy (4/26/17)
- Woman battered after smashing boyfriend's meth pipe against wall, police say (4/25/17)1
- Temptations bassist dies after Cape Girardeau show (4/26/17)2
- BBB warns Jackson man's online business might not be legit (4/24/17)
- Event includes the first public tour of 200-year-old Elmwood Manor (4/23/17)3
- State Supreme Court rules against congressman's mother in dog-kennel defamation case (4/27/17)1
- Strattman to step down as principal at St. Mary (4/28/17)1
- Cape couple turns their home into cozy, comfortable music venue (4/24/17)
- New ride-hailing law draws praise from carGo official (4/25/17)
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.