SPECIAL REPORT – When Silence Becomes the Signal

[Luis Gonzalez]

SPECIAL REPORT: When Silence Becomes the Signal — Why Hasn’t Homeland Security Warned Americans?

The Last Wire

When the United States launches military strikes against a country like Iran, something usually follows almost immediately.

A homeland security warning.

The government raises the terrorism advisory level, alerts law enforcement, and signals to the public that retaliation could happen.

But this time… nothing.

According to reporting from International Business Times, a joint intelligence bulletin prepared by federal agencies warned of a “sharply heightened threat environment” inside the United States connected to the Iran conflict.

That bulletin was reportedly held before reaching the public.

Since then, investigators have already examined incidents on American soil for possible extremist or terrorism links — including:

• A deadly mass shooting in Austin now being reviewed by federal investigators 
• An improvised explosive device thrown near New York City’s Gracie Mansion 
• Ongoing concerns about retaliatory attacks tied to the expanding conflict

Yet the National Terrorism Advisory System remains silent.

No warning. 
No elevated alert level. 
No public advisory.

Why?

Some argue officials are avoiding panic. Others say warnings are being delayed while intelligence is verified.

But critics are asking a different question: if the warning signs are already appearing, why hasn’t the government said so?

And there is another complication. Homeland Security funding itself has become part of a political standoff in Washington, raising concerns about whether security messaging is becoming entangled with partisan fights.

History shows that terror warnings can come too late.

Sometimes the first real alert is not a government bulletin.

Sometimes it is the attack itself.

Full Special Report at The Last Wire

Question for the forum: 
Should the government issue terrorism advisories early during international conflicts, or wait until threats are fully confirmed?

[andy58-in-nh]

"Should the government issue terrorism advisories early during international conflicts, or wait until threats are fully confirmed?"

There is little question that the current threat level is elevated as a result of the United States having attacked Iran, the world's chief sponsor of terror.

Their proxies and international affiliates are motivated by radical ideology (Islamism, Marxism, Anarchism) and by anger at America for having struck at a major source of their funding.

That said, a blanket, pro forma "elevated threat level" advisory would not be particularly useful, since it tells the public only what it should already know: the bad guys are pissed off, and may lash out.

Thanks for the "heads up", Boss. Now tell me what, where, when and how. Oh. You can't?

When credible and specific threats (those unique to time, place and method) are identified, NTAS/DHS clearly ought to communicate them to the public - but must do so without fatally compromising intelligence methods or sources - which is a frightfully difficult balance to achieve.

Also, the time and even the place for a terrorist strike may not be perfectly defined in advance, as intelligence gathering (whether Humint or Signint) often lacks perfect specificity in projecting where, how, and when an event will occur. And once those details become clear: there may be little time for people - potential innocent victims - to react and take precautions.     

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Should the government issue terrorism advisories early during international conflicts, or wait until threats are fully confirmed?"

There is little question that the current threat level is elevated as a result of the United States having attacked Iran, the world's chief sponsor of terror.

Their proxies and international affiliates are motivated by radical ideology (Islamism, Marxism, Anarchism) and by anger at America for having struck at a major source of their funding.

That said, a blanket, pro forma "elevated threat level" advisory would not be particularly useful, since it tells the public only what it should already know: the bad guys are pissed off, and may lash out.

Thanks for the "heads up", Boss. Now tell me what, where, when and how. Oh. You can't?

When credible and specific threats (those unique to time, place and method) are identified, NTAS/DHS clearly ought to communicate them to the public - but must do so without fatally compromising intelligence methods or sources - which is a frightfully difficult balance to achieve.

Also, the time and even the place for a terrorist strike may not be perfectly defined in advance, as intelligence gathering (whether Humint or Signint) often lacks perfect specificity in projecting where, how, and when an event will occur. And once those details become clear: there may be little time for people - potential innocent victims - to react and take precautions.     

Agreed with the majority of your points, however, a failure to issue any level of heightened thread, for whatever reason, will result in way bigger situation if a significant attack is carried out, after the criticism for the failure to alert is out there.

[libertybele]

SPECIAL REPORT: When Silence Becomes the Signal — Why Hasn’t Homeland Security Warned Americans?

The Last Wire

When the United States launches military strikes against a country like Iran, something usually follows almost immediately.

A homeland security warning.

The government raises the terrorism advisory level, alerts law enforcement, and signals to the public that retaliation could happen.

But this time… nothing.

According to reporting from International Business Times, a joint intelligence bulletin prepared by federal agencies warned of a “sharply heightened threat environment” inside the United States connected to the Iran conflict.

That bulletin was reportedly held before reaching the public.

Since then, investigators have already examined incidents on American soil for possible extremist or terrorism links — including:

• A deadly mass shooting in Austin now being reviewed by federal investigators 
• An improvised explosive device thrown near New York City’s Gracie Mansion 
• Ongoing concerns about retaliatory attacks tied to the expanding conflict

Yet the National Terrorism Advisory System remains silent.

No warning. 
No elevated alert level. 
No public advisory.

Why?

Some argue officials are avoiding panic. Others say warnings are being delayed while intelligence is verified.

But critics are asking a different question: if the warning signs are already appearing, why hasn’t the government said so?

And there is another complication. Homeland Security funding itself has become part of a political standoff in Washington, raising concerns about whether security messaging is becoming entangled with partisan fights.

History shows that terror warnings can come too late.

Sometimes the first real alert is not a government bulletin.

Sometimes it is the attack itself.

Full Special Report at The Last Wire

Question for the forum: 
Should the government issue terrorism advisories early during international conflicts, or wait until threats are fully confirmed?

Trump made it publicly known that they know about the 'sleeper cells' and basically Congress (particularly Chuckie) is tying his hands, DHS' hands in order to 'make a deal'.  (So he says).  I believe that the situation is beyond critical. IMHO there are so many sleeper cells out there (thank you Brandon) that they can't possibly track all of them.   

Our grid is vulnerable and has been for a very long time...has anyone ever done anything about it???  'They' take our grid down and they take us down.  In short, they would disrupt if not disable our military operations and capabilities.   The rest of the sleeper cells here would then be able to implode us from within.  That is my fear.  I believe Trump knows that and so does Hegseth.  It's one thing to bomb a country to annihilate their nuclear capabilities and another to protect our country.  DHS, FBI, CIA, etc., ...  contain many creatures of the deep  state.

[libertybele]

U.S. Grid Regions