Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

New Terror Alert

Aired February 10, 2003 - 09:32   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: "The New York Times" saying today that the terror alert system is useless to the average citizen, and calls it -- quote -- "chicken little alerts." The paper's not alone. Another critic is Michael Cherkasky. He is president of Coal Incorporated, an international security firm. He also happens to be the author of "Forewarned: Why the Government is Failing to Protect Us."
He joins us now. Thanks for joining us.

MICHAEL CHERKASKY, AUTHOR, "FOREWARNED": Good morning.

ZAHN: So what do you make of this latest rise in alert level?

CHERKASKY: I think we have certainly a very dangerous situation. But we've had a dangerous situation. The CIA has been warning us for months, if not over a year, that there's an inevitability of another attack. I think that's right, and I think it's certainly heightened by what we're doing in the Middle East and Iraq, but the problem is, when you warn someone, you've got to tell someone what to do about it, and we're very ineffective of telling people what they can do about this alert. When you do that, all you do is create anxiety, and that's just not helpful.

ZAHN: What do you think they should be saying? They're asking for an additional couple hundred million sets of eyes to be keeping an eye on their community. Isn't that in and of itself helpful? And the government points to several key arrests that were made as a result of that kind of input from local community members.

CHERKASKY: It's always risk reward. Certainly, in the abstract, having people more alert is helpful, but in fact, the anxiety or disruption it creates. I'm certain you know and I know people who in fact are afraid to get on the subways in New York City. Well, that's not very helpful. What we need to do, and I think it's the whole approach of the government -- the government is taking an approach of warnings that in fact cover their ass if something happens, instead of substantively doing things, which may require hard choices for America, may in fact, impact some of our civil liberties, but they're not making those choices.

Tom Ridge has got an impossible job. Even if he's as good as we think he is -- and I think he's very good -- he can't be successful under the circumstances.

ZAHN: So what are the kinds of things do you think would need to be put in place to prevent a future terror attack? And is that realistic, given the budget constraints, of not only the federal, but local governments as well?

CHERKASKY: It's realistic to have a greater likelihood of preventing the attacks. It's not realistic to say you can have absolute certainty that you can't do it, but what you need to do is the key is information, having information about everyone in the United States, and it starts with identification cards, national identification program, which everyone has, which has a biometric connection, so that when we have a next alert level, we can actually do something, but by looking at people who are getting on our planes or coming across our tunnels and bridges, by saying, who is that, and what, in fact, do we need to do to search those people.

ZAHN: Would it be irresponsible, though, of the government not to raise the alert, given the chatter they say they're hearing, especially if something happens?

CHERKASKY: You know, again, I think the government's responsibility is to tell you something when, in fact, you can do something about it. But we all understand that last year, we had across the world 500,000 people died from automobile accidents. Well, tell people to put on seat belts. But if you can't tell what to do about it, and they really haven't, and you can't be more specific what the danger is, I think it is irresponsible.

ZAHN: I want to close with what Secretary Ridge had to say about whether there is any calculation about a runup, potential runup war with Iraq, figured into this at a time when 77 percent of all Americans polled in a latest poll said they think the risk of terrorism will rise if the U.S. sends ground troops into Iraq.

Here's what Secretary Ridge had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM RIDGE, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: The accumulation of information from around the world, from our own sources and from our allies in the war against Al Qaeda lead us to believe that this is probably the most significant, the most serious threat we've seen to American interests both in this country and abroad since September 11th.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: And indeed, he went on to say that in fact, I'm going to use exact words, that Iraq is absolutely no factor at all in raising the threat level on Friday.

CHERKASKY: Well, it should be. If, in fact, they choose to raise the threat level, all of us in the security industry, and I can speak for the security agencies I think, as well, understand that what's going on in the Middle East, what the leader of Hamas just said, that this is absolutely going to cause greater danger or likelihood of an attack in the United States and across the world for Americans, no question about it.

ZAHN: Hate to close on that chilling note, but we need to move along. Michael Cherkasky, thank you very much for spending time with us this morning. Appreciate your dropping by.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired February 10, 2003 - 09:32   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: "The New York Times" saying today that the terror alert system is useless to the average citizen, and calls it -- quote -- "chicken little alerts." The paper's not alone. Another critic is Michael Cherkasky. He is president of Coal Incorporated, an international security firm. He also happens to be the author of "Forewarned: Why the Government is Failing to Protect Us."
He joins us now. Thanks for joining us.

MICHAEL CHERKASKY, AUTHOR, "FOREWARNED": Good morning.

ZAHN: So what do you make of this latest rise in alert level?

CHERKASKY: I think we have certainly a very dangerous situation. But we've had a dangerous situation. The CIA has been warning us for months, if not over a year, that there's an inevitability of another attack. I think that's right, and I think it's certainly heightened by what we're doing in the Middle East and Iraq, but the problem is, when you warn someone, you've got to tell someone what to do about it, and we're very ineffective of telling people what they can do about this alert. When you do that, all you do is create anxiety, and that's just not helpful.

ZAHN: What do you think they should be saying? They're asking for an additional couple hundred million sets of eyes to be keeping an eye on their community. Isn't that in and of itself helpful? And the government points to several key arrests that were made as a result of that kind of input from local community members.

CHERKASKY: It's always risk reward. Certainly, in the abstract, having people more alert is helpful, but in fact, the anxiety or disruption it creates. I'm certain you know and I know people who in fact are afraid to get on the subways in New York City. Well, that's not very helpful. What we need to do, and I think it's the whole approach of the government -- the government is taking an approach of warnings that in fact cover their ass if something happens, instead of substantively doing things, which may require hard choices for America, may in fact, impact some of our civil liberties, but they're not making those choices.

Tom Ridge has got an impossible job. Even if he's as good as we think he is -- and I think he's very good -- he can't be successful under the circumstances.

ZAHN: So what are the kinds of things do you think would need to be put in place to prevent a future terror attack? And is that realistic, given the budget constraints, of not only the federal, but local governments as well?

CHERKASKY: It's realistic to have a greater likelihood of preventing the attacks. It's not realistic to say you can have absolute certainty that you can't do it, but what you need to do is the key is information, having information about everyone in the United States, and it starts with identification cards, national identification program, which everyone has, which has a biometric connection, so that when we have a next alert level, we can actually do something, but by looking at people who are getting on our planes or coming across our tunnels and bridges, by saying, who is that, and what, in fact, do we need to do to search those people.

ZAHN: Would it be irresponsible, though, of the government not to raise the alert, given the chatter they say they're hearing, especially if something happens?

CHERKASKY: You know, again, I think the government's responsibility is to tell you something when, in fact, you can do something about it. But we all understand that last year, we had across the world 500,000 people died from automobile accidents. Well, tell people to put on seat belts. But if you can't tell what to do about it, and they really haven't, and you can't be more specific what the danger is, I think it is irresponsible.

ZAHN: I want to close with what Secretary Ridge had to say about whether there is any calculation about a runup, potential runup war with Iraq, figured into this at a time when 77 percent of all Americans polled in a latest poll said they think the risk of terrorism will rise if the U.S. sends ground troops into Iraq.

Here's what Secretary Ridge had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM RIDGE, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: The accumulation of information from around the world, from our own sources and from our allies in the war against Al Qaeda lead us to believe that this is probably the most significant, the most serious threat we've seen to American interests both in this country and abroad since September 11th.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: And indeed, he went on to say that in fact, I'm going to use exact words, that Iraq is absolutely no factor at all in raising the threat level on Friday.

CHERKASKY: Well, it should be. If, in fact, they choose to raise the threat level, all of us in the security industry, and I can speak for the security agencies I think, as well, understand that what's going on in the Middle East, what the leader of Hamas just said, that this is absolutely going to cause greater danger or likelihood of an attack in the United States and across the world for Americans, no question about it.

ZAHN: Hate to close on that chilling note, but we need to move along. Michael Cherkasky, thank you very much for spending time with us this morning. Appreciate your dropping by.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com