xml:space="preserve">
xml:space="preserve">
Advertisement
Advertisement

Is any terrorism threat ‘specific and credible?’ | READER COMMENTARY

Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund appears before a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs & Senate Rules and Administration joint hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2021, to examine the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, Pool)
Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund appears before a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs & Senate Rules and Administration joint hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 23, 2021, to examine the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, Pool) (Andrew Harnik/AP)

Once again, a public safety agency claims that the intelligence it received of a threatened action was not sufficiently “specific and credible” (“Capitol police chief says intel didn’t match size of actual riot,” Feb. 26).

One hears that phrase often, ever since 9/11, whether it’s coming from the FBI, NSA, Department of Homeland Security or, as here, the U.S. Capitol Police. What exactly are they waiting for? A notarized affidavit from the terrorists giving the time, place and nature of what is planned? Of course not. Bad actors communicate by indirection and by code.

Advertisement

Intelligence agencies need to use their intuition, skills, experience and resources. Consider the “what if” possibilities and then plan for a worst-case scenario. If it looks, waddles and flies like a duck, don’t wait for the quack to conclude “that really was a duck.”

Agencies that defend their failures on lack of a “specific and credible” threat are fooling no one.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Leslie J. Polt, Baltimore

Add your voice: Respond to this piece or other Sun content by submitting your own letter.

Recommended on Baltimore Sun

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement